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‑]

Bruce Castle

Have you considered taking the above article to GAC? It already reads well, and I like the structure, breaking it down into construction and its residents. I also like how popular opinion/theory is laid out, but in the interest of neutrality it's pointed out why it's unlikely or that there's no evidence. If it were to go to GAC, the lead would need expanding, and I do have some questions. Would it be better to bring together all the structural changes under the construction section? At the moment it ends in the 17th century, but the house was still changing (ornamental staircases and some demolition). Were there any royal visits or other such notable events at the castle that could be mentioned? Also, it's not explained how John Eardley Wilmot acquired the house from Thomas Smith. It's a nice article, and of a high standard, and as you're the one who added most of the content I thought you were the right person to ask. Nev1 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally disagree with bringing the structural amendments together in a single section; at present, the article is written in chronological order, which sets the changes in the context of their purpose. Were the architecture of the building to be confined to a single section at the start, the background to the near-doubling in size of the house following its conversion to a school would either have to be duplicated to provide a context for the amendment, or left unexplained until near the end of the article.

I've no idea how Wilmot acquired the house; I would assume it was a straightforward purchase, but have no source for that and n particular inclination to go digging through Land Registry records to find out. In the absence of a source, I don't think it's significant enough to warrant speculating about in the article.

Although I will very occasionally submit articles to GA – generally in order to set a de facto "last clean version" on articles likely to be heavily re-edited – I don't agree with the GA criteria or process as it stands (or any other article assessment process with the possible exception of FAC, which despite the hoop-jumping element at least generally leads to significant improvements to the article).

That said, were this article to be submitted to GAC/FAC as it stands I'd personally fail it as there are some glaring issues. It has large gaps in the architectural history, some of which are down to the lack of sources regarding the early history of the building, but not all; the circumstances of the remodelling that took it from this to this are barely touched on, and the section on the architecture of the building is made up mainly of unsourced educated-guesses by Giano based on the architectural stylings, rather than anything remotely resembling a reliable source. Additionally, more than 50% of the article is taken up by a laundry-list of residents which veers dangerously close to both a trivia section and an "in popular culture" in parts.

I suspect it would be quite hard to expand this further. Pegram is a seam I pretty much mined dry whilst writing it and to the best of my knowledge there are no other significant works on the topic. The only source left that's likely to be fruitful is Pevsner London 4 which has a couple of pages on the house, but which if I recall correctly isn't particularly informative.

It's been repeatedly poked and prodded by myself, Malleus and Giano, and to be honest if there's much more "potential cleanupability" left after being dissected by that trio I'd be surprised. If you do want to submit it to GAC/FAC, feel free; you might want to ask Malleus about it, as he's both familiar with the article, and far more familiar than I with how the GAC process operates nowadays and whether this article is likely to pass.

If there's anything I can help with regarding expanding it, I'll certainly try, but I'm not sure what else I can add to it. This was (re) written to fill a gap in my unofficial "Buildings of the Moselle valley" filling-a-large-gap-in-coverage series (currently The Mall Wood Green, Broadwater Farm, Bruce Castle, a forthcoming-in-a-few-days complete rewrite of Noel Park currently being fiddled with in userspace, and a fervent hope that someone else takes on White Hart Lane, all of which I want to have up to at least a respectable standard before I give the trainwreck-article that is Lordship Lane, Haringey the same treatment meted out to its equally sprawling and incoherent cousin) and not because I have any specialist knowledge of the topic. – iridescent 18:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're familiar with the subject so I'll defer to your judgement. It's not without issues such as a lot of weight being given to the residents, I can recognise that, but I think it has potential. In my opinion, people underestimate the value of GAC, I've had plenty of reviews which have made very good suggestions for improvement. Bruce Castle is not a subject I'm familiar with, and since I live at the wrong end of the country, I doubt there'll be anything in my local library about it. I see what you mean about limiting sources, a quick search of jstor didn't produce much, although British-history.ac.uk did throw up a few hits that I may look into, but I suspect the information is mostly tangential. I doubt I'll take it to GAC/FAC myself for those reasons, but if I do it won't be for a long time as I've already got several articles I'm working on myself. I'll keep Bruce Castle on my watchlist though, I might change my mind and take a punt anyway. As for Lordship Lane, I'd say it's more of a car crash than a train wreck, and you're braver than I am for taking it on. Thanks for your time and happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My general feeling with Bruce Castle is that (ironically, given that it's a museum) it's unexpandable as – the invention of the postage stamp aside – nothing of any note ever happened there, so no-one ever bothered writing about it. Most coverage of it now is either coverage of the Hill School, or "fancy that, a castle next door to a sink estate!" writing.

