User talk:Iridescent: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:35, 16 January 2016

Thank You

As you know, I value your input greatly. I'm always hesitant to make frivolous deletion requests, and when I considered that (Personal attack removed) may actually be making things worse - I wanted to get some feedback. Thank you. — Ched : ? 18:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, although don't take my views as particularly indicative—my views on the whole Civility Enforcement culture have always been quite hardline anti. If you haven't already, you want to canvass Newyorkbrad's opinion, as if there's a case to be made for keeping it he's probably the one who'll do the best job of articulating the case. (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Template:RPA, if anyone reading this is wondering what this is about.) ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly be interested in NYB's thoughts. Drmies and DGG also often interesting thoughts on these things. (apologies for the shameless canvassing). The one thing I do value - is the ability to look at a situation, and be able to see all sides of it. It's something I'm trying to get better at, although I'm not sure it comes naturally to me. — Ched : ? 19:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a thought, look at people who've used it recently and see what they have to say, since presumably they're the ones who'll consider it a worthwhile template. On a quick dip through the most recent entries on the transclusion list, NE Ent^[1], Mdann52^[2] and LjL^[3] are all people who've used it recently so presumably if there's a case to be made to keep it, they'll know what it is. ‑ Iridescent 19:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at TfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's probably not worth the drama of relitigating it at DRV, that closure is decidedly dubious. Aside from anything else, Non-admin closures are meant to be for uncontroversial AFDs only, of which this is certainly neither. ‑ Iridescent 13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) We do a lot of NAC'ing at TfD. Otherwise the backlog would go back to June when we implemented the "NAC delete" mechanism there. I haven't looked at this one, though; usually when I point this out to people I mention that I'm the only admin who regularly looks at TfD, but I haven't kept up for the last few weeks. (I'm telling myself it's purely coincidence that the backlog is currently the shortest it's ever been since I started keeping track.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but as part of the thorough, excellent and well organised training you'll have just received as part of your entry to the elite, you'll have no doubt learned all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you be sure every time a sitting arb recommends disregarding any one of them someone starts squawking "abuse". "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins" and "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question" are both still in there. ‑ Iridescent 23:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if I tell someone to IAR and they do as they're told, am I still a power-grabbing fascist? ;)

We did have an RfC about NACs awhile back, but the links to it are buried in the footnotes at WP:NAC. In practice the scope has broadened considerably, and Primefac certainly has extensive experience with TfDs. The underlying issue isn't really NACs, I'd guess, but backlog-clearing pressure on too few people; efforts to recruit more admins have mostly failed. Anyway, last time the NAC thing came up I promised to have another RfC about the process as it has evolved since the trial endorsed by the first RfC, but it hasn't hit the top of the to-do list yet. Y'know, I'm busy ~~smiting my enemies~~ reading my email. Also, that template is a "delete with fire" candidate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I ruled the world, NACs would be deprecated altogether. This is one area where "hasten the day" is the right attitude whether you want to improve Wikipedia or to kill it; NACs are a bandaid covering the "not enough admins" wound. Wikipedia actually needs a proper constitutional crisis with all the backlogs spiralling out of control, otherwise the "pull up the drawbridge behind us" attitude of the class of 2006 will continue to block every attempt at change and leave Wikipedia run by an aging and shrinking clique. (There were fewer successful RFAs in 2015 than in any other year since Wikipedia was founded, in a couple of weeks we're about to hit the "two years since the last successful RFB" mark, and the number of admins has fallen every year since 2010, and a fair few of those are moribund accounts who avoid desysopping by making one or two minor edits every few months; even with the WMF's very loose definition of "active" as "30 edits in the last 60 days", well under half the current admins are "active"—579 vs 747 if you want the numbers.) ‑ Iridescent 18:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I'm sure asking Primefac to revert and relist would be fine if you or anyone else thinks the close is questionable - I just thought it'd be best to avoid judging on NAC grounds when a broad scope for NACs has been tacitly endorsed at TfD for months.

