User talk:Iridescent

The community engaging in constructive discussions with the Wikimedia Foundation.

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‑]

Wikipedia downloadable tools and the such

Hello Iredescent

I dont know if your the best person to ask but what is th best one? How many of them are their and if so what are they and what do they do best? And how would I go about downloading it and if I did would it bugger things up? Many thanks. Yours, [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you want to do, really. The best for vandal-fighting is HUGGLE (just follow the link), which shows all the changes that are being made to Wikipedia, as they're being made, and gives you the option to revery them. However, if you read the conversation near the top of this page (and the large flashing warning at the very top), because it works at ultra-high speed, it's VERY easy to accidentally misuse and get yourself blocked; LUPIN does much the same thing, slightly more slowly, but it's easier to use without making mistakes.

I personally think the most useful all-round tool to have is AWB, which allows you both to make the same change to a large number of articles in one go (eg, correcting a name), and to run a spell-check on a large batch of articles. TWINKLE and FRIENDLY are both quite useful; Twinkle makes it quicker to revert changes and issue warnings, and Friendly makes it easier to perform "welcoming" tasks.

There are quite a lot more about - see Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools and Category:Wikipedia tools, but the above are ones I'm familiar with.

Be warned that all these tools (with the possible exception of Friendly) can do significant damage, even if used with the best of intentions (have a look through the archives of User talk:Xp54321 for the last week or so to see just how quickly well-intentioned misuse of automated tools can take you from "the verge of adminship" to "the verge of an indefblock" in just a couple of days); the warning for use of ALL these tools is not to make any edit you're not sure of, and not to treat anything as vandalism unless you're 100% sure it couldn't possibly be good faith.

Hope that helps! — iridescent 20:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi yeah it did, I've got a few of them up you know report vandal and etc but none of them is things I do alot so i'll just leave them alone. Using them few and far between. But thanks anyway, for taking the time to read and reply. Thanks again. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, saying that I am finding the warn one alot quicker than all the previous going to that page and copying them. You know when people say right to create multiple accounts and all that what does it mean? Like one user has a thing and it says " 268 account creations " whats that all about? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 08:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends. If it's an admin, they're probably just talking about Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators, where fresh accounts are created for new users. They might actually mean multiple accounts, where one user operates under more than one name - but I can't imagine any legitimate reason to have 200+ accounts. — iridescent 11:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I was thinking and reading requests for admin coaching and I am intending putting my name down on it. Would you be interested in coaching me? Its no worries if your not, but I thought i'd ask because you strike me as someone who knows what they are doing. Many thanks. Yours, [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply re admin coaching

Although I'm certainly willing to answer any questions, I'm probably not the best person to act as admin coach, since — although I do have admin status — I tend to focus in fairly specialised areas, and there are large chunks of Wikipedia I don't really spend any time with. Also, given the nature of my work, I'm quite often away or busy for long periods of time; there's also a conflict of interest situation (both on Wikipedia and in the real world) if I were to edit and/or discuss at length many of the articles you work on.

Of the current coaches, the ones I think would best suit you are Balloonman or Pedro. I think LaraLove would also suit you very well, but she's in Texas so (I'm guessing) would probably never be online at the same time as you.

When you go for RFA, the participants will generally look at your history for the last couple of months. A few things I'd recommend doing now — to make sure any problems are well in the past by the time of the RFA - are:

1. At the moment, your edit summary usage is unacceptably low. I'd strongly recommend ticking "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under "Editing" in your preferences;
2. While by-and-large you've worked in a reasonable variety of areas, you've virtually no Wikipedia Talk edits — only 39, and all but 15 of them are to WikiProject pages. Because Wikipedia Talk is where policy is discussed, it's good (although not essential) to be able to demonstrate you've participated in policy discussions so you understand how consensus is formed, and also to show that you understand the high levels of abuse that admins get subjected to;
3. You've a lot of userboxes on your user page; while there's no policy at all against this, you might want to trim them down quite substantially. The people who vote at WP:RFA tend to be strongly against people using Wikipedia as a social networking site, and a lot of information about yourself — as opposed to what you bring to Wikipedia — can (fairly or not) swing people against you. In particular, I'd get rid of "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday", which a lot of people hate; adminship on Wikipedia isn't any kind of promotion, it just means a few more technical powers.
4. Although you've created a fair few articles, some of them are a bit messy (as you can see by the assorted cleanup tags people have put on them), and none of them are very long. As one question that is always asked at RFA is "What is your best contribution to Wikipedia", I'd suggest picking one or two and expanding them into long, informative articles. They don't have to be masterpieces of writing, but they ideally should: cover everything a casual reader without specialist knowledge who stumbled on the article would be interested in knowing; have inline citations for each piece of information; be from a neutral point of view. Have a look at the (now slightly out of date) article I wrote on Central Communications Command for the sort of thing I mean in a police-related context; I freely admit that it's messy and deathly dull, but if you didn't know anything about the subject, it tells you everything a non-specialist is likely to want to know.
5. Stop giving out level 4 warnings unless the vandal has already received earlier warnings or the vandalism is really serious! Because AGF is part of the fourth of the Five pillars, even if you're perfect in every other way, an RFA will be shot down in flames unless you show you're willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, as nobody will trust you with the protect & block buttons. I'd strongly recommend making a habit of reading WP:AN, WP:ANI and WT:RFA every day, even though they're generally dull as ditchwater, to get a feeling for the way admins "behave" on Wikipedia.
6. You've very little experience in deletions, and deletion policy is such a core theme that people will expect you to have demonstrated that you understand it. Read (and make sure you understand) WP:CSD and WP:DEL as people will ask you questions about them. Read through the the current deletion discussions whenever you get the chance, to see what sort of things are discussed; once you feel confident that you understand policy — but not until then — start to join in at least the occasional discussion there.
7. The same few questions are asked at RFA each time. Read the questions-and-answers at the most recent successful RFAs to get a feel for what questions you're going to be asked, and what the people who answered them successfully said.