Lordship Lane at some point is going to need to be culled, and whoever does it is going to feel awful. This is obviously someone's passion that they've put a hell of a lot of work into – and I know I'd be fuming if anyone did it to something I'd written – but it couldn't be more inappropriate if it tried. Applying WP:50k to Haringey gives a "reasonable number of road articles" of 5; A1 road, A10 road and Green Lanes take up three of those slots automatically as three of the most important streets in the country, leaving this batch of AfD-fodder to fill the vacant slots. (Turnpike Lane, The Roundway and Stroud Green Road should probably all be sent on their way altogether; Lordship Lane and Seven Sisters Road probably just about warrant stubs. None come close to this "every single house on my street" page, though.) – iridescent 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts…

…I'm going to do a backflip on this one; in looking through Pevsner London 4 whilst writing Noel Park, there seems to be enough here to expand the architecture section to a reasonable level. I might try getting this one up to GA/FA after all, but don't hold your breath; I think it'll need quite a bit of rewriting. – iridescent 14:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Feb metro!

Simply south not SS, sorry 14:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this one; I think the balance between facts and trivia is just about right. A little piece of the spirit of Wikipedia died when "Pimlico is the only station on the London Underground containing none of the letters of the word Badger" was deleted. – iridescent 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can just imagine some clown demanding a citation for that, or claiming it to be original research. A bit like "Most human beings have five fingers on each hand ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

[1]. – iridescent 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Noel Park

Multiple Noel Park threads merged into subheads here to stop them taking over the page – no content changed – iridescent 14:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Things

First of all, a very brief over Noel Park. I don't think i really read these articles properly but do have a brieff look anyway. It looks as though the location could do with referencing, even if it is the same reference. A couple of other sections it seems like the refs are easy to miss. Also, why is there such a focus on the history and not so much on the modern things? Finally i would get rid of the population unless that can be backed e.g. by GLA or ONS.

And I'm sorry if i annoy you by replying on this talk page. It is just the way i do the conversations.

The trivia section i actually just transcluded from the portal. There is no new trivia at the mo unless that section can be restarted. I'll just fix that on the portal. Btw, if you are intereted, the trivia was saved a while back to one of my userpages User:Simply south/LU trivia (interesting). This could all do with updating. I also occaisionally watch feedback. I suppose I'm the new head now. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(Replying here as there are others watching Noel Park right now, so they'll see it too)

Agree regarding the location section – even though it's the same reference, I agree with the "at least one ref per paragraph" so have duplicated it. Elsewhere, I'm not sure how I can really move the references, as they're at the end of the sentences they cite.

Regarding the population, the figure comes from Haringey council's figures. I don't really want to have a reference in the infobox if I can avoid it – I'll see what the other people I've asked to look at it think. (The figure Haringey give is "5670", which seems ridiculously overexact, unless they amend their website every time a baby is born or someone dies or moves away – I've deliberately used the vague "5500-6000"). The discrepancy between the "2000 homes" in the article and the "3000 homes" on their website isn't an error, but due to the fact that they're including the 9-story housing block on top of Shopping City as it technically falls within their ward boundaries.

It focuses on the history mainly because there's more to say about the design and building of the estate than the estate as it is today. It's notable because it was one of the earliest garden suburbs and established the template for the later huge-scale council-built suburbs like Wythenshawe and Becontree, and for the complex symbiosis between the builders of the estate and the Great Eastern Railway; while I've tried to cover the modern estate as much as is possible (in the Amenities and Legacy sections especially), with (by definition) no changes since it was listed, and no notable residents (believe me, I checked!) it's hard to find much to say about it. I agree that the ending is weak, but I can't see a way around that – when the ending is "becomes a quiet residential suburb" it's hard to finish with a bang. Also Welch, which is the only book specifically about Noel Park as opposed to isolated chapters in books on either Victorian housing or the GER, effectively stops in the 1980s.

Regarding LT, I can still see the original Trivia page. To be honest, I can't argue with deletion, although (cynically) if you slipped it back into the mainspace under a title avoiding the dreaded T-word ("London transportation facts, figures and folklore"?) it might well survive. – iridescent 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would actually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground statistics. Although some of it has been incorporated into the infrastructure article.