In the general case, I was thinking the opposite :) The more work gets offloaded to non-admins, the more obvious it is that most admin work is boring and tedious and not glamorous or powerful at all. If I ruled the world I'd rather slough off as many as possible of the non-button-pressing 'social' functions that seem to have accreted around adminship since the last time I was here. I know how bad the numbers look - though 2015 can be described as both 'fewest new admins EVAR' and 'pretty much the same as last year'. I did a little bit of related data-digging awhile back (BARC aftermath, I think?), now loosely aggregated at User:Opabinia regalis/RfA data. But maybe I'm in the drawbridge club despite myself; my opinion on all things RfA is that it should all be reverted to the November 2006 version. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but sloughing off the routine maintenance drudgery just reinforces the "admins are super-users" idea, since an outside observer seeing that most of the routine tagging-and-maintenance is being done by non-admins would reasonably conclude that admins only exist to handle the really juicy stuff and shouldn't be expected to waste their precious time with paperwork, and thus RFA requires a near-superhuman mix of dispute-resolution, article-curation and technical-markup skills, rather than the ability to open CAT:CSD and mechanically click "delete" or "undo" as appropriate. (This has probably been written more eloquently somewhere by Kudpung.) For the same reason, I've always thought arbcom clerking should be deprecated—I've never cared for the notion that the arbs are special snowflakes who can't be expected to descend from their ivory tower to maintain the dozen-or-so pages in their purview, nor for the idea of arbcom having its own private police force to stop the great unwashed saying things the Great Council of Elders might find objectionable. (Plus, as you've probably discovered by now, the position attracts more than its fair share of oddballs whom I certainly wouldn't want issuing statements or performing actions in my name.) ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt

@Iridescent: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attempt to help with Program in Mathematics for Young Scientists

Sorry I didn't take action on this or reply sooner. I was traveling for work, and didn't log in to Wikipedia during this time. Regardless, I respect your decision. My initial objection was that this is one of the top (arguably top 3) mathematics programs for high school students in the United States. However, I wasn't able to find much impartial coverage (with a cursory internet search) that would address your concerns about notability and significant coverage. I appreciate your giving me a chance with the short-term article restoration, and am thankful for the hard work you and other admins put into this informative site. -User:MattSH 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and the (belated) same to you. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today FA

Precious again, your "Hot naked
man on man action!"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—I don't really like this one, either as an artwork or as a Wikipedia article, but it makes a change from the scantily clad woman and Florentine altarpieces which typify Wikipedia's painting coverage. ‑ Iridescent 22:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I picked Sorrow to translate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's heresy to say it and will no doubt cause Ceoil to complain about my philistinism, but I honestly don't understand the appeal of Van Gogh. The Netherlands have produced some of the finest artists in history, but the only one to get any attention nowadays in the rest of the world (even Rembrandt has faded from popular culture) is a second-rate imitator of Adolphe Monticelli whose main claim to fame seems to have been "use bright colours". I'm sure its the "romantic tortured artist" back story that's led to his current popularity, rather than any particular appreciation of his style. (Don't get me started on Leonardo either, who in artistic terms wasn't fit to clean Titian's, Botticelli's or Lippi's paintbrushes but has somehow become identified as the embodiment of Italian art.) ‑ Iridescent 23:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you love Adolphe Monticelli so much, then honor him by taking the article to FA. ;-) Meanwhile, if your point is that Monticelli is the pathbreaker and Van Gogh the follower, it may at least be conceivable within some possible worlds that refined critics may afford a few too many points for the act of innovation, and neglect to consider that the followers (standing on the shoulders of giants, and so on) may have improved upon the expression of the originators. I may have mentioned that a (photograph of) a Van Gogh painting is the only one ever to bring a tear to me eye (and it was just those ships on a shore, for some unknnown reason). [There was another one with some somber woods that I found touching, but I can't find it on Wikimedia]. Anyhow, your debt to Adolphe awaits you. ;-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got my doubts about Vermeer too! Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monticelli would need a French speaker. The dislike of the British art establishment for him (and by extension the American, Canadian etc as they still tend to take their cue from London) is legendary; the National Gallery of Scotland notoriously refused to allow any work by him to go on display, while the National Gallery itself still keeps their collection hidden in the ~~cellar~~ basement (now better known as The Undergallery) which is only opened to the public a couple of days each month. As a result, aside from a couple of exhibition catalogues and passing mentions in biographies of VVG, every significant work on him is in French.