Hope all that helps! Sorry it's a bit long-winded... When you do find an admin coach, I'd suggest you point this conversation out to them, so they can see what I've already told you (and disagree if necesary). One thing I can't emphasise enough is don't nominate yourself for RFA; self-nominations almost always fail. Your admin coach(es) will nominate you themselves when they think you have a reasonable chance of passing. — iridescent 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much, I'll take in all those things. Thanks again =]. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruskington

Hi, thanks for reverting that article on Ruskington. Someone seems to be taking umbrage with the fact that there is a village newsletter, and keeps deleting that section. I don't do a lot on Wikipedia, but it seems a little lame to get into an edit war. Plus it's people with just IP addresses doing it, so I can't even have a discussion directly with them! Anyway, cheers. Russ (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem... It's a bit of a baffling thing to get into an edit war over. — iridescent 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Florida babe

Your edit summary here says it's a temporary block, and so does the comment you left on her Talk page, but the block says indefinite. Corvus cornix_talk 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I know - hit the wrong button (serve me right for using Twinkle as a shortcut). I've corrected the talk page notice. — iridescent 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

'Skool.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle 2

First I'd like to apologize for any unpleasantness between us. Now a bug about huggle. Metros disabled it. But I just successfully used it. Please don't block me. Check my recent use. No problems as you will see. I am reporting this to prevent problems in the future. I consider huggle one of the most useful tools ever invented especially all those cool diffs for aiv. Again please don't block me. I really want to help.Cheers!Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Um.Hello?:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, as long as you don't do anything irresponsible I won't block you - but do be careful! I've notified Gurch, the author of Huggle of this. If/when he fixes the bug and you find Huggle blocking you again, let me know and (assuming you haven't done anything wrong in the meantime) I'll provisionally re-authorise you (on the understanding that you're careful).

On a related note, I know it looks like we're picking on you, but if you ever do want to be an admin, I can't emphasise enough that you need to take the editcounter off your userpage. Have a look at Successful adminship candidacies and you'll see that nobody who editcounts ever passes an RFA; indeed, look at this conversation and see how many people are arguing for the editcounts to be deleted altogether. — iridescent 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He has been blocked. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know; I think it's a bit harsh, but I can understand why Metros did it. As the block will expire in the next couple of minutes, I'm not going to wheel-war over it - but I can't emphasise enough to him to be careful. As per my post on Metros's page, I really think you should tone it down as well; there's a lot of really bad advice from you on his talkpage, and if he ever does want to be an admin, the kind of things you're advising him to do ("regularly update your editcount", "carry on using it despite the warning not to" etc) will potentially be held against him three months down the line. — iridescent 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was making a point because he was being bugged unnessarily, as metro filed a sock case against him it seemed to just be one thing after another. Ive advised Xp to get this log removed from his log. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said on Xp's page, there is no such thing as "scrubbing it off the log"; the Wiki structure means that (except in a few very rare cases that are oversighted) everything stays on your record forever. I'm not trying to hassle you - or him (my admin logs are all freely available at the top of this page, and you'll notice I've never taken any action against him) but, as I say above, you're encouraging him to make mistakes that will stay with him for as long as he's on Wikipedia. — iridescent 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Potentially serious apparent Huggle bug

