User talk:Iridescent

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‑]

Periphery countries

Thanks for volunteering to help with that Good Article student assignment project. This is just the heads up that students have begun to work on the article. The aim is to have the article ready for GAN by June 5; feel free to wait till then - but also feel free to comment on their progress and offer suggestions before that date. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I'll wait until it's at least approaching a finished form before I start making comments, as I don't want a "that's not the way I'd have done it" situation. I'll keep it watchlisted. – iridescent 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A revised schedule is June 7. Hopefully it will be listed at GAN around 7-8. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was nominated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do it. May not get to it until tomorrow, so don't panic if you don't see any movement. – iridescent 19:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, for the moment. Although I've not immediately passed it, all the points I've raised are minor and easily addressed. Given the class-project nature, I've gone into more detail than I usually would, as I assume they're not familiar with Wiki-minutiae; hopefully, I've not scared them off with it. – iridescent 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that there is no need to hurry with regards to signing off on the article. The students have over a week to address your comments, and I think they can use all that time, particularly as in educational assignment there is a known tendency to do the work just ahead of the deadline. Also, since this is a class project, once the article passes, the chance for any further improvements will go down (unlike in regular articles, where editors are more likely to keep tinkering with the article after the review is over). Oh, and yes, thanks for all the extra levels of explanations, it is much appreciated. PS. There are also a few subject issues I want them to expand upon (see my review above yours). PPS. Off topic quibble: Intelligent design is not a theory (in the proper, scientific meaning of that word) - the article rather wisely avoids using that word in the lead, stating it is an assertion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. One of mine is tomorrow's TFA (and on a particularly obscure topic, so I doubt many others will be watching it), so I suspect I'll be spending most of the next couple of days reverting "poop!". I'll step aside for a couple of days and revisit it at the weekend. – iridescent 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. You probably also remember how much of a fight it took to get rid of the word "theory" from that one… Substitute pretty much any other theory if you prefer if you think it will confuse them less; I tend to use ID as an example of a good "disputed topic" article, as it does a pretty good job of explaining the beliefs involved whilst adhering to NPOV. – iridescent 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the map, it is based on the reliable source (see File:World trade map.PNG#Source - reliable scholar, very reliable publication). As such, I think that the map should stay. However, I fully agree that the list (that the map is based on) is rather surprising. I've emailed one of the authors, as indeed the list (while reliable) raises eyebrows, for I do think that the it classifies way too few countries as semi-periphery and core (unfortunately, it has been few days and I've received no response yet). Nonetheless, as eyebrow raising as it is, the list is reliable (and the map, in its current revision, should me mostly correct; of course if there are still any errors, do list them so they can be fixed).

As I suggested on talk, the students should try to compare that list to the list from Wallenstein, as sourced in the semi-periphery article, and I'd suggest you point that out in your review (see Semi-periphery_countries#Examples, and note I've added the third table based on the aforementioned article - and the difference between this list and Wallenstein's is pretty interesting).

I agree with your point about the stabilized government section needing more clarifications. I'd also add that I've told the students that they should reference every sentence, and as such, this section (and a bunch of others) should be fact-tagged (I can do it, or would you?).

Overall, I'd suggest you post your updated review to help guide them, and they still have a week (till next Sunday, more or less) to finish addressing our comments. In theory, they should have stopped developing the article last week, and spend this week on addressing the comments. In practice, I find that in educational assignments, the line between main content writing and addressing comments is often much more blurred - but the success rate is decent enough (~50%, based on my past assignments). Hopefully our comments will help the students understand the subject (and Wikipedia). Thanks for your input! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(CCing reply here so Malleus also sees it) I will do. As long as the map is sourced that's fine, but in that case it at least needs an explanatory footnote somewhere to clarify the status of Russia in particular. – iridescent 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I've looked at the sourced article (I can send you the copy if you want) and IIRC that country wasn't even mentioned in the main body (!). Personally, I have a feeling the reviewers might have ignored the appendix, but there is no way I can prove it, and the publication is highly reliable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Availability of Book by Halkett on his Cloak Boat

[TERRIBLY SORRY TO PUT THIS HERE, NEW IDIOT USER CAN'T FIND WAY TO EMAIL ARTICLE AUTHOR IN "Toolbox" MENU, OH, AND SORRY FOR SCREAMING] FYI VIA Google Books (advanced search) with the exact phrase - Cloak Boat Various relavent hits including: Boat-cloak or cloak-boat, constructed of macintosh india-rubber cloth ... Author Peter Halkett Published Wall & Hiscoke, 1948 9 pages [DATE ABOVE INCORRECT, SHOULD BE 1848] clicked on hyper text author - Peter Halkett (of above) 5 hits including:

