User talk:Iridescent

Policies are very important and must be obeyed.

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‑]

Well I never ...

I never thought I'd be seeing you at FAC. Good luck!

BTW, I increased the size of the lead image, which is perfectly in accordance with the MoS guidelines: "Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include ... Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

zOMG not a forced image width!!!!1!11!

It's a fairly atypical FAC – about one-quarter of the length of most FAs, and scraping perilously close to the 10000-character cut-off that periodically gets proposed; however, I really don't see how it could (or should) be expanded. Initially I had no intention of taking it to FAC – as the fact that I've done nothing with it for six months since its creation shows – but in doing the restructuring following the peer review realised we're coming up to the 50th anniversary of the closure, and that consequently for the first time in half a century it will actually get coverage both in the trainspotter rail enthusiast magazines and in the local (and possibly national) papers. Since (as Realist can testify) the press are generally "inspired" by Wikipedia articles, if it's going to be improved it ought to be before then, and even if the FAC goes down in flames (I can't see why it should, but FAC is at least as unpredictable as RFA) it should at least trigger some improvements. I've always been very fond of that article – any site can have an article on significant topics, but only on Wikipedia would an article on such an inherently uninteresting subject be treated with exactly the same respect as World War 2 or John Major. – iridescent 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am glad you took it to FAC. One, hopefully things will go well with you (hint, Malleus, do a copyedit!) and two, I always like seeing the railroad articles go up. It's a nice change of pace from video games and hurricanes and rock bands. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If it fails to get promoted (no reason why it should), then it won't be because it doesn't meet 1a of the FA criteria. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's 1,539 words of readable prose, so it's longer than the (soft) minimum lengths of 1,000–1,500 words discussed in the past. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

O.o - Good luck ;D — Realist² 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A few (hopefully helpful) comments

• This, from the lead, needs to be explained: "The railway closed to freight in 1959, following the hospital's decision to convert its coal boilers to oil, which rendered the railway unnecessary." The inevitable question is "what do the hospital's boilers have to do with the railway?"

• "Although the railway joined the Cuckoo Line at both the northern and southern ends of the platform, virtually no through trains ever ran. Because the line to the hospital ran northbound but connected to the mainline south of the platforms ...". That just makes no sense at all to me!

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the boilers, hopefully this should be enough. I really don't want the lead to get bogged down into a long discussion of hospital boilers if there's any way to avoid it.

Regarding the latter, it makes no sense to me, and I understand what it's trying to say. This is a real "picture worth a thousand words" issue; see this diagram of the station layout. Trains running from the mainline station to the hospital had to reverse south out of the station, before heading northeast to the hospital, because the junction split north/northeast despite being south of the station. If you can think of a way to explain this that doesn't sound like gibberish, please do try! I'll have another think and see if I can come up with anything. – iridescent 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks much better to me, but it raises another question in my mind. I thought the line was built to transport building materials? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic potted history:

1. Built as a steam line to transport the building materials for the hospital;
2. Once the hospital was built and had generators in place, converted to run on electricity from said generators (one of the sources has a "fact" that this was to stop patients being upset by the dirt of the steam trains, but I find it hard to believe anyone in the early 1900s would have found anything unusual about steam trains);
3. Used to ferry passengers and coal to the hospital;
4. Passenger numbers drop off as cars come into use, so the passenger facilities removed;
5. Boilers converted to oil, so no longer a need for coal; British Rail insist on high maintenance standards before they'll allow their oil wagons to use it, which the hospital deem too expensive. – iridescent 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Any objection to splitting References and notes into Notes and Bibliography, with the cited books in the latter section? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No objection at all. I replied to this one at the peer review; I personally don't think it's necessary (only three books are cited more than once) but I have no opinion either way if you think it would be worthwhile. – iridescent 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, and thanks for all the cleanup work you've done on it. You now have more edits to it than me (although I do have an additional 40-odd edits to a userspace version which was cut-&-pasted in). – iridescent 13:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If any TPS knows about more about image copyright issues than I…

Can someone offer a second (third, fourth) opinion on this image and the associated deletion debate? I'm 99% certain it's a hand-tinted photograph and not a painting (the black-and-white figures on the station platform are a giveaway, as is the fact that trivial elements in the foreground such as gravel and power cables are shown in greater detail than "important" elements further away, such as the locomotive and the building, and that an unsightly power line cuts diagonally across the image). If it is a photograph, the original photograph was undoubtedly taken pre-1923, as it shows the platform which was removed in 1922. There's an issue as to whether the coloring would itself create a new work and if so, when that took place; the original uploader says the image is a postcard postmarked 1915, but I'm not sure how one would go about proving that.