Not sure if your talkpage is the place to report these, but you'd better note this; I've confirmed that his huggle.css page was definitely blanked at the time, and he's right; his contrib history shows him using Huggle since the blanking. I blanked my huggle.css page as an experiment, and it also letting me log on just fine. Any thoughts? — iridescent 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Xp54321#Huggle. It's probably a cache issue. I've given a short block to the user to sort this out. Metros (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems that I broke the logic for checking the configuration subpage while implementing the approval mechanism. It will be fixed in the next version. Though I have to say, the fact that users won't take the advice of administrators unless forced to by technical measures is a little worrying -- Gurchzilla (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If users took advice, we wouldn't need the block button... — iridescent 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:SRS's Siggy

Oh dear, I'll have to give him a tour of the signature policy. The good news, however, is I don't think that an RfC will be necessary. I'll also need to teach him to ask me about a situation before blatantly ignoring someone. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Could you please block this IP 213.140.22.65, that vandalised many times, instead of multiple warnings, this voice and could you please protect the same voice too? This Ip is well-known in Italian Wiki for continuous vandalisms (see: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:213.140.22.65). Thanks. --Nosferamus (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The article's semi-protected, which will stop him re-adding it. I don't think it's so much vandalism, as editwarring and inability to understand that another wiki isn't a reliable source. — iridescent 15:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar, RE Help

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Hi Iredescent, just to say thanks ever so much for all the information. And actually taking the time to reply and help me. You deserve it. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 10:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — iridescent 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasnt an IP it was this character. User:ZealousSaracen [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Already indefblocked — iridescent 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he dont like that! See the talk page. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(His talkpage) [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother replying to him - it just encourages them if you give them attention. Revert, block, ignore. — iridescent 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That one who keeps vandalising your talk has personal attacked me, I think its time. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He states he is a sockpuppet, he is taking the buiscuit now. Please do the necessary. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked, account creation blocked. Just revert, report, ignore if it happens again. — iridescent 18:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I dont see any other possible outcome [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that hooey, and by the way I did that thing in my Preferences about the edit summary. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Me and another user have been in a campaign to revert regular vandalism on User:Flardox's page, I have just reverted another one. Maybe it is time for protection? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you spam

Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh!

I just cracked up when I saw that you blocked that user for $1. More vandals deserve that kind of lovely parting gift.  :) Again, thanks for the laugh. Needed it. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Much as it pains me, I've reported this to Gurch as I've no idea why it's doing this. Personally, I'd love to let it stay. — iridescent 18:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bug in Huggle block template

Much as I'd love a dollar for every block, I'm not convinced this is what the block message should really say. Any idea why it's doing this? (It's only doing it since today, but it's done it three times in a row so it's not a one-off glitch.) — iridescent 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that. I recently moved the various user messages from the config page into separate templates to make them easier to maintain, but neglected to replace the "$1" -- used as a placeholder in the same way as some MediaWiki messages -- with {{{1}}}, as required in a template. It should be fixed now (though you'll need to restart Huggle) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoilsport — iridescent 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You can always manually enter "$1" as the block reason if you really want to :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

True... I'm tempted. (As per the neverending conversation above, I'm currently testing Huggle for a week or so; while I won't make a habit of it (vandal-fighting was never my thing) it is a really impressive piece of kit. Something that does occur to me is, it might solve all the problems if it only worked with rollback; that way removing rollback would automatically disable it, without messing about with stylesheets — and someone who isn't trusted with manual rollback certainly shouldn't be machine-gunning at 500 edits per hour.

By the way, your manual seems to have a typo in it; it gives two different actions for the "D" key (blanking warning and show diff) — iridescent 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The next version will allow access to be restricted to only users with rollback. Unfortunately at the moment every time I think the next version is ready for release I find something else wrong with it. Regarding the keyboard shortcuts, those listed under "Warning form" apply only when the warning form is open (select "Advanced..." from the Warn menu) to allow you to select a warning type quickly -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah - makes sense now... (Having seen just how easy it is to make mistakes on it, I've actually toned down my Dire Warning at the top of this page; when I, with 2 years/60k edits, am making slips I can easily see how others do. And they don't have the luxury of G7'ing accidentally-created IP warning pages...) — iridescent 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I feel a little guilty for not doing more to make it less error-prone – adding in Undo and Cancel and confirmation when reverting whitelisted users is about all I've done recently – but I seem to have more than enough to do implementing requested features and fixing bugs :/ -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

