User talk:Iridescent

An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed.

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‑]

Pig-faced women

I changed to "Oppose" at WP:TFAR, respectfully deferring to your judgment as FA nominator.

Did you have a more ideal date in mind for the article's future Main Page appearance?

Thank you for your numerous high quality WP:FA contributions to Wikipedia,

— Cirt (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I know you know, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this, replied at WP:TFAR. If you're looking for peculiar FAs which haven't run yet, Charles Domery is still floating about (although it doesn't have the eye-catching images PFW has). To some extent, Domery has the same problem, that some people will consider showcasing it an attack on a particular group (in this case, the Poles and to a lesser extent people with eating disorders), but it doesn't have the same element of simultaneously being offensive to the Irish, French, Dutch, women, animal-lovers and the disabled which PFW brings with it. (Domery is part of a trio on 18th-century eating disorders, all of which have a high WTF-factor; I'd prefer Tarrare not run for the moment, and Daniel Lambert has already run.) Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway could be dressed up for the occasion also—from the title it sounds dull as ditchwater, but it's actually an extraordinary story of a showpiece event that went so disastrously wrong, the government and courts seriously considered banning locomotives. George Stephenson had a standing offer from the Tsar to take his newfangled steam engine to Russia and if he'd been banned from making or using them in the UK would presumably have done so, which would in turn have kept the United States a thin coastal strip (the locomotives which opened up the interior were imported from Newcastle) and made Imperial Russia an unstoppable force, able to use their new industrial power to swat aside any hapless Turks and Prussians trying to stop them. The OOTLMR is a turning-point that (outside of Liverpool and Manchester themselves) doesn't get the credit it deserves.

If the "never repeat a TFA" rule is ever relaxed*, Biddenden Maids, Halkett boat and the aforementioned Daniel Lambert would all be workable as April Fools TFAs. I have a soft spot for Halkett boat in particular, which really is a case of the truth being stranger than fiction.

Per my outburst at TFAR, in my opinion the April Fools/Halloween tradition is an embarrassing relic of Raul's tendency on occasion to presume that whichever idea he'd happened to have embodied The Will Of The Community, and should be shown the door. With the possible exception of that film last year, to the best of my knowledge every April Fools TFA (Pigeon photography, Cock Lane ghost, Wife selling, Museum of Bad Art, Ima Hogg, George Washington (inventor), Spoo) has led to a wave of lunatics hijacking the article, generally followed by the author of the article being blocked for edit-warring when they try to restore it to something approaching stability; ask Eric Corbett or Parrot of Doom just how well the system works. – iridescent 22:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*I'd personally support a change to "never repeat a TFA within five years". The argument that it gives undue prominence to the topic is hooey, since nobody except die-hard wiki-obsessives will even realise the article has run before. The argument that "it prevents other TFAs having their day in the sun" is also baloney—many if not most of Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page are either old FAs of embarrassingly poor quality, articles which their authors would prefer not run, or arcane articles like Quainton Road railway station which would be pointless to run since the only people who would find them interesting are people with enough of an interest in the topic that they've already read them.

Yes I think alot of mine are in the last category....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I will concur that Banksias did flit through my mind as I wrote that (along with extinct bat species), but it seemed a little churlish to pick somebody else's as an example, especially given that I have Wandsworth Bridge (which may hold the record for the highest significance/interesting-things-to-say-about-it ratio of anything ever built*) to my name—it even had DYK that there's nothing interesting to say about it on the main page. At some point I ought to ask Bencherlite to run it as TFA (it is eligible…) and see if it makes the usual suspects who whinge about boring content on the main page** self-destruct with indignation. – iridescent 11:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Spot the bridge

*As HJ Mitchell and Julia W had the pleasure of hearing me drunkenly trying to explain at great length recently, Wandsworth Bridge's single interesting feature is also a damn nuisance; it retains its remarkably effective wartime camouflage. This is a major piece of ironmongery—as of about five years ago the second busiest road bridge in the UK—but it's astonishingly difficult to take a photograph in which the bridge doesn't either blend into the background or appear to be much smaller than it is.