This image is currently the only "problem" image in the article; while it would be a shame to lose it (it does a better job of illustrating the layout of platforms than words can, as well as adding a nice touch of period imagery) it's non-essential, and either way I'd ideally like to get the situation resolved one way or the other. – iridescent 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, I don't think there's a problem with it. But then I know nothing about image copyright either -- Gurch (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If Ravenseft has offered to upload the front and back (on the commons DR) then that should resolve the issue. Incidentally, your deletionism and attempt at leveling up in the MMORPG disappoint me. Giggy (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

At least I managed to get rid of Woman tits. I cannot believe they managed to find three keep voters for Wet pussy. And these same three people will no doubt complain next time Wikipedia's not being taken seriously enough. – iridescent 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Break:Postcard copyright

I've now raised the "problem" here. It seems particularly idiotic to be uploading the reverse of every postcard just to prove when it was used; what happens in the case of unused postcards? Because such cards are quite expensive, it also limits the use of valuable PD material. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the deletion request* personally, as I think it illustrates Redvers's gripe about Commons perfectly – that too many people there (by no means all) are obsessed with policy at the cost of common sense. I'm not going to lose sleep over this one – while it's a good image to have, it's not essential. I hope you see now what I meant when I wrote at the peer review about the problem of using "almost certainly public domain" images… – iridescent 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

*Not with the actual request, but with the way the "delete" arguers are thinking – iridescent 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame because it's a decent image, and the various comments left demonstrate a complete lack of understanding not only of copyright law but also of old postcards in general. On a more positive note my local library has a complete collection of the Railway Magazine and I'm planning to have a look at the April 1905 edition to see if there's anything worth using. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an undisputed one of the passenger car in use, that would be a great one to have, as that's the obvious missing link. – iridescent 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User Ravenseft seems to be doing a grand job of pointing out the idiocy of requiring front and backs for postcards. What guarantee is there that the back is even from the same postcard? Lunacy. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; both with you that he's doing an excellent job, and with him that the goalposts seem to be being frantically rearranged to a pointless extreme. (In the million-to-one event that the postcard was hand-tinted after 1923 despite being taken before then, and that the tinter or the heirs of the tinter are eagerly pursuing royalties Happy Birthday to You-style from every copyright infringer, then giving extra publicity to their picture can surely only increase its value?) – iridescent 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have believed for some time now that there's a hidden agenda at work behind much of these increasingly absurd image policies. Let's take the worst case, it's a copyright violation. So what? What commercial benefit has been gained that would make it worthwhile to pursue a copyright case through the courts? In the exceedingly unlikely event that a legitimate copyright holder complains, then the image can be removed, no harm done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In some cases – photographs of living people, for example – I can see the point, in that they don't want images released into the public domain that can then be amended and used to illustrate attack pieces. For something like this, the argument doesn't hold water – does anyone seriously think the heirs of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway are going to take legal action? – iridescent 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about recent stuff, but I'm reminded of a TV advert for Renault (I think), in which the director stops the film and rewinds to airbrush out some graffiti on a tree in a distant forest. To demonstrate their attention to detail. I'm wondering if I was to send this image to NASA and ask them to blow it and enhance it, would we then see a copyrighted picture stuck on the wall of the driver's cab, thus making it a "derivative work"? Crazy seems to feed on crazy. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

← On the subject of this particular image, I've asked Durova to have a look; she's probably our most experienced user when it comes to the technicalities and issues of working with older images. If she shows up here or on the Commons thread and anyone (yes, that means you) feels the need to argue, please do try to keep it semi-civilised. Much as I admire most of what Giano does, a talkpage like his is not something I feel the need to emulate. – iridescent 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

…and she's made the very helpful suggestion which hadn't occurred to me at all, that if it's taken off Commons and hosted on Wikipedia, then it's covered by Florida law and not country-of-first-publication law, and since it can be demonstrated to be pre-1923 it is public domain in the US. Some things make me glad I don't understand copyright law. – iridescent 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Break: TPS?