Title The boat-cloak: and also the cloth-boat for two Author Peter Halkett Publisher Ticknor & Fields, 1980 Length 23 pages

[The Author name & RE-publication date of 1980 are believed true]

After clicking all the links of "Get this book" I bought a copy for a total of about $55 USD

There is/was at least one other copy for sale in the USA Be careful you don't buy, the same used copy from the same source, from a French site for more money in Euros. The 1980 book may still be under copyright by the US Publisher that bought Ticknor & Fields.

There may be one copy of this book, or the 9 page one, available through a inter-library loan. A few other libraries have it but you have to view it at the library and probably need special permission before hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveB13 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, the text of Halkett's brochure is pretty much unusable; because it's effectively an eight-page sales brochure ("book" is pushing it mightily), under Wikipedia's sourcing rules it's a primary source and can't be used as a source in most contexts, although a lot of the images ultimately came from there. I considered adding it to a "further reading" section, but decided against it; to the best of my knowledge there are no copies available in Canadian libraries and the only copies in the UK are those in the copyright libraries and the National Maritime Museum. Both the NMM and the New Scientist links in the references section will lead people ultimately to Halkett's brochure, so anyone whose interest is piqued enough by the article to go looking, will find it. – iridescent 12:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to go off tangents. I also found the Great Exhibition 1851 Google, not as nice as yours though, it may have been done several times. Checking up on "Samuel Matthews & Son" as the Cloak Boat Manufacturer, finds other entries, yielding interesting things like "Samuel Matthews & Son, late Chas. Macintosh & Co. 58, Charing Cross, S.W." [London] an address that still exists, as an Antiquarian Bookstore, OF COURSE! Matthews also sold medical & hygiene rubber goods. The Chas. Macintosh was the Macintosh raincoat maker, now spun off or re-named Macintosh. Also there was a patent fight between American person last name of Goodyear, and english patent holder of rubber vulcanization process that (my googled memory may be mis-directed here)had worked for Macintosh firm. Current day versions of the Cloak Boat, that don't have the cloak part are 3.5lb Sevylor 'Trail Boat' that is even smaller, and Alpacka Raft , their 4 lb 11 oz model 'Yukon' maps just within the (scaled) illustration of the Exhibition Catalog, the Yukon is for people up to 6' tall. The same scaled illustration comes out just barely shorter than the shortest length (46") current production Mackintosh Drummond watterproof cape. The wiki article illustration contains a hard to see 3' long scale bar, overall dimensions of that cape and the Exhibition Catalog cape were presumed similar for scaling purpose. Thanks Very Much for your wikipedia article, I've a profound fondness of any human occupant sized boat larger than a flotation device, and things that can be made to take up small space when not being used, and things with multiple purposes jammed into the design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveB13 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I commented at this article's featured article candidacy about the similarity of Halkett's designs to the current Sevylor kayaks. As I understand it, the similarity is a case of convergent evolution rather than descent; Sevylor's designs trace back to the flotation rafts carried by aircrew during the Second World War (which had similar limitations to those faced by Halkett, in needing to be small enough to carry strapped to a pilot's back, light enough not to weigh down a parachutist, rapidly inflatable at short notice, and stable enough to survive freezing conditions in the North Sea). These in turn trace back to Goodyear and Hancock's early rubber dinghies, rather than to Halkett—to the best of my knowledge, Halkett's designs were completely abandoned after his death. The abandoning of the search for the Northwest Passage and the shift of European focus to Africa and India meant less use for inflatable craft in the later 19th century; inflatable boats would have been a liability in a colonial war zone as they're so easily punctured by a well-aimed spear or arrow, and they were too lightweight to carry weapons or trade goods. – iridescent 18:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1980 Reprint (ISBN 0-89919-001-4) was received & read last night. The Reprint publisher had nothing to do with the Halkett boat. The reprint was done from a 1848 copy found in a decendent's trunk of Sir George Simpson in Scotland in 1979. The sole reason for the reprint was as a promotion of the publisher. The 1848 Pamphlet was put out by Wall & Hiscoke, Bookseller of Richmond in Surrey, and by Arthur Warnham, No. 61 Strand, London. Contents of the trunk were sent under the scrutiny of Canadian museum authorities. "Copyright, 1980 All Rights Reserved by David Haddon in Scotland" (that's what it says).