←Compared to the bugs and niggles with AWB all these years on, they're minor. Anything that's usable by anyone is going to be misused. This is why we don't let toddlers drive. — iridescent 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we do let them edit the largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world though. Hmmm....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, do you really want to hear my rant about how even ED requires an account to edit and if Jimbo's so keen on anonymity he can load up Twinkle and help clean up the mess? — iridescent 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I really do. I'm saying this as someone that absolutely covets his privacy, and will not ever, at anytime, reveal his real identity by name or any other specific criterion. I don't even have email enabled for privacy reasons. That said, it becomes very obvious very early on when a user is a "minor" (usually because their first days' edits include setting up their "guestbook".) Being a minor is very different from being anonymous. (again, IMO). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see the effect Huggle has had on the speed with which vandalism is dealt with. I remember when I first developed and used it (15 months ago) it was faster than anything else (there were no anti-vandal bots at that time) so I had no problem finding vandalism to revert. As it's become more widely used, though, I have found that more difficult – just now, for example, I needed to test something in the new version and had to attempt eight reverts before I was not beaten by someone (usually you :D). It does concern me a little that perhaps there's a risk that by making things faster I've turned it into a race to fix vandalism (which it always has been, of course, though less so) which in turn encourages people to be more careless. Fixing vandalism more quickly is undeniably a good thing, though, as it reduces the chance a reader will actually see it, so I'm not sure what can be done about that – intentionally slowing it down seems a bit self-defeating. Good work anyway, though; I know dealing with vandalism is not really your thing – Gurchzilla (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just leave something resting on the "Q" key, rollback everything and check by every half an hour to indefblock anyone who's complained... Takes less effort than opening new user contributions and hitting "rollback-batch". (note to all Outraged Users who are already formatting the RFC in their minds, that was a joke.) — iridescent 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. We were all newcomers once, you know :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't feel like it... My first edit was to add two links and my second was to clean up unsourced defamation, I think I was born to be on AWB. — iridescent 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rant about IP editing

OK, here we go. There is no good reason why IPs should be allowed to edit. It takes all of 30 seconds to set up an account, but (as Gurch can testify) at least 90% of blatant vandalism comes from IPs; that 30 seconds is enough to put the bored-kids off, while not significantly wasting anyone else's time; plus, it means the accounts can be indefblocked and avoid all the collateral damage resulting from schoolblocks, rangeblocks yadda yadda. The "but I don't want to use my username in this controversial area" argument Jimbo & co trot out doesn't apply; users with a genuine reason to want to remain anonymous can set up an SPA just as easily as editing under an IP. Download Huggle (it only takes 30 seconds or so), just keep pushing the spacebar to watch the changes from the IRC feed without making any reverts, and just look at the sheer volume of crap that's currently coming from IPs compared to the minimal amount of useful contributions. If a ban on IPs cut out even ten percent of that crap, then the "useful time saved" more than cancels out the "useful time lost" in forcing genuine users to create accounts. This policy is set by people at WMF who have barely edited since the early days, none of whom are ever willing to admit the problem exists, let alone put the rubber gloves on and help clean up the mess that's created by policies that were set up for an obscure website with 10,000 pages and are completely inappropriate for a website with 2 million pages and one of the highest profiles of any site in the world. — iridescent 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you were talking about IPs. I wasn't. I was talking about "anonymous editing" (via selected names like Iridescent and Keeper) vs. authenticated/real live human being names. I agree. Lots of problems could be solved if, upon clicking the "anyone can edit" button, the first window that pops up is a simple "select a username" button. No need for real world ID, no need for email or IRC authentication, just a generic username. In that case, I'm pretty sure I agree with you. (Although, I've seen stats somewhere about IP edits being a larger percentage of "good" than 10% -- not sure where though...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good anonymous edits as a percentage of all good edits is higher, yes – it's about half, if I recall correctly. However, bad anonymous edits as a percentage of all bad edits is well over 95% – this is the problem. Gurchzilla (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In my defence, I didn't say at least 90% of IP edits were vandalism - I said at least 90% of vandalism comes from IPs... — iridescent 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I did misinterpret that. Thanks for the clarification. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just spit diet mountain dew

at your defintion of Moral Support. And I replied on the Wikispeak talkpage. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't mention Mountain Dew... MD & Cheerios are the only things I really miss since I moved to the Land of Dirty Streets & Expensive Trains. Oh, and Wild Cherry Life Savers. — iridescent 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No MD, eh? That would suck. Sorry. Although, a Brit friend of mine (you mean England there right?) who lives stateside brings me these wonderful little cookies called Digestives. Can't find them here, found them online once. Terrifically good little numbers. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

www.goodwoods.com — iridescent 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

HOLY SHIT!!!! That was the website! I obviously didn't look hard enough these are what the good bloke buys me whenever he goes home. AH DANG!!!! I'm adding that to favorites....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a more accurate definition of Moral Support would be "Ten other people already think you're an idiot and I want to be the one person here who doesn't get flamed". — iridescent 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Added it. And ordered Digestives. 2 weeks delivery, meh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Get HobNobs instead. They're much nicer. — iridescent 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oo! I will! I have a limitless supply of money, and obviously I have nothing but time on my hands....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