(outdent) I don't' know crap about copyright, but thought I'd mention: I was looking at my watchlist, and saw "If any TPS..." and I thought TPS? TPS? and then it clicked and I thought, oh right, that would be me. *blush* a little slow today.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It even has its own acronym. – iridescent 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I actually did get that, that would be the "click" that happened. OTOH, maybe the "click" was my brain trying to turn over. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed

Rather than see the FAC derailed (sic) with a long-winded discussion of this, I've removed the image from the article until the status is definitively decided, either by a Commons decision to keep or a decision to host it locally on en-wiki that isn't challenged by the Fair Use Police. The FAC is currently on 0-0-0 still, and I don't want it to get bogged down on this relatively minor issue. – iridescent 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Hey Jerry teps. Thanks for cleaning up the recent vandalism on my user page. Happy editing to you and your kin. FlyingToaster 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the residue from the /b/ attack last week or what, but every crank on the net seems to be paying us a visit tonight. – iridescent 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call

On restoring rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully there'll be no drama from it. He really does have a genuine use for it and doesn't just want it as a trophy, and I really don't think he'll abuse it. (Famous last words, I know…) – iridescent 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Big Boy on DYK

Yeah, I thought they weren't going to put it up. Do you know when it will appear on the main page then? — Realist² 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how frequently they update it; I know there are five queues, and a bot automatically works through them, but I don't know what the order is or how frequently. – iridescent 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Live. But you probably already knew that. You can now really annoy Sandy and put a big garish Triple Crown on your userpage. – iridescent 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Michael Jackson 'Great Idea' Award — From the Michael Jackson WikiProject
		For planting the seeds that would see the creation of and DYK for Big Boy (The Jackson 5 song). It was a great idea, it's been too long without an MJ related article on the main page. — Realist2 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on that one. It's drawing surprisingly few vandals, given that it contains three links to pages which scream "vandalise me!". – iridescent 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I might apply for the crown, or just wait still I get a second DYK. — Realist² 22:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want another thought, you're about to come up to a lot of significant anniversaries in a few months (May, July, August, September, October, December, and of course. And Raul does like Significant Anniversaries when it comes to choosing articles for WP:TFA. We shook off everything this rabble could throw at us; it might be worth giving it a go. – iridescent 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I few weeks ago I asked Raul if Michael Jackson would be suitable for the main page, he did not reply...— Realist² 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul tends not to be all that talkative (comparatively). You might want to ask Sandy or some of the FAC regulars for their opinion. I'd tend to think that if we can have 4chan on the main page and survive, we can have Michael Jackson. If nothing else it would be a good real-world test of Flagged Revisions. – iridescent 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, he did reply: ("I don't object to featuring that on the main page (It hasn't appeared for the same reason lots of others haven't -- because there's a large backlog.)") – iridescent 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So he did, I only kept checking for a few days. Realist² 07:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lurve

Hi could you salt it? thx DFS454 (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only been created twice today and before that not for almost two years. I've temporarily salted it - I don't want to do so permanently as it is a potentially valid title. – iridescent 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough DFS454 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

??

it wasn't vandalism!! read it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.9.42 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that a fact? Go back to /b/. – iridescent 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE UNBLOCK MY TALK!