**Special mention to the guy who nominated Norwich Market for deletion on the grounds of "non-notability".

Just imagine it is Stephen Fry chatting about it on QI...it'll seem more worthwhile then - just been watching a couple of episodes of this with my kids....dunno, must have more intrinsic merit than Miley Cyrus or a Kardashian....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Since QI's research team's methodology appears to be "go through the contribution history of myself, Eric Corbett and Parrot of Doom, share out the results between Fry's scripted questions and the guests' scripted answers, and pad it out with whatever happens to be on TIL that day without ever bothering to check its accuracy or credit the author", my opinion of it is not high. I've caught them previously passing off blocks of Wikipedia text verbatim (and uncredited, natch) as their own content. See this episode, where the chat about Tarrare is literally taken verbatim from Wikipedia, right down to the slightly awkward phrasing about "a toddler" I used to avoid close paraphrasing issues with "a child between one and two" which appears in every source other than Wikipedia. (Not as odd as it sounds that they'd all use the same wording, as they've all drawing from Percy's paper as a primary source.) While I'm on this tirade, if you're ever in Manchester then visit MOSI's new Revolution Manchester Gallery and see if there's something oddly familiar sounding about their showpiece exhibits on the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine and the Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. (I'm amazed QI haven't picked up on Eilley Bowers yet—possibly the single most peculiar biographical article I've ever written, and one which I keep hoping someone will find the sources for to flesh out and take to FAC. Given that she's "one of the most researched, written and talked about women in Nevada history"—and that's the University of Nevada Department of Women's Studies saying that, who presumably ought to know—I find it singularly difficult to find any of said research, writing or talking other than what I already used. @Dr. Blofeld and Rosiestep, did you find anything when you were writing Sandy Bowers?) – iridescent 16:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was on a game show once where Amanita muscaria was described as the quintessential toadstool and I could say, "haahahaaaaahaaaa" wonder where that came from! (chuckle) ...now I am depressed about QI....oh well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of what game show could possibly have included the phrase "Amanita muscaria is the quintessential toadstool", and failing miserably. I think every assumption I have about Aussie TV must be seriously wrong.

That particular "Illness" episode of QI had Ben Goldacre, self-appointed arch-scourge of uncited statements and misuse of sources (incidentally his talk archive is the history of Wikipedia in miniature, complete with people demanding to include The Truth I Read On A Website Somewhere, a conspiracy theory about SlimVirgin, sarcastic comments from Andy Mabbett and interminable ramblings about reliable sourcing), as one of the panelists. Cut from the original broadcast, but retained in the extended QI XL version included on Dave's endless loop of repeats, is an impressively uncomfortable scene in which Goldacre says that in his opinion the QI franchise is the single worst offender for giving spurious legitimacy to untrue claims. (Personally I think that's an unfair statement in a world in which the Daily Mail and the laughably-named Independent exist, albeit the BBC is theoretically meant to be held to a higher standard.) The cringe on Stephen Fry's face is worth the licence fee alone. My personal opinion of QI books and programmes as a source is identical to my opinion of the Mail—if what they claim is true, then a genuine reliable source somewhere will have covered it, but they have far too much of a history of reprinting press releases, cut-and-pasting from dubious websites without fact-checking, and cherry-picking data to suit the story they want to tell (yes, I can give examples if someone wants to argue this particular toss—the reporting as undisputed fact of Klar's 2004 Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men paper, which 'proves' that gay men and straight men are physically different, and whose results AFAIK no other researcher has managed to replicate in the subsequent 10 years, for instance) to be reliable in their own right. – iridescent 17:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since you mention the Mail, it's currently enjoying one of its perennial appearances on WP:RS/N, where it's being defended with the usual combination of "but the BBC makes errors too!" and "you just don't like it 'cos of your liberal bias". In my view, the evolution of these Mail reliability threads is indicative of the steady decline in aggregate cluefulness of our editor corps. Last time around, a prominent editor who's sometimes mistaken for a voice of reason told us that "most medical reporting is actually reasonably good" in the Mail. I was inspired to add #21 to the cynic's guide to Wikipedia as a result. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@iridescent - The Einstein Factor - one had to pick and esoteric subject to be on. I was on three times - first time I chose horned dinosaurs, which is why alot my early edits were on these - I figured actively editing to buff up for a game show was better than passive learning. Second time I went on I chose poisonous mushrooms....(first time was banksias but that was before I edited here)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mastcell - aaah yes good medical research. I just checked - this article cites this paper (hint - look at the prerandomization bit). Now via the newer article it will end up in Review literature. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Last year, someone else who shall remain nameless (but rhymes with "Bealdgyth") was defending the Mail, and literally within two minutes "Flying saucer sighted in Shipley" popped up as "breaking news". Sometimes, the Mail is beyond parody. (As I write, this fine piece of journalism is one of their "Editor's six of the best" for the day.) President Eisenhower had three secret meetings with aliens, former Pentagon consultant claims is my personal favourite piece of recent Mail nonsense. Well, if "a former consultant" said it on a comedy show, it must be true! – iridescent 21:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I used to struggle to articulate why the Daily Mail is hopeless as a source beyond "well obviously". That was until they plagiarised a Wikipedia article and still managed to introduce errors. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the Mail is ever with us, so long as WP:RS/N threads on its reliability are dominated (or at least filibustered) by the same small but vocal set of clueless editors. (It's not that the Mail is the only bad source we use. It's just that if we can't even agree that the Mail is unsuitable, what chance do we have of dealing seriously with more borderline cases?) MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion of "Lingwa de planeta" page

