User talk:Iridescent

The arbitration committee "assuming good faith" with an editor.

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‑]

Photo

Is the picture at the top of the page you? Who is the other girl? 62.200.52.25 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Iridescent the mother of God? I can't be certain of course, but on balance, I'd guess no. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's probably not likely, considering that 2000 years is an awfully long time to live... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor is Iridescent the young Christina Rossetti, the Archangel Gabriel, or "professional models, Maitland, Lambert, and White". In the no doubt certain event that this is a serious question and not a piece of trolling (since your recent edit history consists mostly of edits to Mariolatry-related articles and art history, I'm fairly sure you know exactly what the significance of the image is both in religious terms and in terms of the introduction of realism to religious iconography) you can find out more than you're likely to want to know about that picture here.

J.d, don't even go there – every so often "does BLP apply to Jesus" raises its head, and there is still an ongoing debate filling five large talk archives over whether Santa Claus is real – and of course the burning^{pun intended} issue of whether Santa smokes has yet to be resolved. – iridescent 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Does BLP apply to Jesus" Are you serious? I was joking. If he is alive, then I would assume that as God, he could not only change his article, but also make the people who edit it think and write whatever he wants them to. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that he has more on his plate than monitoring a poor-quality chatroom with an inaccurate encyclopedia attached. Although the work he's put into judging longrunning disputes might qualify him for RFA (although the article on which he's done the most work is subject to a long-running content dispute, and his self-confessed use of his bad-hand User:The Holy Ghost sockpuppet might cause problems). – iridescent 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having just looked at a Bible (New International), the footnotes come before the punctuation. Changing to strong oppose. – iridescent 17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've occasionally looked at a Bible too. Can't remember the last time I actually opened one though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I keep meaning to do is read the thing – I always think that given its impact, I really ought to know what it actually says. I invariably get about thirty pages into it before giving up. – iridescent 18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. Its impact isn't in what it says, but in what people believe it says. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the MOS? – iridescent 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar, although closer to wikipedia's guidelines and policies I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a hilarious thread. You all's going to hell now though, tis a shame. Keeper ǀ 76 03:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Some trolls are well worth feeding. – iridescent 16:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This thread now dovetails rather neatly with this, doesn't it? There's a theme here. – iridescent 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yate and Yateley

Hi, Iridescent! I'm Прон from Bulgarian Wikipedia. Please help me how pronounce the town name Yate and Yateley. 90.154.191.214 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Yate" would be pronounced "ee-ayt", rhyming with "Eight", "Weight" or "Fate"; "Yateley" "ee-ayt-lee" rhyming with "Greatly" (they would be written "Еит" and "Еитлий" in Russian, if that's any use). – iridescent 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that's entirely correct; the "Y" is pronounced as in "you". So it's more like "y-ayt-lee". At least that's how a friend of mine who lives in Yateley pronounces it anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I think my Cyrillic transliterations are correct, though. "Think" being the important word, as I was last in Russia when it was still the USSR. – iridescent 20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You spies do get about, don't you. ;-) I'm just about to set off for Watford, about the most exotic busines trip I get these days. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, my secret identity is out. I'm the secret CIA agent sent to infiltrate Wikipedia. (Note: we really did have one of those, back in the old days.) – iridescent 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand. This IPA pronounce is near? "Jɛjt" for Yate and "Jɛjtliː" for Yatley. For town Yeadon, West Yorkshire IPA "Jɛjdən" is near? 90.154.191.214 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Could someone who knows IPA better than me confirm that? – iridescent 15:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, very thanks for the help! (Прон)90.154.191.214 (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The internet really does contain everything. – iridescent 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Advise on images

Hi Irid, take a look at Image:Circusbspearsdeluxe.jpg. Its a special edition cover of the Circus album by Britney Spears. It's near identical to the standard image. Now we discussed this many moons ago, even Giggy got involved and he clearly stated that these near identical images were not allowed under fair use. So I've been tagging them using Twinkle. I've been tagging them under "di", relative speedy deletion, "disputed fair use". They do get deleted as well. The only problem is, the image isn't deleted until 5 days after the tagging. Is there a way to speed things up do you think? I mean, seeming as these images are 98% identical, would it be possible to tag them under CSD, "redundant image"? This way they would be deleted quicker and there would be no need to wait this 5 days+. Can you think of any other methods or arguments to speed up deletion? Sorry, I have recently started to take a lot of interest in image policy. — Realist² 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You could request adminship, then delete them yourself. Or get Iridescent to do it :-) – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... :-) — Realist² 21:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to excuse myself from this one. As previously mentioned, I don't know much about Wikipedia's spectacularly arcane image copyright policies. Giggy or Betacommand would probably be able to advise, or a TPS might know the answer. As regards HDYTTO's answer, IMO you (R2) have the experience and temperament to pass an RFA (bear in mind that I have often been spectacularly wrong in making this claim). – iridescent 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's no problem, I'm more than happy to continue tagging them under disputed fair use. Talking of images, have you seen the new image on the MJ article (the bad era Jacket and belt). Hopefully more images will be coming soon...— Realist² 18:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

		Happy Thanksgiving!
		Just stopped by to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving! When you're eating your turkey, think of the little fellow to the left! User:Juliancolton/Faces – RockManQ (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Er… you do know that this has no meaning to 95.5% of the world's population, right? – iridescent 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkeys are nice though. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, who doesn't like Turkeys? RockManQ ^(talk) 20:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarians at a wild guess. — Realist² 21:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Who said we were going to eat a turkey, maybe I want one as a pet. RockManQ ^(talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, then you'll get a chance to fatten him up! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ECKKK!! Turkeys are too ugly to eat, not that I advocate eating cute Kittens. — Realist² 23:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Dear Iridescent,

How did I impersonate one? I was simply repeating the reason that was given here as who declined it (Djsasso) did not alert him/her From,

Limideen 17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; feel free to remove the message from your talk. – iridescent 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was confused by that message myself, and looked closely to see if Limideen was an administrator.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 17:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Limideen could have made it a bit clearer that he was the messenger and not the originator of the message, but I am suprised that you jumped on him Iridescent (previous issues regarding his signature noted). That was a pretty long stretch to "impersonating an admin" to be fair. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow . . .

I must say that reading your talk page is exhausting, and I don't know why your head has not yet exploded.

I was wondering if you could recommend to me the names of experienced editors that might consider doing an editor review for me. I came here with the intention of asking you since you granted me rollback, but it looks like you have a lot on your plate.