It is okay to put references in Infoboxes. This is clearly demonstrated on all the usages on railway and tube stations. Or maybe there could be a mention in the article instead of just a random figure on which it seems to be (I know you've explained above but it would seem like this from someone else's POV). If you were wondering on the sections on missing refs, i just think a paragraph or two also in construction and the Piccadilly Line. Simply south not SS, sorry 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've split the reference in the Piccadilly Line section, and added the reference to the infobox. Regarding the fraud section in "Construction", which I assume you're referring to, I've split the single long paragraph into two, each with their own reference, which both fixes the "long stretch without a reference" issue and makes it IMO more readable. – iridescent 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting article. I've done a quick copy edit and made a couple of changes:

• Highgate was never independently large enough to be called a town before it got swallowed by the urban expansion, and I think the same can be said for Tottenham, so I have reclassified them as villages.
• references to the Municipal Borough of Wood Green were incorrect as the Borough itself did not come into existence until the 1930s. When the site was purchased it was part of the Tottenham Local Board and the 70th anniversary celebrated in 1958 was for the creation of the Wood Green Local Board.
• The V in Reverend H V Le Bas was indeed Vincent as guessed by Welch - he was Henry Vincent Le Bas. I found a reference to him in the London Gazette here.

Great collection of images - I particular like the ones from the Builder.

There's probably enough here to start an article on the Artizan Company. Something more on Austin would be interesting too.

You would have thought that a name like Swindlehurst might have tipped them off to him being a crook. :)

--DavidCane (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I agree, the combination of a sanitation system designed by Plumbe and a fraud case from Swindlehurst is too poetic.

Broadwater Farm, 1892

Broadwater Farm, 2007

Good catch on the Metropolitan Borough of Wood Green one – of course, you're absolutely right (slaps myself and says "doh!"). Obviously a village with a population of a couple of hundred wouldn't have been an independent local authority at the time, but it's sometimes hard to think in "when I were a lad, this was all fields" mode. To borrow my personal favourite Dramatic Illustration Of Urban Sprawl, taken around a mile up the road from Noel Park, these two photographs are of virtually the same location (albeit from opposite banks of the valley).

At some point I'll knock off at least short stubs on the Artizans Company and on Plumbe – they both certainly warrant coverage. Austin might be a bit trickier, as there doesn't seem to be a great deal on him as a person as opposed to the company. BHG has promised to fill in the other embarrassing ought-not-to-be-a-redlink, Ernest Noel. This article suffers from an identical issue as Hellingly Hospital Railway, in that many of the articles necessary to the background are of such poor quality that facts need to be explained on the "parent" article – but I have made a conscious effort to avoid diverging off into potted-biographies and company-histories. The sole exception to this, on the fortunes of the Artizans Company in later years, I think forms a useful enough commentary on the change in attitudes to housing to warrant keeping. Besides, the manner in which a British philanthropic society managed, with seamless continuity, to wind up as the property-speculation arm of a Canadian multinational is such an interesting story, and a story which is unusually relevant today. – iridescent 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As I had a spare moment, I have created a stub article for Ernest Noel to get rid of the red link. I've used data from his Who Was Who entry, but I'm sure there is more that can be added.

Your pictures show such a contrast. I can't stand the gim-crack rubbish that was put up in the 1960s based on Le Corbusier's ideas, and the gloriously ill-named Broadwater Farm must be very high on the list of crap erected by the London Boroughs which still blights much of capital today. I used to live opposite another vermin-ridden one in Dalston which has, thankfully for its residents, now been demolished and replaced with regular housing. --DavidCane (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Was that Holly Lodge? If so, that's also one of the ones on my long-term to-do list, along with Northumberland Park, London to complete the "Council estates of the Moselle valley" trio, and possibly the sprawling estates surrounding Cambridge, Bath, Chester etc which have been totally written out of the official "beautiful and historic city" narratives. (Don't be too harsh on Broadwater Farm; a lot of its problems came from the problems of building on a flood plain and consequent need to have elevated rat-run walkways, rather than the boxy brutalist design per se. As estates go, it probably has no more problems than the low-rise Noel Park and Northumberland Park on either side of it. Plus, it has a name which is remembered for all the wrong reasons – I've always thought the council should consider renaming it.) – iridescent 14:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And just to make things seriously confusing…

As well as Ernest Noel and Noel Park, we also have Ernest Noel Park. The disambiguation pixies will have their work cut out with this lot. (I only noticed this from checking WhatLinksHere and wondering why on earth there were so many inbound links from Australia.) – iridescent 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Noel Park

Hi ya. Oh boy, oh, boy - you might want to look at :-

• Tottenham: Growth after 1850, A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 5: Hendon, Kingsbury, Great Stanmore, Little Stanmore, Edmonton Enfield, Monken Hadley, South Mimms, Tottenham (1976), pp. 317-324.
• Tottenham: Churches, A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 5: Hendon, Kingsbury, Great Stanmore, Little Stanmore, Edmonton Enfield, Monken Hadley, South Mimms, Tottenham (1976), pp. 348-355.
• Tottenham: Manors', A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 5: Hendon, Kingsbury, Great Stanmore, Little Stanmore, Edmonton Enfield, Monken Hadley, South Mimms, Tottenham (1976), pp. 324-330.