My request is about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lingwa_de_Planeta. Tha conlang has progressed a lot since 2007, and now there are not less than 50 real speakers (that is, writers) of the language, the (relatively) huge amount of texts and songs and a few good references. I've prepared the new article here: Draft:Lingwa_de_planeta. That is the translation of Russian article, and there still are some things I can't get (like template for citing an artice as a source). English is not my native language, so the text may not be perfect, but I hope to get some help.

In 2007 the article wasn't deleted by you personally, but all the other administrators participating in discussion are either retired or not active more. Waiting for your answer, Sunnynai (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The new draft is certainly a much better article than the version that was deleted, but I'm afraid that because it's a topic on which I know little, I'm not well placed to judge its validity. The best place to ask for advice would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics as they'll know which sources are reliable in this context. – iridescent 08:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! The fact is that User:Evertype put the artice into the mainspace and added the template in the talk page. So I hope it's OK now just to wait for any discussion to arise. --Sunnynai (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I did that in part because Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is about to be published (this week) in Lidepla, and that puts it firmly in the field of "notable" in terms of conlangs. -- Evertype·✆ 11:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

quality standards
Thank you for quality articles such as today's Aylesbury duck, for patiently trying to reach the best possible quality, for understanding the difference between "ownership" of an article and responsibility for it ("People familiar with the topic are more likely to know of problems regarding it" isn't a blasphemy against the spirit ...), for presenting yourself not in userboxes but in dialogue, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 February 2009, 29 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 517th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,

Thanks, although if I'm going to be remembered for something I'm not sure Aylesbury duck would be the one I'd choose. That one's so boring, even the vandals didn't bother with it. – iridescent 10:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Same for BWV 172 ;) - What would you want to be remembered for? - I put mine in my user's infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In terms of articles, Biddenden Maids, Daniel Lambert and Pig-faced women for (I hope) showing that it's possible to treat really peculiar topics sensitively without engaging in "hey, look at this weird thing!" posturing; Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway for (I hope) explaining why something 99% of readers will never have heard of was a genuinely world-shaking event with consequences that are still affecting all our readers' daily lives today; Battersea Bridge and Hellingly Hospital Railway for showing that it's possible to write on a dry technical topic without going into "the 4-4-2 Manning Wardle tank engine was fitted with twin reciprocating camshafts" nerdiness; and Halkett boat for bringing those wonderful drawings to a wider audience.

In terms of Wikipedia meta-issues, as one of those who fought to show that there isn't a clear dichotomy between Good Wikipedia editors who toil tirelessly for the greater good, and Evil banned users who circle the project like a pack of wolves (or if you prefer, Evil drones who slave for Jimbo's self-aggrandizing machine, and Good fearless rebels who dare to challenge the established order and are blocked by the evil cabal), back when the us-and-them mentality was far more entrenched than it is now.

In practice, I know damned well that my Wikipedia tombstone will read 'Coiner of the phrases "Indefinite means undefined not infinite" and "Without content Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people" ', with a brief footnote of 'only person ever to be expelled from Arbcom'. – iridescent 11:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for explaining and for treating really peculiar topics sensitively! - I wish you were on arbcom! Some seem to wait for me to appeal my sanctions, - but how can I appeal to people who didn't look and understand in the first place? - In practise: I'm in the info-box, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been sanctioned by ArbCom as well Gerda but it bothers me not at all. I've never even considered appealing, and I very much doubt I ever will. Where's the fun in prostrating yourself before a bunch of sanctimonious windbags? Eric Corbett 12:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me too much, the restriction to 2 comments in a discussion is even a true blessing, which should be handed out more generously. I only said that I seem to be expected to appeal. No, I won't. My sanction is so ridiculous, example: I wrote more than 90% of Richard Adeney, but I am restricted not to add an infobox because I didn't literally "create" it = turn red link to blue. I had simply forgotten that I hadn't done that, this was in 2009, I only remembered the work I put in. Even more ridiculous is that my police bothers to follow me, revert me, and write a warning. Could some merciful soul perhaps restore the infobox? This is not a composer, there's no controversy on musical artists, - it's just ridiculous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is, but that's beside the point: you're expected to either appeal or stick to the restriction - doing neither is not an option, and helping you to do neither is no mercy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you hear today's music, lonely hearts club? When I started the article on Neill Sanders I had no idea that he played the famous horn calls. I gave him an infobox recently, and also several of his colleagues. One was reverted, per my restriction. Does it make sense? (The restriction leading to inconsistent treatment of articles, I mean.) Would it make sense to appeal a restriction that doesn't make sense with the very same people who passed it? No. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Break: tunnels and civility