Thank you in advance for your response, even if no one comes to mind; should you be interested in seeing what J.Delanoy said in his review of me, the link is in my signature.

From the .5% of the world that celebrates Thanksgiving, I hope you have a happy day whether or not you do so yourself.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman or Useight are usually the best ones to ask regarding editor reviews. If they aren't able to do it themselves, they should be able to suggest someone who can. I don't generally do ERs (aside from a few "specialised" ones such as this), as I don't really agree with the whole ER/coaching setup – in my opinion, "consensus" is something that can't be taught, while you are generally better placed to judge your own problems and issues than any external observer. (If you make a lot of edits, and don't have any warnings on your talkpage, chances are you're doing it right.) Besides, I disagree with (and ignore) large chunks of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, whereas ER is about "doing things by the book".

My talkpage is always like this. Between myself and Keeper, we keep Miszabot in business. – iridescent 17:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I find your maverick style works well for you! And so far your wisdom has paid off for me so I'll talk to those two.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 17:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Metropolitan Police

Where does it say "all men"? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"All available men were away fighting in the Great War". This is clearly incorrect. 6.2 million British men participated in WW1 at some point; the 1911 census shows a male population for the UK of ≈23 million, and that's ignoring the rest of the Empire (which at this point included a quarter of the world's population, lest we forget). There is no possibility that "all available men" were in the military. As Jenna and I have told you, please stop assuming that every IP is a vandal. – iridescent 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It says all "all availabe men were away fighting" not "all men", so I clearly did not think that. Anyone who was fit, healthy and in the age range allowed to fight could, along with conscripts. Where have I shown that I think all IPs are vandals? I did not even state that I thought the user on the MPS page was a vandal, or vandalised the page. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Could fight"≠"did fight". Aside from a very few situations such as the Volkssturm or the Viet Minh, there has never been a situation remotely approaching full-conscription in any modern war. In any event, not only was "all available men" is a clear distortion of the facts, but you're misunderstanding the difference between expediency and causality. Yes, women in wartime are sometimes recruited into traditionally male professions, but (especially in immigration-driven economies such as the UK and US) this was not predetermined; to fill recruitment shortfalls the government could just have easily have encouraged immigration and recruitment from Ireland, India, the Caribbean etc instead of recruiting women (as of course happened after WW2 in Western Europe).

Please listen to what myself, Jennavecia and Balloonman so far (to my knowledge) have told you. You need to stop editwarring with IPs; stop WP:OWNing articles, especially on subjects where you're not an expert; check any edit you revert to make sure you're not removing valid content; and most importantly, re-read and make sure you understand our policies on reliable sourcing, verifiability, and original research. Nobody wants to stop you editing Wikipedia, but you are starting to be a disruptive presence on some sensitive and high-profile articles, as well as your long-term pattern (for which you've been repeatedly warned) of harassing valid new contributors who, on seeing their valid additions reverted, may understandably decide not to come back. – iridescent 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not, and have never claimed to be an expert. I'm 15, I dont have the years behind me to be an expert. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what Jenna and I are trying to say - despite our sometimes-deserved reputation for inaccuracy, much of Wikipedia's content is written by people who are experts on the subject in question. That's certainly not to say you shouldn't work on things you're not an expert in, but if you do you need to be willing to admit that the other editor may sometimes be right while you're wrong. (As I said to you further up this page, on policing, intelligence and military articles you need to be particularly careful with this, as a lot of experts in these fields choose not to create accounts.) – iridescent 19:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, true. I class myself as knowing more than the average of my age about the police, I did not mean to come across as someone who thinks I'm right all the time, and understand that I can be wrong. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a new one

The "userpage vandalized" userbox doesn't really cover this, does it? Oh those crazy kids . . . --otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 19:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

He didn't like being reverted, either... – iridescent 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well nobody likes a critic . . . of a critic!--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hindu-German Conspiracy.

Thanks for your response over on Delanoy's page, but I am a bit confused as to your answer. Which is technically correct, the hyphen or the n-dash? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The official party line is "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. However, editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash (e.g., Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia". You can read the insanely detailed idiotic agglomeration of five years of prejudices eminently sensible Wikipedia policy on dashes and hyphenation here. Have a stiff drink first, and whatever you do with dashes be prepared for a 12-year-old Defender Of The Wiki to give you a patronising lecture about how you've done it incorrectly. – iridescent 01:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(Just in case your eyes glazed over there, the correct answer was "unspaced en-dash".) – iridescent 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, I dozed off there... can you repeat all that? No, on second thought, don't repeat it. I'll just leave things as they are, thanks. God knows, I am not in need of any lectures from 12-year-olds. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Welcome to hell. – iridescent 13:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Muahahahaha... Now I can do more thankless work! ;-) Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you amaze me

other times, not so much. But those times you do, it's cathartic. ^Law _shoot! 12:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything in particular bring that on? – iridescent 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just simple curiosity. ^Law _shoot! 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New Thread

I was going to buy a lightbulb. THe gentlemen asked me if it was going to be Iridescent. I had no idea. He said it was 'green.' Apparently I was going to save the world. I don't care about trivial notion, but I was on the Internet tonight, and met a girl names Iridescent. Well, we are together now. The $300/hr doesn't cloud my judgment. She is cool. I think I love her. ^Law _shoot! 12:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's drunk. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, he hasn't realised I'm a sockpuppet of Runcorn yet. – iridescent 13:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's understandable, you seem to be missing the obligatory stolen image of a cute girl on your user page. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Y fixed. – iridescent 13:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you're getting mixed up – lightbulbs are incandescent, not iridescent.</pedant> – iridescent 14:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? She looks like a plastic mannequin. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

←I'm more interested in what the weird thing on her left hand is. OK, do you prefer any of these unique interpretations of the word "copyright"? – iridescent 15:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• File:Brandy-2006AVN.jpg
• 
• File:Cintia Dicker.jpg
• 
• 
• 

All very lovely girls, no doubt (apart from the weather balloons; people honestly find that attractive?), but you certainly couldn't pretend to be any of them. That was the sick genius of Poetlister. She was the girl next door. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You do know that most of the "girls" in PoetTaxCorn's photos were – er – fitted with plugs rather than sockets, right? Incidentally, one of our Arbcom candidates would disagree with you about the weather balloons. – iridescent 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, it wouldn't surprise me, considering the shenanigans he got up to. I only ever saw the one posted on Wikisource (Image:Poetlister_cant_enjoy_her_sandwich.jpg@ED <- her I think, though it's a different picture), so I don't feel compelled to run to the shower and scrub myself clean à la Ace Ventura. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