There is one illustration in the book, that's not on the web, it's a light description of the umbrella, a set of two ping pong type paddles as an improvement of the walking-stick paddle for the Cloak-Boat, and an illustration of a 9' Esquimaux Paddle that could be used with the Cloak-Boat.

The Two-place is absolutely the historical star of the two boats. The "raisen" on the web looks to be in a cover with 4 holes for inflation instead of the one shown in the 'book' plate, the canvas cover use was optional protection & the canvas cover was easier to patch than the boat. (My interest is entirely in the Cloak-Boat)

In the book, not seen on the web by me: The uninflated two-place boat extreme lengths are 9-1/2' long by 4'-9" wide, it moved "with much greater ease" than the Boat-Cloak with it's single paddle. The Two-Place and it's canvas cover each form packages about 1'-8" long x 12" wide x 5" to 6" thick. Each package not exceeding in weight 12 to 14 lbs.

One of the difficulties the early expedition had with non-inflatable boats was frequent high winds would blow the people carrying the rigid boats around, and they would fall on slippery rocks and land on, and break the light framed boats, to the point they could not be repaired, and then were abandoned by the starving explorers. A primary use of the boats was to set nets for catching fish, and when other boats were available, the inflatables were much prefered for the purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveB13 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Dense prose"

It's mainly just two or three fairly long and winding sentences in the lead I think, which could do with being split. Nothing too serious. Anyway, that's not why I'm here. I'm still plugging away at Roy of the Rovers, having now got hold of a copy of the Unauthorised Biography. I realise there are still too many uncited/poorly cited areas, but if you could find a few moments to look it over and see whatever else you think needs doing I'd be grateful. (Trying to find reliable sources for someone else's article is seriously hard work; it would probably have been easier to rewrite the bloody thing.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to chop it up; as you know this is the fifth of these and I'm starting to glaze over—it's hard to remember what has and hasn't already been explained in whichever particular article I'm working on. Per my earlier reply, these are intentionally written at a more technical level than the parent article will be, on the assumption that most people who get as far as these obscure subpages are going to be the hardcore nerd-types who already know the basics. I'm trying to avoid calling in favours at the moment, as you, DavidCane, Moni and Redrose are all going to be pestered to look over the parent article once it's written. (Even with as much as possible split off to subpages, it's still going to be a bloated monstrosity.)

Will look over Roy tomorrow (if I'm allowed to under the New Order). If you want a piece of light relief, you can have a skim over Charles Domery; its sister article has been picked up by Stumbleupon and is currently getting around 800 hits per day and I suspect this will go the same way, so it may as well be in decent shape before the vandals notice the potential in "he moved to Liverpool and ate dead rats". – iridescent 22:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What an extraordinary story. Only one comment: I'm not keen on "The prison commander brought their unusual captive to the attention of ...". Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an artefact of the way it was written, rather than an effort at gender-neutrality (I still recall fondly the obsessive gender-equality campaigner demanding I remove File:Two-man Halkett boat stowed.jpg for having a "sexist title"). Originally, it was intentionally vaguely worded as "the camp guards brought their captive to the attention of…" as I wasn't sure who among the camp had actually notified the Commission. The main reason for that one was that it proves that Tarrare (IMO a much better quality article, and one that will probably be thrown in at FAC to break up the "derelict stations" monotony) was suffering from a condition which had been well documented in at each one other case. (While nobody ever seems to have diagnosed either Tarrare or Domery, I'd quite confidently guess some kind of cretinism-related thyroid disorder.) – iridescent 19:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Did he eat the bottles of porter, or consume the contents? Normally I'd assume that someone wouldn't eat the actual bottle, but in this case I can't really make that assumption! Bencherlite^Talk 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point; clarified it. While Tarrare seems to have occasionally eaten patently inedible things (including on at least one occasion swallowing a fork), Domery at least stuck to things that were recognisable as food, albeit of a rather dubious nature. – iridescent 19:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And is HMS Donegal (1798) the ship you're looking for? Bencherlite^Talk 19:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha! You learn something every day. – iridescent 19:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The benefits of still having the tools - there was a deleted redirect at French ship Hoche pointing there. Incidentally, do you mention that he was "continuously surrounded by nauseating body odour" (what a surprise!) Bencherlite^Talk 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned on Tarrare, as there's a reliable source for it. I can't find anyone other than Bondeson making the claim about Domery. (Everyone who met Domery seems to have been struck by how ordinary everything about him was.) I don't entirely trust The Cat Eaters (or Bondeson in general) as a source; while he's certainly a legitimate and respected medical historian, he has a tendency to make guesses without making it obvious when he's guessing. Whenever I've used Bondeson as a source for anything open to reasonable challenge, I've tried to always include a more contemporary source as well; he's there more to say "what they thought then is what is still thought now", and that opinion hasn't changed since the 19th century texts I'm working from. – iridescent 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