I know you don't like breaking up conversations, I read so on the top of this page, but I don't like leaving comments on my own talk page and instead link to my reply. Anyway, I can see where you're coming from on the recent block idea. I've tried to get the community to nail down some specific criteria regarding inclusion at HAU, but the consensus has always come up that anyone who wants to add themselves can go ahead and do so. I have brought up the matter at the talk page so as to gauge the community consensus on this issue, so we'll see what happens. Useight (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied at WT:HAU — iridescent 22:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

I'm confused, what do you mean, what did I do wrong? iMatthew _T.C. 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me my mistake, as I clearly have made one, and not realized such. iMatthew _T.C. 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You've advised him to evade the 255 character restriction on signatures built into the MediaWiki software, by creating his sig as a template and transcluding it in the "raw sig" box. This is expressly forbidden (I linked to the relevant part of WP:SIG on your talkpage).

Apologies if my initial post seemed a bit rude; on re-reading it, I agree with CaribbeanHQ that it's a bit abrupt, and have toned it down. Most especially, note I wasn't threatening to block you (which CHQ seems to have inferred). — iridescent 23:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was un-aware of this. I've never heard to that policy, so I apologize for instructing a user to do something against policy. I was, in no way, trying to get him into trouble, because like I said, I was un-aware of the policy. I'm glad you agree with Caribbean H.Q., because I felt as if you were not assuming good faith. No offense, but I think a better action would have been to question me on the matter, because automatically assuming I was doing something wrong, and giving me my only warning. I don't know, but that's what it felt like. Like I said, I was un-aware of that, and I promise I will never instruct a user to take such an action ever again. iMatthew _T.C. 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and as I say, sorry if it seemed rude. As you can probably see if you've been following his talk page, the user in question appears to be fast-developing into a problem user, and I think you got a burst of the frustration that should have been directed at him. — iridescent 23:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll alright, I understand. Just make sure you explain this to him as well, thanks! Cheers! iMatthew _T.C. 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

←With him, it's gone beyond the explaining stage (he's had it repeatedly explained to him by multiple editors and is refusing to listen); he's been given a couple of days to salvage any code he wants salvaged and then the templates are going to be deleted. — iridescent 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dean Martin

Yo bro, can u please verify the edit made to Dino AKA Dean Martin. I believe its Jerry Lewis not 'Jerome Lewis.' Thanks bro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabiggestestitaliano3 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Hello iridescent! Could you please make a copy of the deleted article LiquidApps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here?. User:LadyHawk89 wants to work on it Iunaw 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Userified to User:Iunaw/LiquidApps. Be aware that even in userspace, it's still deletable as advertising unless reliable sources are added to indicate notability (although IMO, it ought to go to MfD rather than be speedied if the situation arises).

I think/hope a MfD won't be necessary, it should be either rewritten to meet WP:NOTABILITY if it's notable enough or taken elsewhere if not (i'm not very optimistic after googling a bit, but i could be wrong). I don't know, but i'll be watching it.. Thank you iridescent! :) Iunaw 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe

I do believe that you believe that I am a good faith editor.(lol)Thanks,your warning wayyyy before about awb pissed me off but im wayyyyy over it.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Never doubted you were good faith - you just sometimes let your keenness get the better of you... Editcounting really is a meaningless exercise — a single edit can easily take a week of work, but for RFA, RFB and any other process where people look over your edits, will count for far more than 10,000 Huggle or Twinkle rollbacks. — iridescent 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewellery vs. Jewelery

I noticed that you used AWB to "correct" the typo. Note that the proper spelling in American English is Jewelery (see the lead paragraph on the Jewellery article). I'm sure that you know as well as I do that you shouldn't be changing an American article to the British English spelling, especially mass moves with a AWB. I have undone the change for Buffy Waltrip. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate since you come from the other side of the big pond. Royalbroil 04:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Read that lead section again... "Jewelery" is a typo in either American or British English; it's "Jewelry" in American and "Jewellery" in British. As "Jewellery" is the spelling of the Wikipedia article, that's the one that AWB defaults to when correcting "jewelery", although obviously "jewelry" (but not "jewelery") is acceptable if the article's in American English. The discussion that led to this decision is here if you need it. — iridescent 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:I just lost teh game

Seems we might have a compromise in the works; as I understand it, they're offering to transclude, rather than redirect, which I believe resolves most of the problems brought up at WP:AN. I've just posted at User talk:I just lost teh game#Protection saying I'd come here and ask you about releasing the protection. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem at all with that. The very reason I took it over to AN was because I wasn't at all sure if protection was appropriate and wanted second (and third) opinions. — iridescent 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