N Male. Sorry if I've shattered an illusion here. – iridescent 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No fucking way. Oh my god. I feel like a contestant at the end of There's Something About Miriam. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to pseudonymous editing! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. – iridescent 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I now finally understand the concept of too much knowledge. I need Dr. Mierzwiak to erase all knowledge of PoetTaxCorn from my brain --Closedmouth (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the only talk page to which I've thrown a beat. Brilliant. ^Law _shoot! 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Constant Speedy Deletion Reverts by User:Yaneleksklus

The user: Yaneleksklus continues to revert the page Wonky (music) whenever I put a speed deletion notice on it since it is not a notable article, and I am wondering if you can put a stop to this John Collier (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

They're right & you're wrong. The article survived AfD less than two weeks ago; not only that, but you are the one being disruptive by re-adding a {{prod}} notice to the article after it's (legitimately) been removed. Our deletion processes aren't shoot-till-you-win, and I count four speedy taggings and two prod taggings from you today. In any event, your speedy tag is clearly incorrect; WP:CSD#A9 is for recordings (it was brought in to fill the gap whereby a band could be speedy-deleted while their albums had to go through AFD/prod), and this is about a genre of music. You could try AfDing it again if you want it deleted, but unless something's radically changed in two weeks I can't see it being deleted. – iridescent 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

wonky

fair enough, i can't really fault you on that decision. i really should have weighed in on the initial AfD but i was otherwise occupied. yanelekslus is an editor who wants to contribute, but he's either unable or unwilling to collaborate. that being said, perhaps you might offer an opinion on User:Z19AK3JH... seems a bit socky to me? --Kaini (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm… Created right after this block and goes on to edit the same template. Probably enough there for an SSP, although I'm not sure how contentious the editing actually is – if nobody has a problem with the new account's contributions it might be easier for all involved to turn a blind eye. – iridescent 03:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

well, you're a sysop (my condolences :P), and i'm telling you that the edit style/content of this account are very similar to yaneleksklus' - and this is an issue that caused a serious headache for other editors before. i have no direct involvement in most of the recent edits (as opposed to a similar revert-war this editor had before) but if this user is a sock, then (s)he shouldn't be allowed to edit, as it sets bad precedent. so possibly worth taking a look at. --Kaini (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think there's a case, go to WP:SSP and follow the instructions there – WP sysops have no checkuser powers so your word will be as good as mine, and you're familiar with the articles so are probably better placed to explain why they're similar. I'm about to go to sleep (it's 0345 here) so don't have time to do it myself, but if you need a hand ask any active admin to help out. (Useful tip; you can identify which admins are currently awake by watching the block log and deletion log.) Alternatively, if you post a general "please help me" notice on this page someone will almost certainly fix it for you before too long; as you may have noticed, this page is one of Wikipedia's highest-traffic talkpages. User:J.delanoy will probably be awake and willing to file the report for you at the moment, if need be. – iridescent 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

i did notice! your page sees a lot of traffic. and it's the same GMT here :). tell you what, i'll sleep on it too - if people have an objection, then knowing this editor i'll wake up to an edit-war :) --Kaini (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. – iridescent 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Vicera

Thanks for your comment. Just so you know, I was careful. I looked at the award and found it was given to her by her school. I nice accomplishment; however, I would question its importance. BTW - the entire school population is less than 2500 students. There was little to indicate the true requirements of the award. From the website, "The Prize will be awarded to the student whose substantial work promotes understanding of different philosophies and cultures, and instills respect for people, their work, the environment, and the advancement of global harmony."

ttonyb1 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To avoid speedy deletion the subject doesn't have to be notable, the article has to contain an assertion of notability. Basically, if you have to do any digging to decide whether or not it's a speedy candidate, it isn't. The article contained multiple assertions of notability ("She was the founder and head of the "Back to our Filipino Roots Project", which send medicines and used medical equipment to poverty-stricken hospitals in the Philippines", "She was awarded the 2004 ACS International Peace Prize"). Articles like this are the reason we have the proposed deletion process. – iridescent 03:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...ttonyb1 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, further to the above, you're completely misreading the award; although it's awarded by a foundation associated with a school, students from the school are barred from entry. (The fact that the school is in southern England and the subject lives in Florida is a clue…) – iridescent 03:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you are right about that, but I still have questions about the importance of the award. Thanks again...ttonyb1 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about it! As I say, this is what AFD is for – to get a broader consensus on just how notable it is. – iridescent 03:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

gaaaaaaaaaah

OK that's the last time I try to view your talk page in the computer lab... just realized I hardly ever use edit summaries :( *runs away* -- Gurch (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And I was so careful to make sure that picture wasn't actually porny, too… If it's any consolation, you only have a 1 in 25 chance of seeing her. – iridescent 14:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's a risk worth taking (awww... you used an edit summary *hides rope*) -- Gurch (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Waaah waaah waaah you reverted my vandalism

Recently you have removed my perfectly suitable post and issued a warning to me even though it is you that is vandalising the page by removing content without good reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.69.225 (talk)

You're absolutely right, I can't see how this could possibly be anything other than constructive. What was I thinking? – iridescent 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinking logically, of course :D I love it when they do this... Icy // ♫ 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, now I'm discriminating against him. I'm just evil. – iridescent 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do people always write a book for their unblock reason? I wonder what they would do if I declined with the reason "tl;dr". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A clear breach of his Human Rights if ever I've seen one...— Realist² 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Iri, how possibly have you avoided desysopping with this reckless use of your admin tools? Shameful. لennavecia 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your delightful poem...

Poet's corner

I'm touched. (In the head, perhaps, but touched nonetheless.) Now, can you compose a sonnet incorporating the words "humorless", "beating a dead horse", "not important to at least 75% of Wikipedians", "seriously, go write an article or something," and "you're not going to paint anyone into that corner"? He's trying to get someone to say that attack pages in general are okay; nobody's going to jump off that bridge. And of course, if we go by the policy-based answer--no, they're not okay--then he's going to demand that one be deleted. Tiresome. GJC 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Will Shakespearean blank verse do?

WP:CIV was not handed down

To Jimbo on stone tablets, and who said

You could be head of the Civility

Police, in a case that doesn't even

Concern you? Now quit whining just because

None of the others here agree with you.

I tell you, I'm wasted here. – iridescent 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering to myself how to handle,

That common Wikipedia problem — the vandal

Iridescent says 'It seems like a chore

But just revert and ignore;

and I'll put them out like a sputtering candle.' HalfShadow 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm rude

And want to complain, piss off

I ignore all rules. – iridescent 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're wasted, I'm offended; you didn't share. :)GJC 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I might listen more politely to his proposed solutions

If he had a more significant history of contributions.