I'VE SERVED MY CONSEQUENCE AND WILL NOT MESS UP YOUR PAGE ANYMORE. REALLY. IF YOU DO NOT MIND, PLEASE UNBLOCK MY TALK PAGE. --j-01101 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done as your block has now expired. Any abuse from you and not only your account but your IP are hardblocked indefinitely. – iridescent 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Trinitee57.JPG

This image was uploaded the right way and has been used in Trin-i-tee 5:7. Your request was declined and tag was removed. The image is not copyrighted. Tarysky (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Iri, I think that's you shut down. لennavecia 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This conversation does not involve you User:Jennavecia (with all do respect). According to the bot, your edits were wrong and removed. Tarysky (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad for speedy rather than PUI-tagging it, but the fact remains that it's not used in any article and is a fairly blatant copyright violation. Off to Orphaned fairuse images as of 19 January 2009 it goes. There's no "borderline" about this one. – iridescent 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

due respect. And that's me shut down. لennavecia 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar question

I received a question about whether to write "a historic" or "an historic". Please reply on my talk page because the guy who asked me is watching there. Thanks! Crystal whacker (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also posted on your talk: the Guardian style guide goes with "a historic"; the Times style guide with "an historic". Take your pick. Personally, in the Wikipedia context I'd go with "a historic" every time, as it's a legitimate variant in every version of English, unlike "an historic". One or the other MOS-types who watch this page may be able to point you to a musty policy page buried somewhere in the MOS. – iridescent 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sly

I'll overlook your unspeakably taboo act of editing my comments because... it was funny. --barneca (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would I do a thing like that? – iridescent 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, yes. --barneca (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? Ever since I was unmasked as an evil sockpuppet, the bounds of your petty rules can no longer restrain my evil plans. Bizarrely, my Evil Sockmaster is apparently Ericorbit, of whom I probably have one of the lowest crossovers I have with any established editor; 633 pages in common, compared to 841 with you, 1273 with Lara, and 9462 with J.delanoy. – iridescent 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a shame; you're about to get indef blocked as a sockpuppet, while I am on the ascendancy. I've just sort of been nominated as a "bureaucrat". --barneca (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What do I know? I have no life. or friends. because i am gay. – iridescent 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! What's the word I'm looking for; ironic? redundant? eponymous? self-... something? I know there's a word, I can't think of it. Someone has nothing better to do that write "you have no life" on random Wikipedia pages? Ha! Reminds me of the people who revert with the edit summary "stop edit warring!!" --barneca (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my favourite recent "uninvited guest". At least he's honest. – iridescent 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Charming. I especially liked the random breaking of the Malleus toolserver link; that'll teach you! --barneca (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. لennavecia 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm an enemy of the people... among other things. لennavecia 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a "life whore", and where do I get one? -- Gurch (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to oblige. – iridescent 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What, my plastic surgeon on DYK? o.O

Ping. — Realist² 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we've run out of notable subjects and are now moving on to the non-notable ones. – iridescent 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey...

You're an admin and not connected with horse articles in any way, shape form or fashion. Can you possibly help put out a small brush fire at Template:Equidae? I don't particularly want either blocked, but perhaps a bit of cooling off time is in order. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

it always puzzles me why people think this requires an administrator -- Gurch (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we are all-powerful. >_> لennavecia 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because in this respect, past behavior has proven the two editors listen better to an admin, sad as it may be. The trick is finding an uninvolved one that both will listen to. Thanks again, Gurch. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Gurch has handled it. My knowledge of the subject comes from a single essay by Steven Jay Gould, so anything I'd add would likely be clueless and unhelpful. Protecting The Wrong Version in cases like this generally does more harm than good – except for things like Israel where you know the two sides will never reach a consensus, leaving the editwar to burn itself out is usually easiest. It's not like either version is factually incorrect or actively disruptive. – iridescent 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Realist2/Big Boy (The Jackson 5 song)

Can you remove the categories from this page please. I forgot to do it before getting it protected. Thank you. — Realist²

