User talk:Iridescent: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 7 February 2009

O.o

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A bone to pick

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

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

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

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

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

^ 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)[reply]

Make that four :-( J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

You left out the exclamation mark. BURN! –

22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Someone decided I'm a dick because my talkpage is myspacey? I never claimed it to be otherwise. Love It. And, I'm pretty sure that 47.3% of the posts were yours Iridescent, so if I win the 2009 award (got my fingers crossed), I'll be sure to mention you in my acceptance speech. :-) Keeper | 76 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

o_O Dude, the main poster in that link has been blocked since 2006. As in two thousand and six. As in 3 years ago. Does anyone else think that he has held this anti-WP grudge too long and should get on with RL? Holy cow... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually want a serious answer to that; no, I don't. Wikipedia Review isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica; while some of the WR crowd are disruptive assholes or inveterate whiners, there are many more – User:Herschelkrustofsky among them – who perform a valuable service in discussing and analysing flaws in our systems, in spotting the POV-pushers and sockpuppeteers before we do (it was WR, not ourselves, who spotted Mantanmoreland, Kristen Eriksen, Poetlister…) and in acting as a handbrake on some of our more over-eager admins' excesses. What we do here does affect people in real life, and sometimes I think our critics have a better sense of that than we do. Besides, having problems with specific actions or specific editors is most definitely not the same as "an anti-WP grudge"; the reason so many people (including much of Arbcom) post at WR is because the overzealous activity of the Civility Police makes it impossible to have conversations about problematic editors on-wiki without it degenerating into the sort of crackpottery you see a couple of threads up from here. Part of the reason RFA is such a flamepit is because AGF/CIV prevents (or at least, inhibits) anyone raising issues with problematic editors at an earlier stage.

FWIW, Herschelkrustofsky wasn't banned from Wikipedia for "poop" vandalism or pagemove trolling, but as part of an insanely convoluted Arbcom case regarding the interpretation of NPOV on Lyndon LaRouche, involving a veritable Who's Who of Wikipedia's drama-queens, from which nobody emerged with much if any credit. – iridescent 09:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(to Keeper) He specifically singles out users posting about baseball, though. Since IIRC my sole comment on the topic was "despite growing up two counties away from Cooperstown, I think baseball was invented in a patriotic effort to make a game even more boring and incomprehensible than cricket" (or words to that effect), I'm guessing I'm safe. – iridescent 12:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This one was the most annoying of them all. –

00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see the problem myself --

19:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Yay you. Well done. Neat article, got anymore in the pipeline? On an unrelated note, this will interest you. — R ² 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't give up, does he? I suspect he's a trolling sock of someone else, but there aren't grounds for checkuser at the moment. My (alleged) forthcoming articles are here, but don't hold your breath for some of them. – iridescent 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — R ² 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Because "kk" is one of the most stupid bits of IM lingo ever created. Giggy (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Narmer Palette

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

Assuming you mean this run of edits, I don't think he's being malicious, just overenthusiastic. Looking at his talkpage, it looks like he's having serious problems understanding the difference between facts and opinions.

Rather than get involved myself, I'm going to suggest you contact User:MacGyverMagic, who as well as being a WP administrator and consequently able to do any necessary cluestick-waving, is able to read hieroglyphs himself and consequently able to speak with more authority than any "well, I read it on this website…" input I'd be able to add. – iridescent 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think he is malicious, but as he has had several blocks over a few years for OR, I think it is going to be difficult to get him to change his ways. I'll take your suggestion. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising of CU/OS election proposal