All editors are valued in the same amount

But this looks suspiciously like a single purpose account. – iridescent 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, this is more entertaining than last nights episode of X Factor with Britney Spears. — Realist² 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a clear stitch-up on Saturday night

Ruth was fantastic and Diana was shite. – iridescent 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I only watched the results section to see if Britney Spears could provide a coherent performance. I wasn't particularly impressed and I generally give the girl the benefit of the doubt. I watched the episodes paying tribute to Michael Jackson and Mariah Carey but I've been to busy with Wiki and Uni for television. — Realist² 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Britney on The X Factor was the least convincing mime

That I've seen on TV for a very long time

And while I appreciate she's only just back on the agenda

Her new single sounds like a rook trapped in a blender. – iridescent 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to baffled readers

I realise this thread must seem really strange

To any talk page watcher who stumbles on this

It's all in response to this heated exchange

Which even by ANI standards was goddamn ridiculous. – iridescent 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A pity nobody saw fit to delete

The ballad that was oh so clever

Then we could take turns reverting

And call it 'Dumbest edit-war ever.' HalfShadow 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You would think everybody involved in this saga

Could go and find something more useful to do

The plain, simple fact is, no ANI drama

Will resolve the conflict between Arab and Jew

This is one field where all those involved harbour

Two thousand years of entrenched points of view

But at least this entire idiotic palaver

Provides entertainment for the Wikipedia Review. ←(BADSITE link! Don't click it or you'll go to hell!) – iridescent 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And for those who are thinking 'Why use verse?'

'This does not make understanding an ease!'

Just think dear friends, it could be much worse:

Morse code, Pig Latin, Klingonese.

The simple fact of the matter is that we take pleasure

Doing things differently, yes it's quite true,

If you think joy isn't part of a Wikipedian's measure,

We thank God and Heaven above that we're not you. HalfShadow 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this keeps getting better

I have no idea who Nishidani is or what the ins and outs of this content dispute are – and no, I don't want anyone explaining them to me – but this is the best "This user has retired from Wikipedia" notice of all time. – iridescent 18:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That is good, yes, Much better than those big black "Retired" boxes that children put on thir user pages for an hour or two every time someone upsets them. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Ha ha, very good. Have you been voting in this arb com thing? I'm no sure I'm going to bother voting in this arb com thing myself. I think I will just observe. — Realist² 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worth voting in Arbcom elections; because it wields so much clout, and so few people bother to participate, a vote cast in an Arbcom election is far more likely to affect your life than a vote cast in a real-world election. (If a dozen more people had bothered to vote last year, Giano would have made it onto Arbcom and the whole content-creators vs policy-wonks split on Wikipedia – and consequently, the entire future direction of the World's Eighth Most Powerful Website™ – would look very different today.) To save anyone digging through the histories – I have no intention of creating one of those "how I voted" tables – my supports (in alphabetical order) were Carcharoth, Casliber, Fish and karate, Gwen Gale, Jayvdb (weakly), Lifebaka, Risker, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back and Wizardman. If I had to pick one from that list, it would be Risker, with Gwen and Neil (Fish and karate) both running a close second. (Sorry, but I can't really find a metric to put any of the above in verse). – iridescent 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone wanting to know how it's going, Gurch has written one of his magic scripts that automatically gives running analysis of the results. To see who's ahead, click the little box next to "Net" to sort them; the top seven net votes are the winners (subject to Jimbo's arbitrary IDONTLIKEYOU veto, but let's not go there). – iridescent 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I voted. Only once. My reasons for support are along the lines of WTHN aka good interaction of other areas of the Wiki. Probably not good reasons to support for arb comm. My oppose won't matter, but it needed to be said. *shrug* StarM 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(to ☆M) Am I the only person on Wikipedia who hasn't had a problem with her? I've always found her one of the most polite and helpful people here. – iridescent 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh I'm a fancy symbol, how did you do that? I haven't had a 'problem' with her, per se, but I find her unwillingness to listen a bit frustrating especially when it comes to speedies. It has nothing to do with who's right but just a 'would it kill to see things other ways?' at times. I don't think a "this is what I said, go read this page" is a good mentality for an arb comm candidate. It's not even about who's right: once the article was restored and not challenged again, once it went to AfD and was deleted. It's more about the willingness to not see things in black and white. I don't follow every arb comm case, in fact, I try not to other than rulings, but I think the world is grey and I don't think she sees that. Not putting diffs here either, I really wish renames changed sigs. StarM 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing your old sigs is easy enough, although it won't affect the actual diffs. To add fancy symbols you can either fiddle about keying in Unicode, or cheat and just cut-and-paste them from the relevant Unicode plane. – iridescent 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PC Only, I think? I'll have to look into it though. The diffs change, I think. My contribs show as StarM, but the sig link is my old name. StarM 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It runs on my Mac, but you need to boot into Windows via Boot Camp to use it. It might be worth asking one of the semiautomation regulars like Gurch or Werdna whether there's any issue it would raise (I can't think what); otherwise it's just a case of importing Special:WhatLinksHere/OldUsername into AWB, setting it to "replace all", and robotically clicking "yes" for half an hour. (The original diffs won't change – it takes oversight powers to change the actually text of the diffs. However, they all show as being made under your "new" name. See here for an example of a signature diff from a renamed account.) – iridescent 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh I'll look into that tomorrow. It's about bedtime for this crazy person. It's not so much the diffs that I care but rather I can't point to a situation, especially one related to the person bent on outing me (see deleted revs) without outing myself. It's just irritating that everything else changes over - including a page's history. Odd. StarM 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If I have a quiet watchlist I'll consider it, but I have another article to write soon. — Realist² 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fictional dogs

I wish I'd submitted this question
But I was inhabiting my usual fogs;
"Potential ARBCOMmians, what would you do
About Lists of Fictional Dogs?"
GJC 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Q1 in my RFA

I offered the solemn conviction

My views are so out of line with the mob

I won't comment on the deletion of fiction.