<- Fair enough. I've given it a {{good article}} sticker, as you may see from your watchlist. But into which section of WP:GA should it go? There's no "misc" there - "Food and drink people", perhaps? Or the "Historical people - others" section? "Military figures"? I've plumped for the "Food and drink people" section for now, alongside the gorgeous Nigella. Only on Wikipedia... Bencherlite^Talk 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if I could use the facility of the "Editors' Noticeboard" here: if anyone feels like taking a look at my latest creations, I'd be grateful. There are 73 listed churches on Anglesey, and I've set myself a challenge to write about them all and get some, if not the majority, to GA status. I've got the first six articles under my belt but would appreciate some pre-GAN comments (as I suspect that most of the next 67 will be variations on a theme). Examples are St Cristiolus's Church, Llangristiolus and St Pabo's Church, Llanbabo. No knowledge of Welsh required! Bencherlite^Talk 19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you want to prod David Underdown to have a look at those. He's very good at spotting mistakes you never noticed you made on church articles. – iridescent 19:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion. I had a couple of ideas for people to approach, but not him. Bencherlite^Talk 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Three Featured Articles in one TFA

Regarding your suggestion a while ago of marking the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the London Electric Railway on the 26 July 1910, I have punted the idea at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests of a TFA including three featured articles. I don't think the LER has really enough distinct history of its own to be capable of development to a FA, although I have started drafting an improved UERL article which is where the LER redirect points at the moment.--DavidCane (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Raul will go for it; it sets too much of a me-too precedent for future requests (and probably also triples the level of vandalism). Obama-McCain was a special case; it would have looked very strange if Wikipedia had run a hurricane or bird that day given that Barack Obama and John McCain were both FAs, but the WMF's charitable status is dependent on US political neutrality so it needed that odd "equal treatment" setup. (Most people were blissfully unaware, but there were actually two mainpages that day, one with McCain first and one with Obama first, and a random-number generator determined which of the two you saw.) – iridescent 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Domery

Thanks for writing this, I guess, it was informative. I just feel like never eating again :S Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably don't want to look at his near-contemporary Tarrare, then. Particularly if you're fond of cats. Or have just eaten. – iridescent 20:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I read that intriguing article shortly after I ate. I'm just glad I hadn't read it while eating; I wouldn't have finished my meal. –xeno^talk 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god. A "do not click here" situation. Hekerui (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI Iridescent, your Domery and Tarrare links were picked up on reddit.com/r/wikipedia here [1]

Gg4288 (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne Hoard

Thought I'd drop you a line directly this time...
So, I know you're not the biggest fan of what I'm trying to achieve at the British Museum but I thought you might be interested in knowing about the next project which I've just published: Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Hoxne_challenge. If you've got any concerns about this do let me know, but do also try to AGF in what this project is trying to achieve. At the very least we've produced six DYKs[2] but moreover (IMO) we've given the British and International museum sector cause to stop and think about how a potential positive relationship with our community might look rather than the standoffish one we've had more often than not. Witty Lama 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While I've written a couple of museum articles, my historical articles tend to be on engineering and social history rather than the kind of thing the BM covers. The people you'd be best off talking to on something like this are Malleus Fatuorum, Nev1, Bishonen, Parrot of Doom and GiacomoReturned, who between them are the engine which drives Wikipedia's coverage of British arts and architecture.