Don't necessarily take the ability to draw tears (or smiles) as a sign of quality. I've seen a grown, and otherwise sensible, adult reduced to tears by the emotional intensity of Police Academy 3. (Really. I was there.)

I always think of Vermeer as the painting equivalent of Beethoven, Dickens or Orson Welles; someone people feel obliged to say they like for fear of seeming uncultured, rather than someone they actually like. I'd be willing to bet that if you polled 100 people and asked them to name Vermeer works, no more than three would be able to come up with anything more than "Girl With a Pearl Earring and that one with the milk jug whatever it's called". (This would probably be the case even if you conducted said poll in the central gallery of the Rijksmuseum.) ‑ Iridescent 17:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a bit high on that estimate. The common man's knowledge of art works is even worse than their knowledge of history. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the common man remembers Scarlett Johannson movies; if not for that, I'd revise that estimate to zero. ‑ Iridescent 17:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should point here to my annual Wiki Christmas card (DYK on the 25th, with pic I hope) which is a blow against the tyranny of "scantily clad woman and Florentine altarpieces" - Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin). Season's Greetings to all! Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Ottava were still with us, I dread to think what he'd make of that one. ‑ Iridescent 18:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No wait, did you just kinda casually stiff-arm Beethoven too? My lowbrow wrath shall fall upon ye! String Quartet No. 14 (Beethoven) is absolutely my all-time fave... sorry to hear about Monticelli's dim hopes of being FA... as for crying at kitsch, I was well into my late twenties before I stopped crying every single time I heard The Little Drummer Boy, but that's a one-off, since not one other song had that effect... but if chills count, this works (perfect blend of voice/melody/poetry), even though I generally have no time for the swooping gargles of opera. Oh wait, this page is about visual art... ermm, if I may ask in a teensy little voice from the corner, I'm dying to know, and please have a stiff drink first to shed any cultured reticence, what do you think of the work of this guy? No really. Have a drink first. A strong one. Something with the word "grouse" and a prominently displayed "18"... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've honestly never heard of him—aside from the superstars like Dali and Picasso, and the YBAs of whom one can't live in England without having an opinion given their ubiquity, I don't really know much postwar European stuff. (My personal opinion is that in 300 years, the only postwar 20th century European names which will draw crowds are Pablo Picasso, Bridget Riley and Grayson Perry, and Picasso's best years were behind him by then.) Going purely on a Google Image search, it has the same "well, that's nice enough but if I'd paid to see it I'd feel cheated" vibe I get from Rothko, Warhol and Vasarely.

I freely admit to not getting Beethoven. To me, he's like John Lennon; revolutionary at the time, but so imitated since that the original has lost any impact, as everything worthwhile has been reused so often as to become cliched.