Hello, iridescent. I stumbled across some of the recent signature discussions in which you've been a participant and ended up here. I notice a few sections above that you scolded iMatthew for advising another user to tranclude a template as his signature. I agree that the whole customized signature craze is inappropriate for Wikipedia and that iMatthew was making such a recommendation to circumvent the implicit 255 character limit (as imposed by the MediaWiki software), but he was in fact advising that user to substitute the template. Assuming the signature template is under 255 characters, does substituting a template as one's signature break policy? I didn't see a provision for this in WP:SIG, but such action wouldn't be susceptible to most (all?) of the disadvantages of transclusion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - he was advising to subst the template so he could have a 450 character signature. Personally, I think the spirit of WP:SIG, if not the exact wording, bans the use of templates at all (whether subst'ed or not); since the purposes of banning them are clearly stated to be that signature templates can be easily vandalised, and that every transclusion (whether subst or not) places a small but perceptible strain on the servers. Both of these would continue to be an issue whether or not the template is subst'ed — and I can see no legitimate reason for having the sig in a separate page, other than to circumvent the 255 character rule. — iridescent 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't missing the point. I actually stated that I agreed that "iMatthew was making such a recommendation to circumvent the implicit 255 character limit", which I thought clearly indicated that I understood the situation. On the real topic, how could a subst'ed template be vandalized in the manner WP:SIG describes? It's a permanent insertion of the text of the template. Future changes to the template would not affect the substituted text. I don't believe that there would be a performance hit either, since no lookup of the template itself would be required as, again, the text has been permanently inserted. I am especially puzzled by your implication that substitution is a type of transclusion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confusing myself by using fuzzy terminology here... Basically, what I'm saying is that, while it would be very hard (and immediately spotted) to follow User:The SRS around vandalising his signature on talk pages, it would be a matter of seconds to vandalise User:The SRS/Signature. In the case of subtle vandalism, like (redacted per WP:BEANS), it would quite likely not spotted for some time in at least some cases of newish users, who either don't check their watchlist every day, or don't auto-watch pages they create.

As regards subst putting a minor additional strain on the server, I don't think there's any doubt there. ~~~~ → signature = 1 operation; ~~~~ → template → signature = 2 operations. Obviously the additional strain is minute, but if the practice takes off, on a website with 47,660,986 users all those microseconds add up. — iridescent 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the vandalism now. It didn't cross my mind that someone might not immediately notice if their signature was different, even something subtle like a different link. I also see your point regarding the performance strain, but I am not familiar enough with MediaWiki to know if you're right. I would imagine however that even a signature set in one's preferences still requires a lookup: ~~~~ → retrieve sig markup from preferences → signature = 2 operations. In any case, I didn't want this to turn into a technical disection of Wikipedia and my initial curiosity regarding the signature policy has been satisfied. Thanks. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

userboxes

Almost made me fall out of my chair. dorftrottel (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I deny all knowledge. It must have been Bad People sullying the good name of Wikipedia. Probably the Cabal. — iridescent 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez

I am aiming to nominate this article for GA and to be a FA on 21 June. If you can suggest any improvements to the article please let me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What I know about boxing pretty much stops at McGuigan, so I suspect anything I'd do would make more harm then good. I know this is usually my answer to everything, but it would probably be a good idea to ask User:Malleus Fatuarum to take a look - he's very good at getting almost-there articles over the line. — iridescent 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Two words:

The. WP. Logo. Is. Trippy. Wait, that's four! EVERYTHING I KNOW IS WRONG!--Editor510 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I aim to please... — iridescent 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My username pronounciation

I responded at RyRy5's talk page, you can see my explanation here. Useight (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mistake?

Now, Gurch, as I was saying about people using automated tools not checking who they're templating... — iridescent 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I did call Giggy an "arrogant bastard with too many FAs", so it was probably warranted :) Gurchzilla (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you think you could reply to some questions that I asked on my admin coaching page, as my coach is offline at this time? Cheers, Razorflame 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Have done so. Bear in mind that my opinions are just that, and not any kind of policy. What I will say is, don't do things you don't enjoy for the sake of an RFA; if you go into adminship expecting anything more than a couple of extra buttons you rarely use, and an tripled level of vandalism to your talkpage, you're in for a tremendous let-down. — iridescent 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that I am expecting from the sysop flag is the ability to help the English Wikipedia more than I already do. Cheers, Razorflame 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me to several reverts! Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 23:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why,thank you... — iridescent 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuarum/WikiSpeak