You might want to consider the structure of the article - demoting

1. 2 Early history
2. 3 The Artizans, Labourers & General Dwellings Company
3. 4 Selection of the site
4. 5 Design
5. 6 Construction
6. 7 Opening
7. 8 Financial difficulties
8. 9 Amenities

into a 'History' section - with a separate overall section for:

1. 10 Early 20th-century expansion
2. 11 Piccadilly line
3. 12 Postwar redevelopment
4. 13 Transfer to local authority control

and then keep this as a toplevel section

1. 14 Modern Noel Park

It just provides guidelines for the reader. I'd be tempted to put much of the more general information about "The Artizans, Labourers & General Dwellings Company", in a separate article. You can then link to it from the other localities mentioned. St Marks is listed, so again, I'd suggest a separate article. You'd probably do well to see how Noel Park links in with Category:History of Haringey - and the articles there. That's just a quick first few thoughts. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back on this one!

The History of the County of Middlesex sources have already been strip-mined dry for this one, and I don't think there's anything they cover that's left to be added to the article (unless you can spot something).

I have created a separate Artizans, Labourers & General Dwellings Company article; however, I think the Noel Park article needs to include the potted history of the company as well, to give a context as to "why was this company building this particular estate, in this particular way, when there were so many more profitable things they could have been building?", "how did a minor housing estate in Haringey manage to get so many major figures involved in its development?" and "why did they suddenly get rid of it and give it to the local authority?".

I appreciate what you (and others in the thread above) are saying about the structure overemphasising the history, but I can't see an easy way to avoid it. Merging the history sections would result in a single huge top-level section containing more than 50% of the article; while it's not perfect, the current structure gives a roughly chronological narrative of the story of the estate. Much of the reason it concentrates on history is that, because Heseltine gave most of the area Article Four Direction in the early 1980s which has never been revoked, the story of the estate immediately freezes there as since then there was (by definition) no demolition, new construction or changes of use since that point, so it was spared/missed out on (delete as appropriate) the whole 80s and 90s redevelopment and restructuring story which characterises most other British places. With no notable residents AFAIK other than the much-travelled Charles Christopher Watts whom I don't think warrants mentioning (I looked pretty thoroughly), we lose the "pop stars, footballers and bit-part actors on Emmerdale" which generally provide a quick-and-dirty way to pad out the "recent history" sections of local-area articles (see neighbouring Crouch End, of which I long ago washed my hands, for an example of this taken to an extreme) so this also makes the "recent" section relatively shorter in comparison to similar articles. The only major postwar development other than the closure of the railway line was the construction of Shopping City; I've covered that as much as I think it warrants, but I don't want to go into great detail on something that, while physically within the Noel Park boundaries, isn't psychologically a part of it and has no particular relationship to the estate; besides, we already have a perfectly good Wood Green Shopping City article, despite the best efforts of the deletionists.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the structure and whether splitting it into subheads would be the way to go? – iridescent 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My previous RfA