Although at a quick glance it appears clear to me

That this topic is better served by the existing category. – iridescent 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Srsly, you should write a poetry book. I'd buy it -- Gurch (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani would be way ahead of me. – iridescent 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. -- Gurch (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unique, isn't it? – iridescent 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we have a literary critic here. – iridescent 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all of your hard work reverting vandalism. Keep it up! Ashbey…whisper… 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we ever going to rename that damn thing? RickK is indefblocked for God's sake. – iridescent 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh maybe you should suggest it. I can't understand why a barnstar needs to be named after someone anyway... what's wrong with Anti-Vandalism Barnstar? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It was named after "legendary vandal fighter" User:RickK. It later was alleged that RickK was in fact running a bad-hand account and reverting his own edits. Either way, RickK hasn't edited for three years, is indefblocked in any case, and I have no idea why we have a barnstar named after someone with fewer reverts in his entire career than a Huggler can rack up in a week when none of the others are named. – iridescent 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Woah what? I've never heard about him using a bad-hand sock, although I've heard plenty of other things. Do you have any more details? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/Archive3#The_Senior_Guardian_Barnstar_.2F_The_RickK_Award. either way (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[1] The source is Kelly Martin, who does have a very large chip on her shoulder (which is why I have to emphasise the "allegedly") - however, the time RickK was active was the time she was on Arbcom, and while I rarely agree with Kelly M I've never known her to lie. (NYB says something similar on the WR thread linked) – iridescent 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone write a script to figure out who has done the most vandal reverts and rename it after them -- Gurch (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it necessary to name it after someone. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

HDYTTO, please withdraw that TFD - all it will do is cause drama. – iridescent 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. We won't be seeing that account anymore. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I dare say we'll see him in ten minutes under another name, though... – iridescent 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

template:Infobox EU legislation

Hey!

I saw you reverted your own edits on template:EU regulation. Indeed, it's true, I'm not a vandal, but I am really a n00b when it comes to templates. I made a new template template:Infobox EU legislation, which is to be used by both template:EU regulation and template:EU directive.

The aim is to make a redirect of template:EU regulation to template:Infobox EU legislation, with one added parameter "regulation=1", to make Infobox EU legislation switch to a Regulation template. [Template:EU directive]] will be a redir to template:Infobox EU legislation, with added parameter "directive=1", which makes Infobox EU legislation a Directive template. That works perfectly fine, but somehow I don't know how to include the original parameters that are used when calling template:EU regulation in the redirect. Do you know how I should do that?

Thanks in advance,

Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but if you check back in about half an hour someone watching this page will almost certainly give you the answer. – iridescent 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Replace Template:EU regulation with

{{Infobox EU legislation|regulation=1|param1={{{param1|}}}|param2={{{param2|}}}}}

and so forth, replacing "param1", "param2" etc. with the names of the parameters that have to be passed through -- Gurch (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Your step #4 in your response here made me laugh. Thanks. ;) Rockfang (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me, I was actually incorrect in my advice (runs over to fix it) – iridescent 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

a Question

Some really strange and (to me at least) unexpected articles seem to be targets for repeated and long-term vandalism. Some time ago I did a review of Spanish Armada, and it has stayed on my watchlist since then. I can understand that articles about football teams, politicians and so on are targets, but a failed 16th-century military operation? Do you have any theories about what attracts vandals to certain article/types of articles? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

With something like that, my guess would be that this is the month in the National Curriculum that they study Elizabethan England so there are lots of bored kids reading it. Something very strange happened in May as well, I wonder if it was on the Main Page (although there's no notice on the talkpage). – iridescent 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

nominating admins

Re: "I am familiar with this editor and I trust their judgement" - there are editors which nobody gets to know because they are so quiet, yet they are prolific. There are others who are prolific but for some reason are overlooked, like the recently-approved User:Dravecky. I see nothing wrong with going down lists of prolific editors, screening out those who aren't good candidates, studying those who look good, and if they still look good after study, nominating them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If they're prolific, by definition someone will have heard of them since they'll regularly come up at GAN, FAC or AFD if they're content-driven or on the flameboards if they're a policy-wonk. Someone who hasn't come to any kind of notice is someone with no relevant experience and any RFA from them will either be snow-closed, or they'll post a good faith RFA, be ripped to shreds, and leave the project in disgust.

Editcounts may have had some meaning in the old days, but I'm not sure you appreciate just how powerful Huggle is; the traditional editcount benchmark of 5000 edits can be reached from a standing start in a single day (If you think that's hyperbole, here's 1000 edits in two hours) and that's not including the deletions, blocks etc. Seriously, treating WBE as some kind of high-score table is exactly what it shouldn't be used for; if you dig into the history of anyone with a high edit count who isn't an admin, chances are you'll find a very good reason why they're not. The only reason the page even exists is because there are enough people who do treat Wikipedia as an MMORPG that the MFD's close as "no consensus".

Also, prolific quite often equals "disruptive"; have a look at the talkpages of any of those "high scorers" and count the warnings. Their block logs are often an eye-opener, as well. – iridescent 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Except in California of course, the spiritual home of the bizarre and inconsistently applied WP:CIVILITY. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you (Malleus) already know my views on civility; but of the non-admins with high edit counts (particularly if they reached that point pre-Huggle – this is probably the last version that isn't distorted by Huggle), if you look at the history the issues generally aren't civility; it's either people who've been the subject of major controversy and know they have 100 people lined up to oppose them, people who don't want to run, former admins who've been desysopped or people who had such foul-tempered RFAs that they don't want to go through it again. WBE is a tree from which the low-hanging fruit has already been picked; we now need people with more common sense and less ability to spout the correct policy at every opportunity without quite understanding it. (Of the regulars on this page, you and R2 are probably the highest scorers in that regard, in that whether or not I agree with you on something, you're always able to justify it – which IMO counts far more than more admin-coached policy drones who can explain all the wording of WP:CIV without understanding why that wording is used and when it's appropriate to ignore it. Useight and Balloonman will no doubt turn up at some point to give the opposing point of view.) – iridescent 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ow, thanx for the compo Irid, I can't believe Useight it running for RfB, he kept that quiet, I only found out after stalking your edit history. I supported obviously. Unfortunately, I've managed to somehow, over time, watchlist all the new articles to do with Britney Spears and my watchlist is going crazy. It's quite amazing how many new editors are naming themselves after our dear Spears. — Realist² 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've turned up to give my opposing point of view. I still think coaching is good if done correctly. The trick is doing it correctly, and I'm still trying to figure that out. I see no problem with helping someone learn policies. Sure, I can't teach them clue or common sense, but some things can be taught, and since all I want to do is help, I'm going to do what I can. Also, I didn't give anyone advance notice of my RFB, so don't feel bad, Realist2, that you didn't have any warning. Thanks, though, for your support, both of you. Useight (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering what this one was thinking. – iridescent 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently she eats a lot of fast food. Rumor has it she also breaths air and sleeps at night, but this is still unconfirmed....— Realist² 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, I'll show up ;-) Actually, if you look at my coachee pages, you'll see that I encourage my coachees to express their opinion/position. (Spinnspark, one of my current coachees, has a very different view on User Names than me... but was able to defend it using policy, which is all I ask for.) Coaching ain't bad---when done right. Coaching is bad, when done with the apparent goal of passing RfA's---and I've opposed my share of coached candidates on that basis. If somebody wants a shortcut, it isn't going through *me* as a coach.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm psychic, I tell you… As I said somewhere (can't remember where) my personal view would be to give limited admin rights (delete articles less than a week old with under 10 revisions but without the ability to undelete, block accounts with less than 10 edits for a maximum of an hour, perhaps) automatically to anyone meeting some fairly basic criteria – probably 1000 edits and no block in the last three months plus a minimum of one GA/FA, to force people to get some experience in article-writing – these accounts would then automatically go to RFA after six months. This would take away the whole per nom/prima facie/not enough edits/"mommy that man was rude to me" arguing, and give something concrete to judge; e.g., "they've had these tools, did they use them and did they use them right". But what do I know?