Don't know if you thought I wouldn't notice this, but I have. I realise it's intended to be humorous, but frankly many of the entries are more insulting that funny -- Gurch (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I've contributed a few of the entries, it's Malleus's page, not mine, and mostly written by Malleus, Keeper76 and Dorftrottel, so (unless it's specifically in relation to something I've said there) you're probably better off telling Malleus, not me. If the problem is one of my contributions, let me know and (provided it's a reasonable objection) I'm more than willing to take it out — or, this being Wikipedia, take the entries in question out and leave a note on the talkpage. Given that it's in userspace, not linked to from anywhere (other than a few user talk pages of those involved) and clearly a tongue-in-cheek response to the torrent of flames Malleus received in his RFA and his subsequent block for 'inappropriate use of the word "Wikilawyer"' I can't see a problem with it; (I don't think) it could possibly be mistaken for a policy page. — iridescent 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Guess I overreacted a little to the description of a couple of hundred hours' development as "rollback that has washed down the crack-cocaine with a redbull" coupled with attacks on those who use it. Forget I said anything -- Gurch (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That one, at least, you can't blame me for... Part of the problem with that entry is that Keeper originally wrote it as part of a single section on various automated tools, which someone has later split up; because you come before "rollback" and "twinkle" in alphabetical order, it looks like an attack on Huggle out of nowhere. (edited to add) I'm sure Keeper (and Malleus) wouldn't object if you took the entry out. — iridescent 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not taking the blame for that one; I got into enough hot water over that wikilawyer debacle. If you [Gurch] feel that the entry is disrespectful of your efforts – which I'm certain it wasn't intended to be – then please feel free to either remove or amend the entry. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, wasn't blaming you either - that one was squarely down to Keeper (pass that buck!). Although at some point you'll get an unholy alliance of the wannabe-myspace editors and the scientologists coming for you pitchforks in hand, when they discover my offering for "Userbox". — iridescent 02:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a fish of an altogether different colour. Bring 'em on! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left an apologetic note for Gurch. My analogy just meant it's fast. Sorry for dragging you both (mall and irid) down to my level :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AzaToth Spammer

Thanks for looking into it wasnt sure who to tell about the incident. Yes it is highly unlikely but still needs to be reported. ChristopherJames2008 (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, while credible threats should certainly be reported, "the ILL KILL U U FAGGIT U DELETED MY PAGE!" attacks are safely reverted, blocked, ignored — otherwise we'd never get anything done here. (Just look through the history of this page or the talkpage of any other reasonably active admin & count how much similar abuse is there.) Not to say you shouldn't have raised the matter if you had any concerns, though. — iridescent 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI if you haven't realised, your helpful contributor above has been stuck in a drawer. See here for more info. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that, I did not see coming. Who the hell creates an SPA to report talkpage vandalism? — iridescent 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Another three suggestions

Given the volume of "unexplained blanking" reversions, would it be possible to add a single-keystroke revert-and-{{uw-delete1}} (2,3,4) alongside the current revert-and-{{uw-vand1}}? As you (Gurch) know, I've been monitoring Huggle usage & testing it recently, and people being given vandalism warnings for removal of content (which can have some perfectly legitimate reasons which aren't obvious in the diff box, in the case of BLP violations and duplicated sectons) seems to be an issue that comes up repeatedly.

Also, I personally think it would be a good idea to set "watchlist:warnings" as the default setting; the new users you're dealing with here won't necessarily understand the "reply on my talkpage" etiquette, and are likely to post any "why this edit wasn't vandalism" explanations underneath the warnings on their own talkpage. Just a thought...

And finally, is there any way to set {{anonblock}} as the default block message, at least when warning IPs? — iridescent 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the next version, {{anonblock}} will appear as the default block reason whenever the user's talk page is tagged as being a shared or dynamic IP address. The documentation for that template states that it shouldn't be used as the block message except for blocks longer than three months, so the default will remain the standard block message -- Gurch (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problems with good-faith edits sometimes recieving level 1 vandalism warnings, hence the default level 1 warning avoids all mention of 'vandalism' and only states that the edit "appears to be unconstructive" (which it presumably does, at least in the eye of the reverter).

One problem with keyboard shortcuts to revert-and-warn for other reasons is that I'm starting to run out of keyboard shortcuts; given the way features have been added over time it would be more logical to start over and reassign everything from scratch, but that would confuse people no end. I'm considering adding shortcuts similar to the existing shortcuts for leaving warnings but with 'Control' included, so for example Ctrl + Shift + D for removal of content, Ctrl + Shift + S for spam, but I'm not convinced Ctrl + Shift + D is that much faster than R followed by Shift + D (the quickest way to currently do this). I could use Ctrl + D, Ctrl + S and so forth instead, but that would mean reassigning some of the existing shortcuts, and people might end up reverting and leaving warnings when they meant to nominate a page for deletion. I can't use Alt as that interferes with the menu shortcuts (which are useful since there are some actions that only have menu items). I haven't used the number keys nor any of the function keys except F1 yet, but I feel they could be difficult to remember, especially for something like reverting and warning -- Gurch (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My fault - hadn't actually realised the R, shift-D combination. If/when you do run out of keystrokes, you could always have a double set of controls, with a "use old controls/use new controls" check bo, in the same way that MS Word has (or at least had, I don't know if it still does) a "use WordPerfect keyboard shortcuts" checkbox.