I couldn't help but notice the message you left on B-man's talk page, and I thought I should link you to my apology (I had it linked on my userpage for a while). I'm not put off by my past experiences at RfA - I was an asshole, I was a complete and utter elitist power hungry moron who was nothing short of the least suitable candidate for adminship which I have ever seen. I deserved the opposition, and I have learnt from it - I am not disillusioned with RfA because of my past feelings for it - they are all in the past, part of a persona which seems like it never belonged to me. I don't know why I was like I was, all I can hope is that the community can see that I have changed - in which case I agree, therefore, that I would like to feel prepared before I were to be put up for the community's consideration again. Thanks again. :) — neuro^(talk) 17:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, if you think you want to give it another go. I just didn't want an overenthusiastic user creating an RFA or an "admin suitability review" for you without your explicit consent; you know more than anyone that any RFA on you is going to be vicious regardless of the result, and I didn't want someone creating something which is going to be less of an editor review and more of an inquisition without your consent. As Malleus, Giggy and whichever Shalom sockpuppet is currently watching this page can tell you, even when you think you're prepared for the criticism you can get at RFA the sudden blast of venom can take even the most "prepared" editors by surprise and send them into a nasty tailspin that not everyone recovers from (see my response to \ / above this), and you presumably know that you have quite a lot of stuff that, while some people will be willing to forgive-and-forget, some won't. – iridescent 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. I went into my second (and last) RfA with no great hopes of success, and quite prepared (I thought) to "deal with those two imposters" of success and failure just the same. But a few days of being told what a shit you are can wear you down; I can't imagine anything that would induce me go through that again. So, please take heed of Iridescent's good advice, and don't go into it just because someone turns up wanting to nominate you. It's not them that'll get crucified, it's you. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to go through RfA just because someone says they think I would make a good administrator - I am more sensible than that. That said, if I were to go through and not get the tools/go through a shitstorm, it would honestly not matter too much to me either. I like it here, and even having one person thinking that I do an alright job is enough for me to continue. — neuro^(talk) 22:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No way. I'd need at least two editors who think this much of me to stay. Synergy 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I raise you five! — neuro^(talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. With five, the permutations jump to a higher degree. I prefer very few friends, and many more enemies (to bug them when I edit their talk pages ;p ). Synergy 22:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I only need the one, me. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So you think you'd be a good admin? Synergy 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Smiles back… – iridescent 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Surrey Canal Road

Do you do history merges? If so, could you perform a history merge of Surrey Canal Road station and Surrey Canal Road railway station? Simplysouth is this a buffet? 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No need – the history] of Surrey Canal Road railway station shows that it never had any actual content, so there's nothing to merge. Merging the histories would just make things confusing, as it would look like someone kept changing it to a redirect and back again. – iridescent 20:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ther was content when i first edited it! It was first created then redirected then the new one created. Besides, the station needs to be railway station and not station. If not hist merge than move at least. Simplysouth is this a buffet? 20:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. I suppose at some point all the East London Line stations except Shoreditch need to be changed from "tube" to "railway", don't they? – iridescent 20:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Surrey Quays tube station. Simplysouth is this a buffet? 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. And then presumably we then have to go through the whole thing again with Crossrail and the DLR extension. – iridescent 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any moving needed on any of the DLR extensions. Simply south is this a buffet? 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Noel Park

On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noel Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See that Malleus? If you can have one, so can I. – iridescent 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh bugger. Suppose I'll have to do another one now ... *mutter, mutter*. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another two. (I don't normally do DYKs, but these actually seemed potentially interesting. Maybe.) – iridescent 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Showboating. I've got a really interesting one on the boil. Maybe. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Unwin? – iridescent 22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Horse

Could you keep an eye on this article for me? User:God'sGirl94 has just removed (again) information about evolution from the lead, replacing it with "The horse was created on the 6th day with other land animals such as the lion and bear. This was also the same day that man was created." (which, I might add, is not exactly strictly true biblically even.. but whatever...). I left a note on the user's talk page, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoo Ray. Yes, no problem – although last time this happened, I got my talkpage replaced with the entire text of Genesis. Repeatedly. Something which sometimes works with people with a POV to push or a product to sell is to point them in the direction of MyWikiBiz; Greg has a "as long as the page isn't already in use, you can post anything you want provided it isn't libellous" policy, so that way they get someone willing to host their material so hopefully stay there and leave us alone, while Greg gets an additional user so is usually happy with it. In this particular case, a gentle poke in the direction of Conservapedia might be in order, too. – iridescent 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, you might want to have a word with User:Police,Mad,Jack if he doesn't see it here (I don't know if he still has this page watchlisted). If he wants to adopt users, he can clean up behind them. – iridescent 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kim's handling the Welcome Wagon duties (which I suck at, I'll admit) so hopefully things will work out. Eventually, we're going to begin the push to get Horse to FA... eventually... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that one – I imagine keeping a high-traffic article like that clean must be like herding cats. There's a reason I only write about things nobody else cares about. (I'm always amazed that Realist manages to keep the BLP nightmare of Michael Jackson clean.) – iridescent 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Horse got semi'd a while back which helps a bunch. The absolute worst one on my watchlist is William I of England, although until Sparta got semi'd it was pretty scary... I have something like 70+ edits to Billy, almost all of them vandalism reverts. Horse gets a lot more "horses are pretty cool" type edits than anything else. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No chance at FA if you can't even agree amongst yourselves which day God created horses on. ;-) Only in America would such a pov be met with anything other than a confused mixture of blank disbelief and derision. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The BIBLE can't decide. (laughs) That's what always cracks me up about creationism. There are TWO stories of how the world was created in Genesis. How creationists manage to square THAT away is one of the more major miracles of the whole subject... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one refers to the creation of the gentiles, and the other refers to the creation of the Jews after the Ice Age, which also explains where Cain got his wife and the origins of the Nephelim… Look up Pre-Adamite one day. "The Pre-Adamite in a Nutshell" by Stephen J Gould (in I Have Landed) is probably the best explanation of the attempts to reconcile the two.