Incidentally, did you know that you are currently one of the most wretched articles we have? – iridescent 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And apparently I have a fan club---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of Balloon Man (CD) sitting on my shelf; I can turn that redlink blue if you'd like. – iridescent 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to disgruntled Hugglers/authors of Huggle

The above isn't meant as any kind of attack on Huggle which is a vital and necessary etc etc etc, but just an observation that it's possible to be totally proficient using it and totally clueless everywhere else. – iridescent 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re. non-admins with high edit counts, that really goes back long before Huggle and the situation in that revision you post is little different from now. Vandalism got reverted back then too (and spellings got corrected, and minor formatting changes got made)... don't forget autowikibrowser has been around for nearly three years -- Gurch (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and 5000 edits in a day is probably stretching it a bit, despite me having more edits than sense I never managed more than 2000, and that took eight hours (interestingly it seems that account was still 290th in the list at the time of the version you linked, despite only 3 months of activity over a year previously, further proof that editcount is completely meaningless). BTW out of curiosity what's the "very good reason" I'm not an admin? :/ -- Gurch (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

5000 edits/day is unquestionably possible. According to Wikichecker, I made 3452 edits on 8 October (3341 are left, now). And that was a school day, so I was at college a good portion of it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

show-off --Gurch (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

5000 edits a day is definitely possible – that's why I posted the diff in the thread above to my making 1000 edits in two hours. I could easily imagine some of our more - er - singleminded editors spending 8-9-10 hours on Huggle. Unless you give yourself a bot flag or bypass the restrictions (which is a Bad Bad Thing and don't do it), even the most mindless AWB search-and-replace doesn't get above about 1000 edits per day since it runs quite slowly. (BHG made 100,000 AWB edits splitting Category:Politicians, but she was either dedicated or nuts.) I agree the list was always distorted by AWB, Twinkle, people running bots on their main account etc, but Huggle took "editcount as a measure of value" from "distorted" over the line into "meaningless", unless you really believe I've made a more significant contribution than Cla68, Malleus, Giano and Hurricanehink combined. (Amusingly, on the latest update of WBE, Jimbo and Larry are both below the "significant number of edits" threshold.) – iridescent 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well let's be honest, neither of them have contributed much in any form recently -- Gurch (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo did write an article once. If I recall correctly, there was some sort of fuss about it. – iridescent 20:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Which was speedy deleted shortly after creation (thought sadly did not stay that way) -- Gurch (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The truly ironic thing, of course, is that the article doesn't mention the only reason anyone living more than a mile away has ever heard of the place. Must be a coincidence, since Wikipedia is not censored. – iridescent 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the policy only mentions "offensive or objectionable" content. I guess in theory you could appeal to the neutral point of view if you wanted to overturn the suppression of something that isn't either of those, though of course in this case that wouldn't work because of the two unwritten policies Wikipedia:Jimbo is always right and Wikipedia:If someone in the real world notices an article, the correct response is to panic and screw it up -- Gurch (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it. The Wikimedia Foundation's equivalent of a total eclipse. – iridescent 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

does that mean we can delete the founder group now? -- Gurch (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite your bot to give double votes to all the anti-Jimbo candidates. Lets face it, no-one is actually counting the votes themselves – look at the blind panic The Wikipedia Community went into when you dared to turn your bot off for a while. – iridescent 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... if I started now, I could establish enough socks by next year's election to vote five copies of myself into ArbCom. That would be fun -- Gurch (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And I didn't turn the bot off. My internet turned itself off. And I was asleep -- Gurch (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo started several other articles but most were either stubs or fresh-start-stubs. He did start M16 rifle in 2001. It wasn't a stub but it wasn't sourced. He also started the unreferenced Urban heat island in 2001. It would be a stub by today's standards. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's not so long ago that these were Featured Articles. Everyone who harps on about how much we've "degenerated" might like to bear that in mind. – iridescent 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Set it to put Kurt in the top five for a while. See how long it takes for anyone to notice. – iridescent 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

July 29 in rail transport

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

HIStory campaign

I'm still progressing with my HIStory campaign. Got "Stranger in Moscow" to GA today, my favorite song BTW. At a push I would like to get it to a GA topic by January. Must take into account the huge GAN backlog however. — Realist² 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everyone involved in GA assessment is currently self-destructing Polish parliament style. I may be oversimplifying. – iridescent 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to review a few myself soon, help out a little bit, that backlog is fast approaching 300. — Realist² 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some truth in that. I can't even remember the last time I reviewed a GAN, so good on ya Realist2. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Malleus :-) Also, Irid, an IP left a message atop your talk page, just incase you missed in in the recent activity. — Realist² 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that one slipped through. Don't know if it's a school holiday or something, but the IPs are restless tonight. – iridescent 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I only ever did one GA review that didn't turn into a "how dare you say my article wasn't perfect!?!" spat (Sheerness, should you care); I tend to stay away from it now. I don't see how a green dot or yellow star makes the slightest difference to a single person actually reading the article, other than providing an unofficial flagged revision point. What being listed as GA/FA does achieve, is drawing every wannabe-copyeditor-but-doesn't-know-how, "helpful" bot, and Defender Of The Wiki MOS Enforcer to said article like moths to a flame. – iridescent 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We've worked on a few GAs iridescent, and I like to think the end result was an improvement over the starting point. I have to ask though, which of your categories am I in? Wannabe-copyeditor-but-doesn't-know-how, "helpful" bot, or Defender Of The Wiki MOS Enforcer? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