While I wish the project all the best in its aims, you know my concerns. I do understand that you're acting in the best of faith (although I'm not sure I'd say the same of some of your supporters) and that this may well produce a short term improvement, but you know why I think it's a bad decision that will backfire spectacularly once Seth Finkelstein and co notice it. Building positive relationships with a body is one thing; actively promoting it is another; offering rewards for actively promoting it is completely beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned and I think the blind eyes being collectively turned on grounds of "Wikipedia's policy on rewards for editing doesn't apply because we happen to like the body doing the paying" are obvious. (If the Museum of Bad Art had tried to pay Moni for getting their article to FA status, I'm sure she'd have told them exactly where to shove the check.) One of the more ironic things here is that, among the names of people who've signed up to the BM project, I see at least one person who also signed their name to the statement that "the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok". (My original question still stands; how is the BM paying people to write on their collection ethically any different from one of the smaller British local authority owned museums paying people to write on their collection? If there's no difference, how does it differ from the local authorities paying people to write on their other services or the areas they cover? It's worth reiterating that, while Greg Kohs certainly hates Wikipedia now, that's because the WMF encouraged him to spend time and money building up the business before doing a volte face and deciding it was unethical; in 2005 MyWikiBiz was accepted by Jimmy Wales and the WMF, under almost the same arrangement you're currently operating.) – iridescent 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm quite relaxed about anyone being paid to write, good luck to 'em. It's the result that matters, not the motivation. Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am as well; if you look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing (or the summary at the top), you'll see that an unlikely coalition of myself, Rootology and David Shankbone were the ones pushing for it to be allowed, while Jimbo and co were pushing for a "no exceptions" hardline. I recognize that we were massively outnumbered, though; what galls me here is the "paid editing is OK in this case, because it's not someone Jimbo Wales/Wikipedia Review/the admin corps/Arbcom (delete as appropriate) dislikes who's doing this particular paid editing" attitude. What damages Wikipedia isn't its weird policies, as long as they're applied consistently; it's the "one law for us, one law for you" mentality of those in charge. You of all people should understand what I'm trying to say here. – iridescent 20:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do recognise the irony here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed here is that the FA Prizes are a thank you prize/incentive/reward for anyone who writes good quality content on a subject area that's relevant to the mission of the (public) institution. This is quite different to commissioning a specific person to either a) write the article about the institution itself or b) only "paying up" if the institution has its POV inserted in the article. The former would be a conflict of interest and the latter would be attempting to game the system by undermining neutrality. This is not Coca-cola offering free Coke for anyone who writes an FA about the company - this is a publicly funded organisation whose mission is broadly the same as Wikimedias - to share knowledge with people. The FA Prizes (which - by the way - the Hoxne challenge is not a part of) is the museum deliberately saying "you can chose the subject, we'll help you improve it and we will accept your judgment of whether it's good quality". Recall also that the prize isn't cash - it's a voucher at the museum shop so the money stays within the organisation. And, if you say that you're not inherently against actual paid editing I can't imagine under what circumstances you'd be OK about it given that you're so against this prize[3] and the mere fact of my even being at the BM in the first place[4]. You may note that I've stated from the beginning that my project here at the BM and all activities within it are deliberately avoiding the articles about the institution itself and articles that are politically contentious (e.g. Elgin) so as to avoid CoI and POV pushing. (see the original announcement, section entitled "out of scope"[5]). Witty Lama 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point about pay, rewards and prizes. If I were setting Wikipedia's rules I'd have no problems with editing for any reason, and would be perfectly happy for Coca-Cola to employ a Wikipedia Officer full-time to write articles about Coke provided they adhered to NPOV; I see no difference at all between an employee of a company writing about that company (grounds for an instant block) and a fan of a band writing about that band (warmly welcomed). My issue is that I (and Rootology, and David) agreed to abide by "the community" on this matter when it was obvious we were outvoted—but now the WMF and Arbcom are turning a blind eye to the ignoring of the hardline policy they themselves fought tooth-and-nail to impose and enforced ruthlessly. Take a look at what happened to User:Sam Blacketer, for instance; also note that of those three supporters for allowing COI editing, I'm the last one standing who hasn't been hounded off the project altogether, and there are plenty of admins with their fingers twitching over the block button when it comes to me as well. I don't buy the "it's different because it's a public institution" line at all; the same could be said for most museums, libraries and universities in the world.

I do appreciate what the intentions of this collaboration are and that the aim is to improve coverage of an area which traditionally does badly on Wikipedia, but per all my previous statements I think it causes enough potential problems down the line that in its current form it has too much potential to lead both to bad press and to bad feeling. If Wikipedia were serious about improving coverage of the history of arts, literature and philosophy in Britain, the most useful action they could take (by quite a long way) would be to unblock Ottava and Peter Damian. That there's no chance of either happening is a sign of the current internal culture of Wikipedia—that building the community has become an aim in itself, over and above improving the content. I have no issue with the BM project as a concept—if I get the time, I'll try to send a couple of FAs your way if you want—but as long as that prize contest is in place, I don't want to be associated with it or to have my name attached to it.