One of the more surreal images of the 1980s (sadly, it doesn't appear to be on YouTube) was Margaret Thatcher being reduced to tears by Rolf Harris's Two Little Boys during a recording of Desert Island Discs. ‑ Iridescent 21:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, I've never heard of Riley or Perry, but will give their work an honest look via Google. The article about YBAs prominently mentioned wild lifestyle etc., which resonates with my pet peeve against modern art: the art is a mere shriveled appendage of the true message, which is an expression and exultation of a lifestyle (and by extension, an act of politics in many cases). Cue the "Jackson Pollock" and "vivid wallpaper" rant. Lowbrow me hath spoken. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll likely hate Perry (I'm not very fond of him myself) but he's one of the few genuinely inventive people working today, as well as arguably the only person successfully to meld the classical and comic book traditions. Riley has fallen well out of fashion by now—she was big in the 1960s and not since—but is possibly the only person in that 1960s counterculture tradition not to thoroughly deserve the "self indulgent posturing" label. ‑ Iridescent 21:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several visits to the Rothko Chapel and every time I left I went "and that's art?" so I'm not a good judge of anything after the Impressionists, usually. I favor Uccello and Blake as artists, and Dvorak and Copeland as composers. Oh, and Titian. There's something about bombastic mythology in huge canvases that I must adore. Hubby's a Wagner fan - which I have never been able to figure out since he's basically Scotch-Irish with a lot of Appalachia in him. Shouldn't he like banjos??? I prefer my art to resemble something and my music to be at least something approaching a tune - if that makes me a less than avant-garde, so be it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like bombastic mythology in huge canvases, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Etty/archive1 is waiting for your call. ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nowait, Riley worked in an ad agency? I'm shocked, shocked! As for Perry, well there are different modalities of liking something. I actually like the stuff, but it's "cool" (in the popular sense, not in temperature or standoffish, of course), like... any really creative and talented art student could make... but not "powerful". I'd be perfectly willing to spend $20 US on it. Maybe even a little more.. But to recover somewhat from my unrelieved lowbrowishness, Ceoil has totally turned me on to Paul Gauguin, and I am now officially a card-carrying supporter. And now thanks to Ealdgyth, I need to find out who Uccello and Blake are (unless the latter is William of Red Dragon fame, in which case, wow...) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uccello and William Blake. I like Blake's poetry too... There's a place that'll do reproductions of famous artworks in oil/canvas for you, lifesize. Hubby won't let me get the three panels from The Battle of San Romano for our next house. Something about having to build the house around the artwork he deems excessive. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I second your Blake on both counts. Certainly not the very greatest in either area (especially not in poetry), but clearly gifted in both. Beats the tar outta Perry, anyhow. :-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really get my head around Blake. I think part of the problem with him is that the two main public collections of him (Tate Britain in London and Whitworth Art Gallery in The City That Must Not Be Named) are both quite cluttered with bright shiny stuff which tends to dominate the room; Blake is possibly one of those paradoxical artists whose work works better online than in the flesh. (That said, while writing Youth and Pleasure I came across Blake's illustrations of Thomas Gray, which are some of the most peculiar artworks I've ever seen; there's not a one that would look out of place as the sleeve of a 70s prog-rock album. Design 7, "Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat." in particular is truly odd.) ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's that season again...

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I was just thinking about you today, having just seen a large book on sale called The Medieval Horse. ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By Hyland? I got it .. its in a box, somewhere... I hate packing to move. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, John Clark. If it's like everything else produced by MOLAS, it will be meticulously researched and represent the peak of current thinking, but also be earnestly detailed to the point of insanity, use technical jargon so off-putting it makes a Wikipedia mathematics article look welcoming, and refuse to allow for the possibility that anything that happened outside the M25 could possibly be of any importance. ‑ Iridescent 19:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that one. Have it too. I agree with your description, as it happens. Excellent but good gods it's dense. It also turned out to be less than useful for the research I got it for - mainly because it's so highly specialized... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice & Season's greetings

	Merry Christmas and happy New Year
	And thanks for your WP:contributions! Best wishes to you and your family. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC) \|}[reply]

Thank you—and the same to you. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect

My holiday postings are few - but I did want to include you. I've never known you to show emotion in your postings, so I won't trouble you with such either. I just want to say thank you for all the time and effort you've taken to treat me as an equal. I hope you and your family, and your friends, have a very VERY enjoyable holiday season. I wish you all my best Iridescent — Ched : ? 02:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the same to you. Does "irritation" count as an emotion, as I've certainly been know to show that? I like to think I treat everyone as equals unless and until someone does something good enough or bad enough to warrant my opinion moving up or down. The Bible contains a lot of very bad advice, and a lot more which was once sensible but is now outdated by centuries, but Luke 6.31 is as good a piece of advice today as it was two millennia ago, even though Eric once nearly got sitebanned for restating it in his own terms. (Ironically, this season is something of an unholiday for me; because so many workplaces shut down or scale back their operations, public holidays are the ideal time for major restructuring or maintenance which makes them the busiest time of year for those working in critical-infrastructure projects.) ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who's about to set a basket of apples down in front of a hungry-looking donkey has clearly not thought this plan through. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas!