None; with the articles you've worked on, it hasn't made a difference to you whether they have a GA/FA star or not (although you might have been trying to get them there). I'm referring to the motley crowd who periodically go through the FAs and GAs after they're promoted making minor edits; I don't know if it's to try to get themselves noticed, to try to get some kind of "this user has worked on x FAs kudos, or that they're the Wikipedia equivalent of groupies. (I'm not referring to people like Tony or Epbr who go through the candidate articles making minor edits, which is a potentially useful service, but the people who seem to think that despite having passed through the FAC crucible, the articles will nonetheless be "improved" by their meatheaded attempts at restructuring the layout, or the loving touch of their buggy link-formatting bot. Watchlist a bunch of articles that appear next to each other in WP:FA, and see how often you see one editor edit all of them, despite them being on totally unrelated topics. – iridescent 21:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. BTW, it's only fair to warn you that I've just made an edit to Broadwater Farm. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, that isn't a GA or FA. There was some sort of minor dispute, I seem to recall… (I still maintain that every image there is MOS-compliant, even on the strictest reading). – iridescent 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree wih you about the images. The guidelines are quite clear, although hardly anyones seems to have read them. A bit like the blocking guidelines for administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

record

I added new info(record) and fixed the descriptions of the box to look the same as other pages. Let me know what was vandalized.Sea888 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Please accept my sincere apologies for that – I don't know quite what happened there. – iridescent 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not work safe

You do realize that your image at the top of your talk page makes your talk page "not work safe."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Which one? If you're talking about Edit Summary Girl, I was very careful to choose an image that wasn't pornographic. (You only have a 1 in 27 chance of seeing her; if you don't want her, just purge the page.) – iridescent 20:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one... you might not see it as problematic, but I can see some employers responding negatively towards it if they saw it on an employees desktop...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Balloonman, Image:Model in classic Hogtie.jpg may be cute but it can be dangerous for viewers in certain environments. Can you imagine the tempest-in-a-teapot this would cause if a local newspaper was doing a story on how elementary school students use Wikipedia for research and to collaborate with other editors, and they happened to be there when some kid hit the (un)-lucky lotto? Wikipedia is not censored, but.... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

While true, statistically speaking they are far more likely to see it on Hogtie bondage (~18000 views last month) than on this page (~3500 views per month, only 1/27 of which would show the picture) -- Gurch (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman I can see the point from, although I disagree with it; while I'm not going to remove her on the basis of one user's request, if other regular users of this page see a problem I'll remove her. I somehow can't imagine the number of people likely to be reading my talkpage, from their place of work, often enough to produce her in the rotation, is going to be exactly huge – nor imagine what kind of workplace would care – but I can see the point, and I appreciate that American culture is more prudish than most of the world and that this is a US-hosted project.

Davidwr's point, if you'll forgive me, is just plain ridiculous.

1. This is my user talk page, not History of Europe, it generally gets less than 50 hits per day, and is not linked from anywhere said "elementary school student" is likely to reach it, unless the school project in question concerns derelict railway lines of south-east England, the usefulness vs drawbacks of semiautomated editing tools, or the validity of the spaced em-dash;
2. any visitor to this page only has a 3% chance of seeing her, but has a 100% chance of seeing an offensively captioned image of the Virgin Mary, which to date has not generated a single complaint;
3. For almost a year my user page featured a painting of the Prophet Muhammed in hell, which was replaced by an video loop of two cats having sex, neither of which generated a single complaint;
4. User talk:Keeper76, which traditionally has ten times the traffic of my talk and often overtakes Jimbo's talk for hits, regularly included some extremely choice samples from Wikipedia's inexhaustible library of home-made porn, none of which ever generated a single complaint;
5. Typing pretty much any "bad word" one chooses to name into the search bar will bring up articles including images from the Bad Image List (of which not a one of the images on this page is a member);
6. Wikipedia itself is a spin-off of a poor-quality porn site "guy-orientated website";
7. Any putative school project, on any topic one cares to name, is vanishingly unlikely to stumble on this talkpage. It is, however, virtually certain to stumble onto Commons and their unique contributions to the sum of all human knowledge. In the seven years of Wikipedia's existence, the scenario you describe has yet to happen, despite the best efforts of the Wikipedia Review.

And with all due respect to the Wide Community Of Wikipedia's Users, the prudishness of the recipients of repeat-vandalism warnings – the only elementary school students likely to ever wind up on this page – is not among my top priorities. – iridescent 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have said anything if it wasn't for the fact that it was front and center. If it hits the lotto, it is the first and most glaring thing a person sees on the website. My boss won't notice that it is wikipedia, nor will they care. If it were on History of Europe, then you could explain it as being an image of the article, but it is harder to rationalize on a "friends talk page." The reason it caught my attention was because I will often click on pages on multiple tabs, and while they are loading click back to work or do soemthing else. Then, when I need a break or I'm waiting for code to run, I come back to a page only to discover that it has loaded to an image I would be aghast if my boss saw. If I happen to see something on Keeper's talk page or another page, I will leave the page in a condition where the image isn't visible when I click back to the page. Similarly, when it is on Keeper's page, it is generally there temporarily, as part of your header, there is the indication that it will be there indefinitely.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Plus, I think I'm the lucky one, I get it a lot more frequently than 1 in 27 times... I'd say 2 out of 3 times!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT2: In other words, if the image were to appear at the bottom of your header, *I* probably wouldn't have a problem with it... it would depend on the actual appearance, but it is the fact that it shows up when I load the page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed from the rotation as that's a valid reason and there's no point causing potential harm with something that doesn't do a corresponding good. I still stand by every point in my reply to the "zomg think of the children!" argument. – iridescent 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if Iridescent was an RfA candidate, would you have voted oppose on the basis of that image, and told him/her to come back in three months? just asking. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If I were an RFA candidate now, I wouldn't have a hope in hell of passing, and neither would all but the most "be nice to everyone" conflict-avoiders. While IMO I've never performed a "wrong" action - and I think the only admin action of mine anyone could seriously even try to build a case against was my block of Abd, which I'd still contend was both desirable and correct (not the same thing on Wikipedia), 2500 deletions and 800 blocks makes for a lot of angry socks, not to mention the assorted toes I've stepped on down the years. A drawback of the Wikipedia environment is that it's a lot easier to make enemies than friends. I somehow suspect you have noticed this. – iridescent 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed that, yes. I've also noticed that enemies pay little attention to the truth, whereas friends try to be more even-handed, which makes for a pretty distorted environment in the absence of any other checks and balances. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The "be nice to everyone" conflict-avoiders also fail due to lack of experience handling conflict. You can't win -- Gurch (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. In fact they do rather well. I don't want to draw attention to any one recently promoted admnistrator, but just look through the list of recent promotions. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Most admins, myself included, would probably get an oppose from me if they ran again. But no, I would not have opposed her for that image. I might have brought it up and used her response to sway me one way or another...eg did she remove it when a reason was provided or not? Since she removed it, it might have moved me to "support" if I was on the bench ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How to Pass RFA Without Really Trying (notebooks out, socks):