Done - but why is it protected? It's never been vandalised, and policy is clear that this is an inappropriate full-protection (unless J.delanoy knows something else in the history that's been oversighted). – iridescent 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, given that it's now in mainspace, is there any need for the userspace version to exist? – iridescent 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was busy creating an article, I think I sent it to RFPP if my memory serves me correct. I wanted it protected because no1 would edit it again (including myself) and my sub pages are somewhat prone to vandalism. If you want to unprotect it feel free, just another sub page I need to add to by watchlist. I wasn't aware of that, I do apologies for making the protection request. — Realist² 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're never going to edit it again, and you're not going to allow anyone else to, why keep it at all? This is a wiki. Anyway, since when does the protection policy permit indefinite full protection of arbitrary user subpages simply because the user says so? -- Gurch (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gurch, If I was aware that it was against the protection policy do you think I would of asked for it? I didn't demand it, I asked for it, and was given it. It's really that simple. Had I been aware of the policy I would not have asked. I really didn't see a problem, I'm sorry. — Realist² 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed – everyone has all kind of crap floating around in their userspace, and while I don't really like full-protection of anything – mainspace or otherwise – that's not a major vandal target (and think anyone with even semi-protection of pages that anyone should be able to edit such as talkpages should with a very few exceptions make their way to Citizendium, where they'll find the climate more to their liking), it's not an unreasonable request to make. Nobody can be expected to know all of our – often mutually contradictory – policies. – iridescent 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just surprised you see the need for it. I don't see any problem with leaving it protected (although someone may unprotect it at some point – generally permanent-full-protection is only used for high-vandalism templates) – I have assorted full-protected stuff floating around in my userspace (most notably the automated quote-generators at the top of this page and my userpage, which are too tempting a vandal-target to leave unprotected). In the case of this article "anyone can edit" doesn't apply, since anyone wanting to edit it would be editing the article itself. It might make more sense to either {{db-g7}} it or do a history-merge with the mainspace article, though, unless you have a need to keep it for some reason. – iridescent 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have generally just protected userpages (other than the user's main talk page) upon request, regardless of whether they are vandalized or not. If you want to unprotect it, feel free. I never saw it as a problem before. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly a "problem", but I believe (as I imagine do many other users) that page protection should be used only when absolutely necessary. This being a wiki and all -- Gurch (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of Perlachturm edit

Hi Iridescent, I am writing a skilled work about the reliability of Wikipedia and did a few malicious edits own my own for understanding the coherence of the website' s self healing capacities. You reverted my anonymous edit after 13 minutes, and I' d be glad to know if you used a bot or did the reverting yourself (as the perlachturm has only 200 clicks a month). I also want to add that my useful edits of course outweigh the vandalism I did. Frusciantor (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while bots can spot common vandalism, insertion of malicious falsehoods can only be spotted by human editors. And if you continue wasting the time of those people who have to manually clean up after your mess, I will block your IP from editing Wikipedia. We are not your personal testing ground; please find somewhere else to carry out your "experiments". Since this is the sum total of your contributions, I find it hard to believe that "my useful edits of course outweigh the vandalism I did". – iridescent 21:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

O.o

"A picture say's a thousand words", make it two thousand... — Realist² 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if they made a movie with that cast I'd pay to see it… What's with the old man? And the dorky kid in the background? And the fact that the only black guy in the picture is lighter-skinned than everyone else? And if you were choosing "an individual to take an interest in the child's upbringing and personal development", would Michael Jackson be your first choice? – iridescent 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's so odd, but a part of me want's to believe this is a real picture, not a fake, just for the randomness of it all. Do you think the old guy even realizes who he is sitting next to? Probably not. — Realist² 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it's genuine. Parisexposed.com is a genuine site selling scans of personal photos she left in a storage locker and didn't pay the bill for (reliable source). – iridescent 22:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well well well. So this is what he get's up to, after a nap in his hyperbaric chamber thingy. — Realist² 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the old guy is Lionel Ritchie without his makeup on? Or Janet without hers? – iridescent 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Fox news is a reliable source now? I should have watchlisted this talk page sooner. Synergy 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so. – iridescent 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think fox news are reliable with two exceptions, Political issues and possibly BLP issues. I would rather people use fox news as a sources than the current crappy obscure web links used. If every Wikipedia article was sourced head to toe by Fox news sources (heaven forbid), the encyclopedia would be better than it currently is. Most articles have no sources at all. All hail an invasion of Faux News. — Realist² 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy forever!