		Happy Christmas!
		Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you—and happy hogmanay (which Firefox appears to think is a misspelling of "mahogany"). Or at least, hope the crowd of drunk tourists doesn't cause too much of a nuisance. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a ~~Charlie Brown~~ Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw^(talk)

Well, that one's certainly the winner this year. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob van Ruisdael

I hope you had a fine Christmas. Two months ago you helped me with my FAC for the Jacob van Ruisdael article. I just put it up again. Hopefully this time around it does get some votes. I made some more changes as well, hopefully for the better. Please have a look. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but it may not be for a few days. Pinging Johnbod, Victoriaearle and Ceoil, in case you haven't already. ‑ Iridescent 20:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be considered impolite...

... if I claimed an "assist"* for Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm? After all, I started the article (admittedly only as one of my signature Three Sentence Long But Impeccably Well-Referenced Micro-Stubs™). Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* By "claim an assist" I mean shamelessly putting that FA star up top of my userpage despite having contributed almost nothing to the article, of course.

I've no problem, but be careful how you word it, particularly if you're ever planning an RFanything in future. "Looking at the claimed credits on the userpage to see if the candidate actually wrote everything they claim to have written" is behind only "check the block log", "look at the talk page history for suspicious reductions in size where the user has tried to hide arguments" and "see if the ratio of Wikipedia Talk edits to mainspace edits is unduly high" when it comes to quickfailing at WP:RFA (and WP:RFB, WP:ACE and all the rest of the alphabet soup), so you don't want to say anything that gives the impression of kill stealing. (It also irritates some of the FAC regulars, so be aware if you're ever planning to ask people for help in future that it may make them more likely to say no; as a concrete example, Mattisse's long list of claimed FAs came back to bite her when she got into trouble and was looking for people to defend her.) ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. – Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2016

I didn't need to change anything with this one except for trimming down to around 1150 characters and removing the red links. If those turn into stubs between now and the 16th, please let me know. I see this is your busy time of year, so I won't wish you happy holidays. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WandsworthBridge.jpg at standard {{TFAIMAGE}} width

Wandsworth Bridge (cropped).JPG at 190px

Dank, it would probably violate some policy or other but it might make sense to use this image at an expanded width, rather than File:WandsworthBridge.jpg as currently in the blurb. Because of the former's extreme aspect ratio it wouldn't take up appreciably more space than the latter (see right), but it gives a better idea of the width of the river at this point, as well as highlighting the one remarkable feature of this otherwise singularly uninteresting structure; that its wartime camouflage is remarkably effective at making it hard to tell exactly what you're looking at when viewing it from a distance. (Illustrating something that's intentionally designed not to show up clearly in photographs is always going to be tricky.)

As regards the blurb itself, I wouldn't lose sleep. This one is deeply dull, and will have an outside chance of challenging Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd for the "least-viewed TFA" title. ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Pinging Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, don't lose sleep over this one. Some of this "Bridges of West London" series are fascinating stories (the back-story of Richmond Bridge would make a decent-sized novel), but Wandsworth Bridge is not among them, and there's only so far one can go when it comes to trying to make things like this sound vaguely interesting. (It's still not as bad as Chiswick Bridge, which is so deathly dull I still haven't got round to taking it to FAC almost a decade after finishing it, on the assumption that no reviewer will bother reading it.) ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can give it a try (referring to image). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wager that at least one person doesn't read the blurb as far as "camouflage", and complains that the picture is indistinct. As I've mentioned before, I do find the camouflage of Wandsworth Bridge fascinating; despite just being a simple two-shades-of-blue paint scheme, if you flip through commons:Category:Wandsworth Bridge you can see that whatever the angle and weather conditions, except in very bright clear light (which is not common even today, and in pre Clean Air Act 1956 wartime London was unheard of) this 200m long lump of concrete and steel looks like a blur when viewed from a distance. ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wisconsin Green Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wisconsin Green Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only involvement with that article was a single minor typo fix. Eight years ago. FWIW, I don't think there's the slightest chance this will be deleted barring extraordinary circumstances, since there's no indication you've done any WP:BEFORE work (just dropping "Wisconsin Green Party" into any search engine shows that this party has non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources), and given that this is a party with multiple elected representatives (indeed, the first Green party to win elected office in the US) you'll have a hard time claiming it doesn't meet WP:GNG, especially given that a glance at {{Green Party of the United States}} shows that in every state with an active Green Party, said party has its own article. Contrary to belief, "poor referencing" is not and never has been a deletion criterion; I'd strongly suggest you withdraw the AFD nom now to avoid the almost inevitable snow close. ‑ Iridescent 23:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent

Was mentioned above, and its funny you might ask. Myself and Modernist might take this to FAC in the next six months, and I had thought to ask you for a look at PR. I do know where you are coming from, and having seen a blockbuster in the Hague about 6 years ago, I was left cold; too much van Gogh, and not very interesting up close, esp if they are in the dozens. But individual painting still amaze, he is so expressive in intent and with those broad paint strokes. Ceoil (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't actively dislike him, but (as with Leonardo) I find that most of his supposed innovations had already been done just as well by someone else, and I don't get the whole "groundbreaking visionary of unique genius" narrative. I see him as the Impressionist equivalent of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Andrew Lloyd-Webber or David Beckham (or indeed, William Etty)—undoubtedly greatly technically gifted and a dedicated hard grafter, but whose primary talent was a knack for knowing which elements of other people's work was worth lifting, rather than any great inventiveness in his own right, and who had the (posthumous) good luck to have had a style which meshed well with both pre-WW2 modernism and post-WW2 op-art/pop-art, thus allowing every Warhol-inspired chancer to claim they were part of a Great Artistic Tradition rather than a pack of self-promoting bullshitters. (If you ever want to feel the urge to punch your monitor, follow some of the links here, particularly this guy.)

Pretty much every artist had a ratio of a dozen duff works for every good one; part of the problem with VVG, I suspect, is that thanks to his name galleries feel obliged to put even his most wretched works on prominent display with a gushing caption about what a work of genius they are, even in the case of unsuccessful doodles which the man himself would probably have preferred be destroyed. Picasso and Turner tend to suffer the same problem, in which every throwaway experiment they ever painted is given pride of place in some provincial gallery because they spent so much on it, nobody dares to point out that the Emperor is naked; look me in the eye and tell me that if Farmhouse Among Trees, The Blue Room or Ullswater from Gobarrow Park had any other signature on them, they wouldn't have promptly been shoved in the storeroom. (I think Farmhouse Among Trees has just taken the place of Southborough, Bromley as my go-to example of a useless-but-undeletable Wikipedia article, too.) ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) More than happy to do the PR on it—just let me know when you think it's ready. You do realise that taking it to the main page will mean fending off a swarm of nerds angry that more prominence isn't given to the fact that he was a Doctor Who character? ‑ Iridescent 14:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All too true. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tis a shame you are not a reliable source; the above first paragraph would make an amusing fourth lead paragraph. --- While most art historians believe, Iridescent --- This is one of the reasons I tend towards the 15 and 16 th c's - only the major works are attributed. Such a surviving internal consistency can only compare with the Smiths, who have a rubbish/excellent ratio par none. The same is true of precious few; a poor Bacon is a very poor painting indead. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which Smiths, Morrissey & Marr or Mark E & Brix? The same is equally true of both, although at least the latter had the decency to rigidly alternate good and bad to make it easier for future generations to know what to ignore.

If you want really bad art, try the Wiertz Museum, next door to the European Parliament in Brussels. A 19th-century agreement has bound the Belgian government to display Antoine Wiertz's entire output in perpetuity on this site, despite it being painfully obvious in hindsight that his work is without exception absolutely awful; thus, there's more prime display space in central Brussels granted to this one Victorian hack than to Rubens, Van Dyck or the Breughels, and one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the world is occupied by an aircraft-hangar sized building filled with art so bad the Germans didn't even bother to loot it.