Admittedly my mainspace stats are skewed because I tend to do (re) writing in userspace and cut-and-paste it across in large dollops, but at the time of writing three of my 25 most edited mainspace pages are high schools that have stumbled onto my watchlist for one reason or another. I'm a little surprised the current bane of my life Charlottetown Rural High School, from which it certainly feels like I've reverted "sucks" a million times, isn't on the list. – iridescent 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this conversation Iredescent. I understand that God'sGirl's edits on "Horse are POV, but I cannot be held responsible for that. Mentoring does not entail "cleaning up" after your adoptee, and I cannot stop her making these edits. Even though I will be falling short of the "If he wants to adopt users, he can clean up behind them" point of view, I will of course try to explain on her user talk, if this has not been done already. Thanks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. By "clean up behind them", I don't mean "follow them round reverting their edits", but "be responsible for keeping them in line with policy". If she trusts you, she's far more likely to take advice from you, then to listen to what to her must look like a bunch of complete strangers ganging up on her to make it sound like she's not wanted. Contrary to what Andrew Schlafly might say, Wikipedia does have a place for religious views, but it needs to be made clear where the appropriate place for theories which aren't the mainstream interpretation of events goes, on any given article. – iridescent 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiding log entries

A little birdie told me you wanted a way to hide my old IP talk page deletions from Special:RecentChanges / Special:Log. Just import this script into your skin JS page. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're a star! – iridescent 00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Korres Engineering

I was surprised that you removed the speedy request from Korres Engineering, not finding either a claim of notability or any external evidence of that. If you disagree with the conclusion (not that declining a speedy indicates that), please weigh in at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korres Engineering AfD discussion. Thanks, Bongomatic 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy because "relocated over 40 buildings in Greece including Byzantine and prehistoric structures" is unusual enough to seem to me to be a clear assertion of notability. Not speaking Greek, I have no ability to check the sources to see whether this is sourceable. – iridescent 01:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Babia 93

The tone of your edit summary "You have got to be kidding me. Prod declined, obviously" is inappropriate in response to a good faith edit and I urge you to set a better example. --Boston (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And what would you suggest the correct tone to use would be for a deletion tagging like this? If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia, and one click on Sajjad Ali would have shown you that this is a major album by a major figure in a major market, all of whose other works also have their own articles. Sorry, but I have no patience for sloppy deletion mis-taggings like this; it may not be as pernicious as speedy-tag misuse, but it still wastes the time of everyone involved. If you really want to complain, ANI is that way. – iridescent 11:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gobsmacked

You probably already know about this. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't at all. I'd like to say it's a total shock, but on reflection it isn't; looking over his history in light of that, you can see the connections. Normally I take a very lax line on sockpuppets – as with COI, I think that the whole "zomg you used two accounts!" thing is hyped out of all proportion – but Dereks1x/Archtransit's good account/bad account routine was so disruptive (remember this little visit from him?) that I think Arbcom did the right thing here. – iridescent 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel a bit pissed because I helped Chergles with Boeing 777, when for some reason or another I had the impression (s)he was French. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What is really annoying about Archtransit/Dereks1x is that the articles are generally quite good (Boeing 747 must have been a nightmare to write). If only (s)he could resist the urge to vandalise in their spare time. – iridescent 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Air On Demand