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

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

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

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

Shalom gets his hands on me and Majorly

Majorly – who is not exactly someone I'm in the habit of agreeing with – puts it better than I could. Although WP:WIKISPEAK is now in project and not userspace, it's still closely associated with Malleus, and there's no point in his getting blamed for a personal attack on a named editor by someone else on a page associated with him.

To equate that with your running multiple campaigns of harassment against multiple people (both Wikipedia editors and real life individuals), using a variety of sockpuppets, impersonation accounts, and a lame attempt to use Wikipedia as a google-bomb is just laughable. I agree with Majorly; while I often oppose RFAs, yours is probably the only one I'm actively thankful didn't pass. You were a disruptive whiny little troll last year, and you still are now. Now go away, take your sockpuppets with you, and all of you please keep away from me. – iridescent 15:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You were a liar last year and you are still a liar now, but that's all I say because I don't want to be blocked. Have no fear, I will be going RTV and will not be bothering you anymore. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Shalom, I don't think Iri or I were much fearing you. I hope your life isn't as empty as your threats. PS Why don't you want to be blocked? You don't appear to have any use for this account anymore, and with every edit you make, you're looking more and more moronic. Majorly talk 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, my life is very good without Wikipedia, thank you very much. It was a lot emptier when I was active here. Make of that what you will.

I wrote something else here, but I've said enough. Not everything you write should be published. I'm scrambling the password after I make sure everything is in order; pity that when I did it in July 2007 I got it back through email. Oh, that reminds me; I gotta disable email too. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"When I was active here" as far as I can see you're as active as ever, but have taken to annoying users you don't like. While you continue to do this you are liability to the project. Stop or leave.--Patton^t/c 21:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) "Right to vanish" doesn't mean "right to have your talkpage deleted but still hang round my talkpage whining". Go away. There might conceivably be some part of Wikipedia where your ramblings are welcome, but it isn't here. – iridescent 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You

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

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

A bone to pick

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

Who are you? -- Gurch (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's Giggy (talk · contribs) Majorly talk 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we be certain of that? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like these are going to be needed soon Patton^t/c 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's a suckputter. EyeSerene^talk 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

^ 3 more high-profile non-admins. unlike those you mentioned, none of them likely to pass RfA though :( -- Gurch (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Make that four :-( J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

+1 --->> Majorly talk 17:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you were in the original 3. Though if you count me, I guess that makes 5 -- Gurch (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we not forgetting the skeleton at the feast here? – iridescent 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jenna does not have to go through RFA though. Majorly talk 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to admit, that would make DHMO5 look like a cosy fireside chat if it happened. – iridescent 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Balloonman, see what I did there?

You left out the exclamation mark. BURN! –  22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

DAMN YOU... BURN!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And I just saw your Balloon.... double BURN!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You and Keeper have a secret admirer, ← (warning! badsite link! click it and you'll probably die!) incidentally. Or at least, an anonymous one. – iridescent 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How come I never have secret admirers :( there isn't even an ED page on me -- Gurch (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You must be heartbroken. If it's any consolation I don't think I do either. Although Shalom is no doubt beavering away on one as I write. – iridescent 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's one on Huggle, but it's not very good -- Gurch (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much on ED is. – iridescent 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hellingly Hospital Railway