As far as really bad work by genuinely gifted artists goes, I'd say the winner is this effort by Cézanne in the Walker, which somehow manages to be the tackiest item in a room containing And When Did You Last See Your Father?. No article for AWDYLSYF? Really? ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the other Manc couple, but think Mark E has on and off *decades* rather than albums (you might be thinking of Julian Cope?). Novelty 70s, consistent 80s, dreadful pub rock car park punch up 90s, revitalised 00s, and a spattering of disappointing recent albums. I took a look at the Wiertz commons cat. Christ. For me art now ends at 1599, I think a safe distance from all that later nonsense and rationalisation. Ceoil (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stationary

Ahem!....please excuse me while I cringe. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you're certainly not alone; every couple of months I go through and clear them up. "Ordinance Survey" and "doe snot" are the other repeat offenders—because they're legitimate words in their own right, spellcheckers don't spot them. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your wisdom regarding COI

Tapping into your wisdom because you seem to know far more than me regarding just about anything to do with WP ...

Does this seem reasonable? I rarely have dealings with articles where self-declared paid editors are involved. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the disclaimer that this is a topic on which I know nothing, my gut instinct is that the edits you reverted here may have been COI, but weren't outright spam, and were no certainly no worse than the kind of casual "my favourite band/team/product" puffery to which Wikipedia has turned a blind eye for over 15 years. (Way back Before The Dawn Of Time when the total number of articles was in single figures, we'd already managed to acquire our first piece of blatant fancruft. Both Jimmy Wales's "Giving the World the Sum of All Human Knowledge" and Larry Sanger's "Unappreciated Visionary" posturing overlook the fact that the "75% of articles are irredeemable crap" rule has been a part of Wikipedia since the days when it was an obscure link hidden halfway down the sidebar on a ropey ~~porn site~~ "guy-oriented website"*.)

Wikipedia strongly discourages COI editing on the grounds that paid editors are unlikely to be neutral, but doesn't actively forbid it; in this case, it looks like the paid editor was making a bona fide effort to maintain NPOV. The article itself, in either version, is a wretched piece which devotes hugely undue weight to criticism (there's more on legal challenges than on the rest of the article combined), and probably ought to get a full WP:TNT delete-and-rewrite-from-scratch treatment.

Paid editing and India are two of the topics most likely to attract a swarm of weirdos and the intersection of the two is unlikely to be pretty if history is anything to go by. Given the minimal readership of the page I wouldn't consider this a hill worth dying on, and the best thing to do is probably to post a neutral notification at WP:COIN, unwatch the page and let matters take their course. ‑ Iridescent 00:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Those who want to research the manure in which Wikipedia grew could do worse than dip their toes into just how unpleasant Bomis actually was.[4][5][6]

Ok, thanks. I was thinking of posting at COIN because, as you say, the thing is a complete mess which ever way I look at it. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of paid editing—which definitely doesn't reflect Wikipedia policy—is that whether someone is a paid editor or not is largely irrelevant, and that paid editors who declare their association should be welcomed and encouraged. It's impossible to identify them in an anonymous environment unless they either voluntarily identify themselves, or leave an obvious trail of breadcrumbs from elsewhere (testimonials from satisfied customers that allow us to see what the article in question was, etc). The proposal that got Greg blocked a decade ago—paid editors working in a separate draft namespace, and then approaching people with no opinions on the topic to determine whether their suggested rewrite is appropriate and if so to move it across—is still the most sensible suggestion I've seen on how to handle the issue, and I strongly suspect that had the idea come from anyone else it would have been standard practice for years.

Plus, the COI from a paid editor is in many cases no worse than that which exists on every article. The volunteer nature of Wikipedia means that by definition people are going to write about things that interest them, which in most cases will mean things on which they have an opinion. Presumably the majority of editors on any sports team are going to be fans, with a motivation to make their team look good just as strong as that of a paid editor, but if anyone tried to propose "No Grimsby fans are permitted to write on Grimsby Town F.C." they'd be laughed out.