Greetings. I tagged this as db-spam, at which point the creator slapped a hangon tag and asked for an explanation on the talkpage. I let them know the usual about promotional tone, npov and so forth, and they removed some of the instances of spammy rhetoric I pointed to, showing a desire to conform to WP norms. I then removed the csd tag, and let the creator know that they needed to show coverage in RS's to prove notability, which they then attempted to do (somewhat poorly). Seeing as you have expressed a somewhat laissez-faire perspective towards speedy candidates with notability issues, and as there is an editor trying in good faith to bring the article up to scratch, I wonder if you might undelete and give the article a week or so to get up to scratch. Sincerely, Skomorokh 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They'd already recreated it. I've restored the full history in case anyone wants it. – iridescent 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Skomorokh 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would add there's a significant COI problem with this article. The author refers to the subject as "our company". I really don't think he ought to have created it in the first place: creating and editing an article about your own company is strongly discouraged. If he thinks it merits an article, the thing to have done was to post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles and let a third party write it. The editor appears to have confused Wikipedia with the Yellow Pages. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I deleted it. That said, while it almost certainly is a G11 candidate, I don't see how letting it sit in our space for a couple of days is doing any harm. I'll suggest he takes it to MyWikiBiz – I'm sure they'll be happy to have it, and if he has an alternative host for his article he won't feel offended if/when it gets deleted here. – iridescent 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Billie Jean

Looks like we are on the way to another GA! No, I'm not involved with this one, shock horror. Wikipedia has been giving me a headache recently, so I haven't been very chatty, just monitoring my watchlist. — R² 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know who Pyrrhus16 is but (s)he seems to be doing a very good job on it. I imagine that one's a real pain to source, as any web search would bring up so many fan sites and false positives, while the books I'd imagine don't cover it as much as Thriller and Bad. – iridescent 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhus16 is a brilliant editor and is learning the ropes quickly. He has the potential to be an administrator if he sticks around long enough. Not that I would want his soul destroyed by that place. — R² 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the most eclectic mixes I have ever seen. I would love to see what SuggestBot would make of him. – iridescent 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when did 2009 in darts and (our favorite Jackson) La Toya ever mix well? — R² 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

About as well as Franciszek Gągor, Circus (Britney Spears album) and Association of Haitian Physicians Abroad, I'd guess. (That darts one is listed on his userpage as an achievement, so it's not like he just happened to make a bunch of minor edits to it.) – iridescent 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

O.o — R² 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Shalom

Do you think a community ban of said user would be over the top? Or should we just let him continue vandalising? Majorly talk 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be a highly disruptive, socking, troll. Does the community have any reason to keep or want him? No. So in other words, I agree with you Majorly. — R² 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest if it's just your userspace and mine his socks are vandalising, I'd say leave him to it. He obviously wants to be made a martyr to the Evil Conspiracy so he can go off and whine to whichever people will listen to him about how those mean big kids took away his toy when he hadn't finished playing with it. I think blocking/banning – especially if the suggestion came from either of us – would just create another Moulton or Awbrey, only without the wit and occasional valid points the latter two are capable of bringing. I'd hope that eventually either he'll get bored and go away, or become one of those cranks who sits on WR shouting at anyone who'll listen until Somey loses patience and bans him. Unfortunately, the trouble with "anyone can edit" is that "anyone" includes the nutcases. – iridescent 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Deep joy. Does nobody have anything more useful to do? 92.8.32.165 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tunnel Railway

On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tunnel Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarysky

Hello, remember when you warned this user against lying and slandering in his edit summeries? Well, it looks like he doesn't believe you, and has done so again. I do believe a block is in order for lying about someone, claiming personal attacks when there are none, for doing what they are told: warning against vandalism with the appropriate warning.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're seriously considering blocking this user, note that I was accused of vandalism [2] right before being accused of "personal attacks". I'd block this user myself but because I am the object of his incivility, I'm not sure it's appropriate. Seriously tho, for someone who "does not want controversy", he certainly seems to know how to stir it up. There's my $.02. - eo (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just incase you don't remember, you warned the user against doing such here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's blocking to be done, I had better not be the one to do it, since I'm "involved" (I'm a sockpuppet of Ericorbit apparently); I think you'll need to take this one to ANI, unless there's someone uninvolved reading this who can brandish the cluestick appropriately. – iridescent 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would block him, if I were you. His claims against you being a sockpuppet are unfounded, and if he's able to push anyone away from him by getting them 'involved' by calling them a sockpuppet with no evidence,.. well, it just isn't right. Anyways, this user is actually causing vandalism, please take up that warning you posted oh so long agon, you aren't involved just because he accuses anyone that disagrees with him as being a sockpuppet.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I gave Tarysky a "final warning" about reverting cleanup and formatting corrections at Ledisi, and he immediately reverted again [3], therefor I believe a block here is justified. I'll even do it myself as it has nothing to do with his incivility, but rather his direct ignoring of a final warning for disruptive editing. - eo (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Harsher than I'd have been but I can't disagree. I assume this is indefinite in the sense of "when you agree to stop being disruptive", not "forever". – iridescent 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised he lasted this long. — R² 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I recall that in various edit summaries, he said nobody cares. Despite the fact that people obviously do care, it seems he doesn't care that he's been blocked. I mean, at the time of the block, he was online, and I still have yet to see an unblock notice.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What would be the point of an unblock request? What is ever the point of an unblock request? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make such an accusation when you don't even know this user's history.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I say good riddance. If it wasn't for the hideous attitude and refusal to learn anything, it's kinda too bad.....some of his edits to articles were somewhat ok. None of it matters tho if he is unwilling to work with anyone or take direction for mistakes he makes. Anyhoo, I'd suggest we watchlist some of his frequent articles. I wouldn't be surprised if he resurfaced later with a new account or IP. - eo (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What accusation? I merely made an observation, one that you apparently disagree with. Since when was that a crime? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And please don't make assumptions about what I may or may not know. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough, both of you. Play nice. (An unblock request in this case would probably be granted; I'm assuming this wasn't indefinite in the sense of forever, but indefinite in the sense of "until you agree to stop wildly reverting everyone who dares to disagree with you". I have no problem with rudeness, but this user's mixture of copyright violations and wild reverting was actively disruptive. – iridescent 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've seen similarly abusive behaviour from Daedalus. I find it astonishing that administrators feel comfortable issuing blocks for behavour they themselves are guilty of. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus didn't block; LessHeard vanU blocked, following warnings from everyone under the sun (including me) – and I don't think you could call either LHvU or myself exactly block-happy. (There's a link to my blocking log at the top of this page; with the arguable exception of Abd, I'd challenge you to find one where you'd have reacted differently). As I've said many times, there is admin abuse on Wikipedia but this wasn't it. – iridescent 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the block. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Abusive behavior? Please. You linked to a specific document:

• {{unblock}}

• A means by which a recently-blocked editor can request to have their block endorsed by an uninvolved administrator. Some unblock-request responses and their meanings are:

• Decline; hasn't addressed reason for block. There's no way I'm reading that 30kB of prose and diffs you've produced. You look guilty.
• Decline; endorse reason for block. I'm friends with the blocking admin.

Everything there assumes bad faith. You are right away assuming the admins are in the wrong here by posting that link. As to abusiveness and this user, nothing of the sort has ever happened, so unless you feel like you can back up what you say, stop with the accusations.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're only here to slander me, please leave.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say to you Daedalus, except this. I believe you to be one of the worst kind of administrators, and I think you know to what recent event I'm referring. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For someone who claims to know what they're talking about, you sure don't. I'm not an admin, and again, if you plan on slandering me and calling me abusive, then back it up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

People, there is no need for this on Irid's page. — R² 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Iridescent, why was the user's first block 48 hours, and why was the second block indef? I just can't seem to see this. It doesn't follow the normal progression and seems to have people jumping all over rather quickly. What am I missing? Indef is very serious. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make either block so I can't say; as I say near the top of this thread, indef is harsher than I'd have been in this case. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with indef-as-in-unspecified-rather-than-infinite blocking in cases like this, provided it's made clear to the use in question exactly what's going on ("You have been blocked until you agree to stop doing XXX"); blocking is supposed to be preventive and not Wikipedia's equivalent of a jail term, so there's no point blocking for foo hours if one thinks the problem will resume the moment the block expires. To be honest, I can't see anyone reviewing this user's contributions and not concluding this was a problem user, whilst repeated warnings and explanations on his talkpage were all blanked with "removing vandalism" summaries.

To Malleus; Daedalus isn't an admin. (So everyone's reading from the same hymn sheet, I assume this is the incident you're referring to). – iridescent 06:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(adding) The issue here isn't civility – as Malleus knows, as far as I'm concerned people can be as rude as they like providing it doesn't negatively impact other users, hound people off the project etc – but the disruption caused by his content-reversions, bulk upload of copyright violations, and refusal to listen to anyone telling him what he's doing wrong and why he needs to stop doing it.

I'm going to be insanely busy for the next few days so this will probably all be resolved by the time I next look at this page. Hopefully. – iridescent 07:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that blocking until someone does something is punitive. By giving a demand, you are asking for a same of payment. This would make it clearly a punitive. My question above was to ask what happened with this user (since you were paying more attention) to warrant this? Now, from what I see, many of the people here telling him he is wrong are not necessarily right, and probably the last people who should play messenger. So, ignoring them in the instance would be justified. I think this was approached all wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus get a sense of humour for cripe's sake! That wikispeak page had me gigling right the way through.--Patton^t/c 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)