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

It's doing better than I thought; I expected a bunch of "oppose, too short" comments and none of them have come in. If not for the fact that it's so boring, I'm half tempted to nominate it for TFA on March 10 or 25, which are the 50th anniversaries of the last service and official closure, respectively. (FWIW, my probable next expand-and-rewrite target, Noel Park, is even more boring than this one.) – iridescent 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that you and I have a common vision for this encyclopedia, that it's big enough to host articles that would never make it into a print encyclopedia. Where perhaps we may disagree slightly is around the definition of "boring". Was it the comedian Frank Carson who had the catch phrase "It's just how you tell 'em", or something like that anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia's strongest point as being in those articles that Britannica wouldn't touch and in the bluelinks. While I could look on any number of sites to find out who Michael Jackson is, only on Wikipedia could I follow a link from there to find out who Rebbie Jackson is, and from there find out who her daughter is. That said, some things are doomed to Brigg railway station style lonely existences, since there really isn't anything to be said about them. (Oh, it's always possible to expand them – A215 road stemmed entirely from an AFD discussion in which someone said it was just a "completely unimportant bog standard suburban road" – but some topics are inherently boring. And some are just plain unexpandable.) – iridescent 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you ever find yourself unable to sleep, tossing and turning in your bed, just take a look at my incipient series on historic computers, beginning with the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Better than any sleeping pills. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Colossus computer the first stored-program computer? Or am I misremembering? It still has some way to go before it beats The Mall (Wood Green) or Skipton railway station as a cure for insomnia. I doubt anything ever will. – iridescent 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Colossus had to be reconfigured for each run. There was no "program" in the modern sense, and nowhere to store it even if there had been. Feeling sleepy yet? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Also, new article created Moon Walk (autobiography). Hard to believe it wasn't started earlier. — Realist² 00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On the first post: it ain't over until the Yellow Star is there. As anyone who's ever watched an RFA knows, things on Wikipedia have a nasty habit of unravelling spectacularly. Don't make any assumptions yet… On the second post, Michael Jackson related content tends to lag behind other music content thanks to the make-up of Wikipedia's contributor base (Jackson, along with Johann Strauss and Glenn Miller, was actually one of the three examples Wikipedia's original FAQ cited as Wikipedia's weakest areas – in Jimbo & Larry's defence, those three articles at the time looked like this, this and this. Whereas the Bach article Larry cites as an example of Wikipedia at its best, looked like this. Everyone who says "Wikipedia isn't improving" might want to bear this in mind.) – iridescent 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. Even I'm occasionally astonished at how much wikipedia has improved since I joined a couple of years ago. If only I'd joined sooner, how much further on would the project have been now? That's a rhetorical question btw, no need for any smart-alec replies. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen my collection of 2004 FAs already, but the contrast between then and today never ceases to amaze me so one more time; it's only four years since these were considered to be our best articles. – iridescent 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Or if you want a more close-to-home example, can you imagine Central Communications Command passing at GAC today? – iridescent 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. That's just about one of the worst GA reviews I've ever seen. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's how they worked way-back-when; they were just a tick-box exercise – and it did meet all six criteria. At some point it will get GAR'd and I certainly won't argue – because it's (still) a secret project, there are gaping holes where no sources exist, and what I'd consider in retrospect to be over-detail in other areas where the sources do exist. – iridescent 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I like your January 2007 signature... -- Gurch (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This one was the most annoying of them all. –  00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That caused me physicial pain and my eyes are now watering...--Patton^t/c 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem myself -- 19:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(ping)