The example I always used to use was celebrities; under current custom and practice, if User:ILoveEllieGouldingShe'sSoCool posts a torrent of gushing fancruft to Ellie Goulding they'll be welcomed and patiently walked through the policy/guideline maze, whereas if User:Nigel from the Polydor Records Press Department makes minor corrections to factual errors on the same article, he'll almost certainly be reverted-and-blocked, and at the very least receive a talkpage full of intimidating and largely incomprehensible templates; as things stand, we actively penalise people for honestly declaring their biases. ‑ Iridescent 12:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arturo at BP, determined to do things right, has got on slightly better than that, and is generally patient when no one independent is prepared to action his suggestions, which seem sensible, or just correct. I hope he has managed to get the details of his boss's bio right by now - see Geoff Morrell (spokesperson) and its talk. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorporateM seems to be getting by as well. I don't dispute that bad-actor paid editors can cause problems, but I do dispute that the COI of a paid editor is necessarily any worse than that of any other editor working in a field in which they have strong opinions, which by definition will be most editors since the pool of Eric Corbetts, willing to devote hours of work to topics on which they have no interest, was never large and is getting steadily smaller. ‑ Iridescent 23:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All too few are familiar with nupedia .. fewer still with Bomis. I always appreciate seeing thoughts of those who are well read. TY. — Ched : ? 05:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a very halfhearted defense of Jimmy and Larry, at the time of Bomis the internet was (a) overwhelmingly male and (b) still had an element of the "we are the vanguard of the new society and doing things normal people find unacceptable is just Sticking It To The Man" mentality, and in that climate Jimbo's offerings like Almost Naked Teenage Girls and Celebrity Upskirts (both safe for work provided you don't follow any links) are understandable, albeit not excusable. (We still have an unhealthy number of "stick it to the man" free-culture hardliners with us to this day; they tend to infest User talk:Jimbo Wales and the Village Pumps, although a lot of the worst offenders have decamped to Commons.) ‑ Iridescent 12:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ::::::In this particular case, I'm sure asking Primefac to revert and relist would be fine if you or anyone else thinks the close is questionable - I just thought it'd be best to avoid judging on NAC grounds when a broad scope for NACs has been tacitly endorsed at TfD for months.
 ::::::In the general case, I was thinking the opposite :) The more work gets offloaded to non-admins, the more obvious it is that most admin work is boring and tedious and not glamorous or powerful at all. If ''I'' ruled the world I'd rather slough off as many as possible of the non-button-pressing 'social' functions that seem to have accreted around adminship since the last time I was here. I know how bad the numbers look - though 2015 can be described as both 'fewest new admins EVAR' and 'pretty much the same as last year'. I did a little bit of related data-digging awhile back (BARC aftermath, I think?), now loosely aggregated at [[User:Opabinia regalis/RfA data]]. But maybe I'm in the drawbridge club despite myself; my opinion on all things RfA is that it should all be reverted to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis|November 2006 version]]. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 07:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
+:::::::Sure, but sloughing off the routine maintenance drudgery just reinforces the "admins are super-users" idea, since an outside observer seeing that most of the routine tagging-and-maintenance is being done by non-admins would reasonably conclude that admins only exist to handle the ''really'' juicy stuff and shouldn't be expected to waste their precious time with paperwork, and thus RFA requires a near-superhuman mix of dispute-resolution, article-curation and technical-markup skills, rather than the ability to open [[CAT:CSD]] and mechanically click "delete" or "undo" as appropriate. (This has probably been written more eloquently somewhere by [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]].) For the same reason, I've always thought arbcom clerking should be deprecated—I've never cared for the notion that the arbs are special snowflakes who can't be expected to descend from their ivory tower to maintain the dozen-or-so pages in their purview, nor for the idea of arbcom having its own private police force to stop the great unwashed saying things the Great Council of Elders might find objectionable. (Plus, as you've probably discovered by now, the position attracts more than its fair share of oddballs whom I certainly wouldn't want issuing statements or performing actions in my name.)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 == Requesting to join a debate for [[James Stunt]] ==