The next version will allow keyboard shortcuts to be customized, which should help -- Gurch (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If it would take more than ten minutes to code then ignore this question, but would there be any way to set the Huggle shell to work on something other than recent changes? It would be really useful to be able to import a list of articles and rapidly go through the most recent diff on each - for example, the contribution history of a school IP that's made a lot of vandal edits but also some valid ones so they can't all be bulk-reverted, to be able to go through Category:Living people looking for abuse, to go through a "mini watchlist" of frequently vandalised articles, etc. It would also be a really good tool for rapidly reviewing an account's contributions for vandalism cases, RFAs etc (and making it something that's undoubtedly useful from an admin/crat point of view, would presumably defuse a lot of the distaste for it you see among some admins). The code for generating the text-file lists of articles using assorted criteria already exists in AWB, so that could be used to generate the lists and all that would be needed at the Huggle end would be a facility to turn off the recent changes feed and instead create a queue out of the text file. — iridescent

I was experimenting with such a feature in earlier versions of Huggle written for personal use, but took it out when I was making a more stable version for general release. It will take rather more than ten minutes to implement properly, but I agree it could be useful, so I will consider doing that at some point -- Gurch (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

offer on working on the UK Transport Wiki

Hi Irdescent,

I am creating a Wiki all about transport in the UK and i was wondering if you would like to join and edit it. This offer has been offered to you as you are interested in London Underground. Please write back on my talk page.

Many Thanks

Dudleybus ^{Spake 2 me} 16:42, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Wikipedia World Traveler award

It appears the globe stand was from a copyrighted image.

This means we're back to square one.

We need to either find another globe stand (please keep a lookout for one), or we need to come up with a new idea altogether for the "Wikipedia World Traveler" award.

I look forward to any ideas you might have.

During the competition that this award is for, each participant will be "visiting" (and changing an item on) a particular type of country-related page for every country of the world. By doing so, he or she will have "traveled the World".

But I have no idea what the award should look like now.

I'm still in shock from the last 3 weeks' of effort being trashed.

Any thoughts you could provide would be most appreciated.

The Transhumanist    01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for any part I played in the trashing... I don't know a great deal about images, but I'd suggest asking Giggy; whatever run-ins you may have had with him in the past (I don't know you have had any problems with him, just working on the possibly unfair assumption that most people have had a disagreement with him at some point), he does know an awful lot about where the images are hidden and what constitutes legitimate free use. — iridescent 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted before I was aware of Recent Developments — while I still think he'd be the best one to ask, I think he's been flamed off the project for the foreseeable future. How about this (or this, a smaller version), both of which are free-use (although bandwidth-munching); the smaller one overlaid on the "generic" barnstar would probably work quite well.

A problem I can foresee right away is you will have every nationalist POV-pusher arguing over what constitutes a "country"; is Transnistria a country? Greenland? How about Taiwan? Does an edit to Gibraltar count towards Britain or Spain? Also, are you only going to count significant edits — I could probably pass fairly quickly (and may have inadvertently done so) by loading Category:xxxland-stubs into AWB and running until it flags a typo, then correcting it and moving on to the next.

That aside, it does sound like an interesting project, and (depending on exactly what sort of edit you're looking for) I would certainly be interested - it would make a welcome change from the "welcome 500 users" type challenges, on which I know you and I have opposing opinions. — iridescent 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats are in order...

I could probably just link your WP:WIKISPEAK contributions list, but since that will likely be MfD'd to oblivion by the humorless, I found a better quote. Spot on. Welcome to my quotes page :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel unworthy... That RFA is going to be a very interesting one, particularly if Giggy & Balloonman both make good on their offers to co-nominate. While she IMO deserves to pass 100-0-0, I have a nasty feeling that it will turn into a pissing contest between the FA and the GA crowds, with anyone else who ventures into it in the unfortunate position of standing immediately downwind. However, my RFA prediction abilities are not the best. — iridescent 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

48 supports? So you were predicting what the tally would be after the first 12 minutes right, not at closing? I would love to see a water/balloon drop...(couldn't resist!) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The number of people who were striking out their votes on both sides, that might have even been how it ended up... — iridescent 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Issac newton (complex)

Hi iridescent. Thanks for your help on this article. Maybe I was a little too hasty in my CSD request. Ho hum! Cheers »xytram« talk 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries... it's easy to see something that's been cut-and-pasted from somewhere & assume it must be a copyvio from somewhere. — iridescent 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —User_talk:Ozzie425er 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)