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

Rollback

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

It's a user from German Wikipedia, with 2000 edits. This is why editcountitis for something that should be no big deal is very bad. Majorly talk 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess there is zero difference between the German and the English Wikipedia, am I right? Also, Majorly, I can't recall asking you — unless you are Iridescent. Still I do not think one who has no experience with this project at all should be granted rollback. — Aitias // discussion 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no major difference really, other than the language. Obviously, I am not Iridescent, but I'm sure Iridescent doesn't mind me answering for her. Why don't you think that user should have rollback? Even if they were an administrator on multiple other projects would you oppose the idea of it? Majorly talk 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if one is an administrator on another project, there's no need for ignoring the general guidelines for giving out rollback completely. However, this user is not anyway. We still have some tools like WP:TWINKLE and WP:UNDO that are meant for gaining some experience. Granting rollback to an editor with no experience at all is not appropriate in my opinion. — Aitias // discussion 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why you're making an issue out of this, but that is of course your choice and you are free to do that :) My opinion differs completely of course. Rollback is easy to give, and easy to remove. Someone with a lot of experience on a sister project should be given leeway here. But that is my opinion. Feel free to disagree with it, as I disagree with yours :) Majorly talk 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any admin who joins a wmf project I'm an admin on, is given rollback. Its illogical to think they would have to bend over backwards to obtain such an easy feature. Synergy 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that this user is not an admin? — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that it shouldn't matter? FYI he's a "sighter" on de.wiki, which I think is something to do with flagged revisions - and has been since October. Are you suggesting this user is in any way untrustworthy? Majorly talk 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My statement was made after I saw Even if one is an administrator on another project, there's no need for ignoring the general guidelines for giving out rollback completely. Thats just process wonkery, for the sake of process, etc. I have no opinion over the user in question. Synergy 00:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know you are well aware, Majorly — my question was intended for Synergy as their comment reads like they are not aware. Also, I nowhere said it matters. Again, my point is that one with no experience here, simply, should not be granted rollback. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So even if they demonstrated good use of it on de.wiki, you'd be opposed to them having it here? Majorly talk 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is this Majorly dude anyway? Some guy from Meta, I think. Sounds dodgy, we shouldn't trust him -- Gurch (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Aitias, what point exactly are you trying to make? Yes, I think granting rollback is totally appropriate in this case. As you quite rightly say, all the functionality of rollback can be duplicated by checking a single tick-box in preferences; the only difference between admin-rollback and twinkle-rollback is that the former is faster and easier on the servers. The only reasons we don't give the function to all accounts – as we already do with the "undo" button – are that (a) it can make it easier to make mistakes for people unfamiliar with the quirks of the MediaWiki interface; (b) it makes certain forms of vandalism marginally easier and (c) it allows access to Huggle with all the potential for bulk-fuckups which that entails. Point (a) is not an issue for a user familiar with the interface through a long history on a sister project; (b) is only an issue if you're insinuating that this user is a vandal, in which case present some evidence; (c) is a gamble we take with all users, and if it becomes an issue then removing Huggle is just a case of going to User:TobiasKlaus/huggle.css and setting "enable=false".

I hope I don't sound offensive, but your attitude in the thread above represents the absolute worst of the Wikipedia hivemind mentality; process-for-the-sake-of-process with no reasoning behind it, and an apparent belief that an admin button somehow makes a user superior to ordinary mortals. (I hope you'll notice that of the five participants in the thread above, nobody aside from you – including the author of your precious Huggle – is an administrator). Either point out what you think the problem is (in your own words, without resorting to WP:ALLCAPS), or stop this thread right here. – iridescent 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Irid was perfectly justified in giving the Rollback. It's hardly a lethal weapon is it? In fact, more eye brows would have been raised if she/he refused the request. — R² 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, Iridescent; it seems to be the best to stop this thread. If I see any kind of abuse/misuse I will remove rollback straight away. Finally, I'd like to clarify that (when I left this message here) I was not aware of this user being active on the German Wikipedia — if I had been aware, I most probably wouldn't have left a message here. — Aitias // discussion 14:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Of you weren't aware why didn't you just say "oh right kk" when you were told he was a major contributer on de wiki and leave it at that?--Patton^t/c 17:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I could use some more eyes...

At Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_redirect, if Iri or any of the TPS would like to join in. It's a particularly bad venue for the question being raised (Whether Saint Pancake and St. Pancake should redirect to Rachel Corrie), so I doubt it's really going to get the right sets of eyes. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On a quick glance my gut instinct is that that's only a valid redirect if it's a term in common enough usage that there's a legitimate expectation that people will be searching on it (someone who's seen the term used and wonders who it refers to). The search statistics don't seem to bear that out. I'll warn you now that any dispute involving the power word "Israel" will draw every crank under the sun and you'll find it impossible to get a consensus; I suspect you'll end up going the create→RFD→WP:DRV route before you get a stalemate "consensus". – iridescent 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's busy creating dramah at ANI now. I did look at the search terms--St. Pancake is actually more popular than Saint Pancake, and together they got about 12 hits a month last year. The Middle East angle hasn't really been brought up at all... a lot more of the arguments seem to be based around the assertion that it's a G10 and hence prohibited from existing, despite oodles of other redirects from (disparaging and unofficial) names that exist. I watchlisted this months ago, wondering when someone would notice and try and censor it. Took a good long while. Jclemens (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)