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

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

hello again :P

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

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

Tavistock Abbey

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

I believe it's privately owned and in the stewardship of the Duke of Bedford, but don't quote me. I'll do some checking. – iridescent 20:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying to cover all my bases before FAC, and one of the usual ones is "what ruins did he leave behind"...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Listed as an Ancient Monument; West Devon is the registering authority. – iridescent 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As regards specific ruins, as of 1822 "The refectory and abbot's hall of Tavistock abbey remain, but in an altered state, as mentioned in p. 474. The gate-house also remains, and a building with turrets and pinnacles, now converted into a mill. In the court, before the present abbey-house, is an arch, about nine feet high, and nearly 13 in width, supported by short slender pillars with rich foliated capitals, and within it several small trefoil-headed arches, in the style of the early Gothic of the thirteenth century.". I suspect matters haven't changed much. The closest thing to an official site I can find is this; the pertinent paragraph is "Nearby are most of the existing remains of the Abbey. All are scheduled as Ancient Monuments. The most picturesque is the Court Gate, an archway leading from Bedford Square to Guildhall Square. The archway houses the Museum and the “Subscription Library” -one of the oldest private libraries in Devon. The Arch stands on the site of the main entrance to the great courtyard of the Abbey." but it doesn't actually date the ruins. [1] appears to be a reliable (albeit dated) source, and if you can get hold of the "Archaeological investigations at Tavistock Abbey" mentioned here it should do the trick. We do have a WikiProject Devon who look fairly active, you might want to ask them if they have anything. – iridescent 20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick thought regarding ruins – as Tavistock was far enough from the Gloucestershire/Wiltshire war zone not be be directly threatened, but close enough to be in travelling distance, there's a very good chance that anything Saxon at the site would have been stripped down for the fortifications of Wareham, Bristol and Devizes during the Anarchy. An 11th century dismantling followed by a rebuilding under the Angevins would make sense of the inconsistency between all these "built in the 13th century" citations and the earlier pre-Conquest references. – iridescent 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that arch I keep seeing pictured is definitely Gothic, so that section at least antedates Ealdred (who was abbot from 1027 to about 1046), it's more if there are other, less picturesque, parts that might remain. Johnbod didn't come up with anything from his art stuff about Ealdred and Tavistock, but you never know.. better to beat the bushes and make sure you've hit everything you can before FAC. I'll keep digging. And did you see that Pipe rolls made GA? It's still a long ways from FA, but it's on its way... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Pipe rolls – I'm amazed there was so much to say about it. ("Influence on other records" surely ought to at least mention the Chancery rolls, though? Rolls aren't an intuitive way to store documents, and the thinking behind the series must have been the same.) Having just wasted a good chunk of the day making a special trip out in the snow (I love the way this country treats a six inch snowfall as a national catastrophe – and I'm really not exaggerating there) to take what may be the single most boring photo-series on Wikipedia, I'm currently feeling very uninclined to do any actual writing. I'm quite taken by this photo though, for managing to cram so many "England at its most godforsaken" elements into a single picture. (Bleak expanse of concrete?✓ Disused railway line?✓ Mangy council flats?✓ Decaying 1950s prefab housing?✓ Grimy Victorian terraces?✓ Dead trees?✓ Forests of satellite dishes?✓ Hideously ugly 1980s-modernist church?✓ Totally deserted streets?✓) If I ever succeed in my long term and almost-certainly-ain't-gonna-happen aim of getting "Geography of the Moselle valley" up to Featured Topic status, I think this should serve as the front-page image. At a forced width, just to be annoying. – iridescent 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, another thought on the abbey – ask Giano. Although it's outside the period he covers, there's a reasonable chance he'll have a set of Pevsner knocking around his house. – iridescent 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just returned from trudging out in the snow to chase the horses back into the barn so they could be fed. At least the Midwest of the US is much more used to snow, so we don't grind to a halt. (Although the horses seem to think we should wait on them hand and foot when it gets nasty...) We're not much more exciting here... dreary snow, dead grass, leafless trees and furry horses. Pretty much standard winter here! Pipe rolls will have to wait on a visit to the local university library, I THINK they have copies of some stuff I need. I hope they do, at least. I dropped a note on the Devon WP, we'll see what turns up. I let Malleus and David loose on Ealdred to copyedit it, so he's in good hands. Now I have to decide who to work on next... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of nice shiny redlinks here… – iridescent 22:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If the late 14th century isn't too recent for you, you can always do something about Julian of Norwich, who has sat on my to-do list untouched since October 2007. (My to-do list is very much an aspiration, not a target. The BLPs on it, in particular, have been there untouched since I first joined.) – iridescent 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further on Tavistock - found a Reliable Source for the refectory, at least, surviving until at least 1822:

Now if we just knew if Ealdred had built those buildings... (the refractory he built was at Beverley or Southwell...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll allow the venturing into OR, I suspect there wasn't a lot of building in the area in the period; there'd been no Viking raids to clean up after so earlier buildings were probably standing. Pure speculation, though. – iridescent 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian

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

I have a strong feeling she'll still be on my to-do list when Jimbo gets bored and pulls the plug. She's almost impossible to write about as a person, as opposed to discussion of her one book, due to scarcity and bias of sources. A very interesting character, though. – iridescent 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) Assuming you won't mind, I've added a link to your sources page to the public To Do List on my userpage, in case any stalker wants to have a stab at expanding her. I will get round to her at some point, but I want to get the "Buildings of the Moselle Valley" and "Geography of the Lea Valley" article sets up to at least a semi-coherent standard before I start forgetting material. – iridescent 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. I really am not an "intellectual history" person, and I think that about exhausted my msyticism writing for a week or two. I much prefer the naughty but efficient bishops like Stigand or Ranulf Flambard. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Ealdred – would it make sense to include the image of Ealdred from the Bayeux Tapestry? (Not on Commons for some reason, but it's this panel). It seems very odd not to include one, given that you've included one of Harold, and Ealdred is one of the few Saxon figures who is unambiguously labelled in the tapestry. – iridescent 23:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. Of course it would, if I had remembered he was on the silly thing. I claim an entire semester spent listening to one fellow student drone on about his thesis on the BT, while I tried hard to stay awake. (The only one worse was the guy talking about Suger and Grossteste. I REALLY don't like intellectual history!). I can scan it from my book of the BT or we can swipe one, either way. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only version I can see on a quick Google Image search on "Bayeux coronation -Harold" that's at a reasonable scale is the one I linked to, and that's very washed-out (I didn't look very hard, admittedly). Probably better to scan it in if you have a decent-size copy. – iridescent 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian-Carthaginian Treaty proofread and expanded

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

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

Sockpuppet welcome

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

Replace {{welcome}} with it. Nobody ever clicks those links, anyway. – iridescent 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps on 1 April... Bencherlite ^Talk 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (I think Gurch) once wrote the code to make a Wikipedia page appear formatted as a Facebook page. I would love to apply that to the main page on April 1 if anyone could persuade The Cabal to do it. – iridescent 01:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum) This was it. – iridescent 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's impressive. Useight (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, anyone who knows HTML and wikitext should be able to mock-up pretty much any website, minus things that rely on complex CSS or scripting and Ajax (which the current Facebook layout does far too much to be replicable) -- Gurch (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone actually started using a similar format for their userpage some months ago. I forgot which editor. A prolific one. Enigma^msg 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(re Gurch) Big difference between "theoretically could" and "actually could" though. I could, in the sense that I'd spend maybe a week playing about with chunks of html lifted from "view source" on Facebook and dropping them into Wikipedia by trial-and-error, but I sure as hell couldn't get anything better than a crude approximation. That particular page even won the dubious honour of being called "an impressive exercise in geekly coding" by the only user ever to complete the full-house of a ban on every single WMF project.

(Re Enigmaman) It was Swatjester, but he lifted it from Gurch. – iridescent 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only took about 4 hours. I was bored beyond belief, though :| -- Gurch (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL...

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

hugs

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

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

Happy Iridescent's Day!

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

Cheers,
bibliomaniac 1 5
01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er… thanks, I guess. I've never had a day before. Any particular significance to today? – iridescent 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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

I know AGF is A Good Thing, but if any of those images are legitimate… You'd think he could at least be slightly less blatant about it. – iridescent 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Thanks also from me, I was no looking forward to tagging all of those images! (EhJJ)^TALK 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of warnings (s)he's already been given, I think we can safely assume WP:AGF has reached its natural limit. I've issued a final warning; any more of this and I'll indefblock the account. Yes, there are plenty of valid contributions there but the sheer scale of copyright violation is unignorable. – iridescent 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns

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

I think it looks fine (I personally would lose the editcounts, but I have an extreme dislike for them which I recognise is a minority view (the arguments both for and against editcountitis are summed up here). I do think you have a "no fault of your own" issue with your username, which sounds immature regardless of your actual maturity; nobody (I would hope) will turn round and oppose your RFA request/FAC nomination/AFD suggestion etc on the grounds of it, but it may make people on the borderline look more deeply than normal for reasons to disagree with you/oppose you.

This page is watched quite heavily; you may find a bunch of people now turn up here posting similar comments and making suggestions – if they do, don't take anything as a personal insult! You're obviously not a myspacer or "joke" account, and anyone criticising you will be doing so because they're trying to help you, even if it seems annoying at the time. – iridescent 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username already see this.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea, personally. And Balloonman can hardly argue at the moment. – iridescent 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your username was a great step. No insults from me. :) Synergy 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted someone is turning up to make a drive by comment. I agree with iridescent, your current name is slightly immature, though your userpage is fine IMO. Personally i odn't like meus but that's just me.--Patton^t/c 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 280: / Line 280: @@
 :::I think it's a good idea, personally. And Balloonman can hardly argue at the moment.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font><font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]'' 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 :::Changing your username was a great step. No insults from me. :) '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
+:::As predicted someone is turning up to make a drive by comment. I agree with iridescent, your current name is slightly immature, though your userpage is fine IMO. Personally i odn't like meus but that's just me.--[[User:Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">c</font>]]</sup> 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)