hope over experience

Thank you for the tunnel, - hoping for light at the end ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you... I will put my hand up and admit that Tunnel Railway is not the most exciting article on Wikipedia, but it's as interesting as a barely-used hole in the ground is ever going to be. (What's the significance of the lambananas? With the greatest of respect to that fine city, as symbols of hope go Liverpool city centre wouldn't be top of most people's lists. Except for Hope Street, I suppose.) – incredibly toxic personality 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the signature. Great idea! - The lambananas are my signature: picture taken by a missing admired editor. You may remember reading in the Signpost that I translate for editors not wanted here, - in this case I took the picture and send it around the world, a little effort fighting toxic atmosphere. --incredibly toxic personality --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you've done something to earn his wrath, I don't think "incredibly toxic personality" was aimed at you. Although he's very carefully avoided naming names this time round (understandable, in light of what happened last time he started attacking people he disliked by name), to the best of my knowledge Jimmy Wales's "toxic personalities who allegedly produce good content" are, in roughly descending order, Bishonen (undoubtedly top of his list), Giano, Eric Corbett, Thekohser, Wehwalt, every person listed here, Alison, Rlevse and myself, and I'm not sure the latter two are significant enough to make it onto the list any more.

As regards the issue at the root of this, my thoughts haven't changed since I proposed this rewritten civility policy back Before The Dawn of Time (my bolding of the key points):

The civility policy Wikipedia ought to have doesn't need a novel; it needs three short paragraphs:

• "Wikipedia's editors are expected to avoid, unless necessary for editorial reasons, the use of language which can be reasonably expected to offend a significant number of Wikipedia's readers. Wikipedia's editors are also expected to avoid the use of language which can reasonably be construed as belittling another user, unless such language is necessary for editorial reasons (e.g. warning an editor who is repeatedly introducing serious errors and refuses to accept reasonable explanations as to why their changes are inappropriate). Once an editor has had it drawn to their attention that another editor considers their conduct unacceptable, that editor should either cease the behavior in question or explain to the complaining editor why they consider the conduct reasonable; if the editors are unable to agree on what constitutes reasonable conduct, wider community input should be requested to determine consensus on the issue. If an editor continues unnecessarily to use language which has been determined to be offensive to significant numbers of Wikipedia's readers, or which is widely considered to constitute the unnecessary belittling of another Wikipedia editor, sanctions may be imposed upon the editor in question.

• Likewise, if an editor repeatedly accuses another editor of inappropriate conduct after such conduct has been deemed appropriate by the broader community, and continues to make such accusations after the fact of it being considered acceptable has been drawn to their attention, sanctions may be imposed to prevent the editor in question from continuing to make vexations complaints.

• Other than in exceptional cases in which a given editor's continued activity has a realistic potential to cause serious damage to the English language Wikipedia or serious damage to public perception of the English language Wikipedia, blocks and other sanctions will not be applied for breaches of this policy, both in the case of users using language considered to be uncivil and in the case of users considered to be making vexatious complaints, prior to community discussion about the appropriateness of such sanctions."

While I'm sure there are excellent reasons why this wouldn't work, I've yet to hear one—this is basically a Bradspeak description of the way people interact in the real world.

@Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies, and Jimbo Wales: why and how has WP:FIVE somehow been elevated with no apparent discussion to some kind of Wikipedia Constitution, rather than an intentionally vague personal essay for people trying to explain Wikipedia to outsiders who disliked the word "dick" in the original WP:TRIFECTA? It still has the prominent "This is a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005 as a simple introduction for new users" disclaimer on the talk-page, but people who should know better (including Arbcom, Jimmy Wales and the WMF) have taken to quoting it as if Larry Sanger had brought it down on stone tablets from Mount Nupedia. (Presumably the Bomis Babe Engine provided the burning bush) – incredibly toxic personality 16:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)