(FWIW, in my experience collaborations on articles involving more than two or three editors are virtually impossible once you get to FA level. You'd be better off going down the "you be the lead author on X, you be the lead author on Y, you be the lead author on Z" route, with input and criticism from museum staff as needed, rather than the WP:COTW route.) – iridescent 22:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"If Wikipedia were serious about improving coverage of the history of arts, literature and philosophy in Britain, the most useful action they could take (by quite a long way) would be to unblock Ottava and Peter Damian." Hear, hear on that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope someone remembers to flag these things when they come up at FAC, so I can evaluate independent review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit of a tricky one—this isn't like Wikicup, where the log-rolling's generally obvious. If (for instance) everyone with an interest in Ancient Egypt signs up to the BM project, they won't be "independent" but they're still the people best qualified to check for errors. DavidCane and I generally review each others' articles—that's not part of a conspiracy, but just because David, myself and BulleidPacific are the only ones with a knowledge of both 19th-century civil engineering and the FA criteria and thus the ones most likely to spot gaps. I wouldn't want the BM participants unfairly penalised just because they're the only ones with a shared interest.

I do agree that anyone who's going for one of the prizes should declare it (or have it declared for them) at FAC, though. – iridescent 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• WP coverage of the visual arts is not quite as bad as one might think if one only looks at the contributions on art of the "engine" editors you rather hilariously listed above (excepting Bishonen & Giano, who for various reasons write little article text these days). I'm not meaning to be rude, but would the others think of themselves as art editors? - we are not talking about the "arts" here, as music & literature are obviously way off-topic for the British Museum; history is more to the point. In fact most recent visual art FAs have been highly collaborative, usually led by User:Ceoil. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-read what I've written above, in particular the word "British". Ceoil's done some magnificent work but, with the exceptions of Bacon (Irish, but lived in London for most of his life) and Portrait of a Lady (by a Dutch artist but currently on loan to the National Gallery), AFAIK has never touched on either British artists or material in British collections. – iridescent 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I read it carefully the first time (& the Portrait has been back in DC for several years, and van der Weyden was not at all "Dutch"). "AFAIK" evidently does not stretch too far frankly - see Ceoil's Rokeby Venus FA to name but one, plus all the contributions of editors like User:Tyrenius, User:Ham, User:JNW, User:Qp10qp, User:PKM, User:Yomangani, User:Amandajm, User:Neddyseagoon and myself. Not to mention all the people who specialize in local architecture. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent, your right in a way, but wrong in another. What we hope for here is access to sources, not cash. O and there are 600 years of reasons why I dont go near Brit art...even though Turner is probably my favourite painter, London my favoutire city and I like The Fall more than most doctors would recommend. Conflictly, yours Ceoil (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Masami Mitsuoka Get Your Filthy Hands off My Desert Coddled egg Fruitvale, Oakland, California Mendota Bridge Reversing Falls Bridge Richmond Railway Bridge Cavendish Bridge Akeman Street railway station Kingswood, Buckinghamshire Barnes Railway Bridge Coddling Watford Stadium Halt railway station Constantius Bridge Hartland Bridge Perrine Bridge Duke Ellington Bridge Wotton (GCR) railway station Jefferson Barracks Bridge

Cleanup Verney Junction railway station Albatross (1920 schooner) Metropolitan Railway Merge Water Stratford Halt railway station Primeval Avalanche snow bridge Add Sources Han River Bridge Wooburn Green railway station Table bridge Wikify Galena Creek Bridge Hardinge Bridge Differences between the Natural Rate of Unemployment and the NAIRU Expand Talim Sunrise (Warriors) Eclipse (Warriors)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Domery

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least he's dead. That's all I can really say. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Periphery countries again…

I am afraid that the course has ended. If there will still be students working on the article, I'll be (positively) surprised. Thanks for all your help. With regards to Charles Domery, I did some searching but I cannot find anything that would be of help (and yes, his birthplace is obviously misspelled - you may want to add a note on that to his bio; I assume it was misspelled in the original source, and the error was repeated by all other; further, his first name was obviously translated, and I'd not be surprised if his surname was misspelled as well...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)