1. Create account; write a valid stub article with incorrect formatting (if it's correctly formatted, everyone will think you're a sock);
2. Go somewhere that will rack up your edit quickly. Twinkle is always good, but you run the risk of messing up; stub sorting or link disambiguation are slower but steadier;
3. Write a long article with sources. Find someone active at both GAC and RFA and ask them to help you with it. This gets you seen by those people who will vote (sorry, !vote); and give you a reputation as an article writer. Agree with every suggestion made by anyone who appears popular, and always agree with everyone female; remember that most RFA voters are 14 year old boys who automatically follow anything a Hot Chick says, in the hope that if they always agree with her she'll show them her boobies;
4. Repeat step 3;
5. Once you have the two long articles under your belt - and only then - request rollback and install Huggle;
6. Set Huggle to show you your reversions after you make them (you don't want a "rollback removed for misuse" sitting in your log), and rack your edit count to 10,000;
7. Repeat step 3;
8. Ask someone (preferably a Hot Chick) if they think you're ready for RFA, but only if you're sure they'll say yes;
9. Wait until a high-grade flamewar is raging (hint: watch Giano's and Sandy's talkpages) to distract the usual dramamongers and RFA trolls;
10. Transclude RFA. On one relatively trivial question give an answer that's against policy with a long explanation as to why you don't support policy - this will prove to the freethinkers that you're not a Cabalist. On everything else, spout the party line faithfully - this will prove to the Cabalists that you're one of them. As long as you haven't pissed people off, in a community that thrives on little-tin-gods and petty-empire-building, people see what they want to see in you.

You're welcome. – iridescent 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Joking aside, I have often thought about abandoning "Malleus Fatuorum" and starting all over again. I'm quite certain that I could become an admin in six months or so under another name, and then I'd least be able to unblock Malleus ...after a few suitably sanctimonious comments, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What's stopping you? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he hasn't?

The above method isn't even a joke; it's exactly the method Dereks1x/Archtransit uses. I'm totally certain that some of our regular admins are socks; I'd even go so far as to point fingers. Where I differ from policy is that I don't really see it as a problem as long as they behave themselves. – iridescent 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, judging by his edit rate, it would probably be rather difficult. Then again, I am fully aware of this user... – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Who's edit rate, Malleus's? D1x managed to operate 120 confirmed accounts plus lots we haven't caught, while writing one of our highest-traffic FAs. Socking really isn't hard; the main reason people don't do it more is that there's generally no reason to. – iridescent 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used huggle before, so you know I'm definitely not at point 6 yet. :-O — Realist² 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many phrases people could use to describe you, but ""be nice to everyone conflict-avoider" is unlikely to be one of them. You're on what might be called the Gwen Gale Path. – iridescent 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle scarce some might call them, still some good has come of it, I have stronger skin now and can deal with pressure and personal attacks that I couldn't deal with 4 months ago. Only today I was accused of being anti Muslim (check top of my talk page) over the Michael Jackson issue. Of course it's not nice but I can deal with it. If we were all "be nice to everyone conflict-avoiders" some things wouldn't get done around here. — Realist² 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Things get done around here?  – iridescent 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we give ourselves too much grief, we have achieved so much here, I'm just gutted I wasn't around to see the early days. Wikipedia has it's faults yes, but if anything it's become a victim of it's own success, nothing to be upset about. My user page say's I'm proud to be a Wikipedian and I mean it. :-) . — Realist² 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You really didn't miss anything; it can't be overstated just how bad Wikipedia was until about 2005-06, when the Seigenthaler incident shook the Cabal out of their total grip on power. In a collection of links regular readers of this page may have seen before, since nothing so graphically demonstrates how bad things were, it's only four years since these were considered to be our best articles (yes, they were all FAs in 2004). For those who look back to the golden age of Nupedia, this was what a peer-reviewed, expert-assessed etc Nupedia article looked like. – iridescent 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we've come a long way, anyway I'm off to bed, early morning and a long day tomorrow. — Realist² 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Good job reverting vandalism -- IRP ☎ 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This page gets more surreal by the day. – iridescent 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OOh, your second one in three days! – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit of an in joke and there's no reason you should know Wikipedia internal politics. You may not be aware that not only am I an extremely vocal opponent of that particular barnstar, which was named by The Cabal after a rather obnoxious editor from Wikipedia's early days - I provided the link above for a reason - but that "my regulars" were among the driving forces behind the successful deletion of the Award Center (and most of the participants above were involved in a very foultempered discussion last week about the devaluation of barnstars). I appreciate the sentiment (and I mean that), but I'm probably not the best person to be giving barnstars to. – iridescent 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait what? Why did you vote to keep it on the TFD if you are an extremely vocal opponent of it? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh... did you read the TFD? – iridescent 00:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you said "Strong keep". You did agree to a rename, but there's already a plain barnstar for vandal fighters in existence. We don't need two, one is redundant. And besides, strong keep, not just keep. I'm confused. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting one of Wikipedia's most frequently used templates and back-door replacing it with a totally unused one is not an appropriate use of TFD. This is why we have talkpages. – iridescent 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. But I doubt many people look at the talk page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I doubt anyone does. But you have to go through the motions or the Consensus Zombies will eat your brains. 

How to change Wikipedia policy the cynical way; start discussion on a talkpage that's undoubtedly appropriate; give it a month; when nobody's complained, you have one vote in favour and none against. This is a clear majority of 100%; you then change it unilaterally and see if anyone complains. – iridescent 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(If a certain Retired Editor or one of his socks is still watching this page – and I'm sure you are – you will no doubt see the irony in my giving this advice. You will also, however, note that "your" versions are still in place.) – iridescent 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deprod on Arthas: Rise of the Lich King

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Arthas: Rise of the Lich King, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Kanaru (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, we'll do it the slow way. – iridescent 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)