User talk:Iridescent: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:35, 5 June 2008

Re: Potentially serious apparent Huggle bug

Not sure if your talkpage is the place to report these, but you'd better note this; I've confirmed that his huggle.css page was definitely blanked at the time, and he's right; his contrib history shows him using Huggle since the blanking. I blanked my huggle.css page as an experiment, and it also letting me log on just fine. Any thoughts? — iridescent 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Xp54321#Huggle. It's probably a cache issue. I've given a short block to the user to sort this out. Metros (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that I broke the logic for checking the configuration subpage while implementing the approval mechanism. It will be fixed in the next version. Though I have to say, the fact that users won't take the advice of administrators unless forced to by technical measures is a little worrying -- Gurchzilla (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If users took advice, we wouldn't need the block button... — iridescent 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi. Could you please block this IP 213.140.22.65, that vandalised many times, instead of multiple warnings, this voice and could you please protect the same voice too? This Ip is well-known in Italian Wiki for continuous vandalisms (see: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:213.140.22.65). Thanks. --Nosferamus (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's semi-protected, which will stop him re-adding it. I don't think it's so much vandalism, as editwarring and inability to understand that another wiki isn't a reliable source. — iridescent 15:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar, RE Help

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Hi Iredescent, just to say thanks ever so much for all the information. And actually taking the time to reply and help me. You deserve it. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack\|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack\|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack\|contribs]])☺ 10:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — iridescent 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt an IP it was this character. User:ZealousSaracen [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Already indefblocked — iridescent 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he dont like that! See the talk page. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(His talkpage) [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother replying to him - it just encourages them if you give them attention. Revert, block, ignore. — iridescent 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one who keeps vandalising your talk has personal attacked me, I think its time. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He states he is a sockpuppet, he is taking the buiscuit now. Please do the necessary. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked, account creation blocked. Just revert, report, ignore if it happens again. — iridescent 18:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I dont see any other possible outcome [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that hooey, and by the way I did that thing in my Preferences about the edit summary. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Me and another user have been in a campaign to revert regular vandalism on User:Flardox's page, I have just reverted another one. Maybe it is time for protection? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh!

I just cracked up when I saw that you blocked that user for $1. More vandals deserve that kind of lovely parting gift. :) Again, thanks for the laugh. Needed it. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much as it pains me, I've reported this to Gurch as I've no idea why it's doing this. Personally, I'd love to let it stay. — iridescent 18:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bug in Huggle block template

Much as I'd love a dollar for every block, I'm not convinced this is what the block message should really say. Any idea why it's doing this? (It's only doing it since today, but it's done it three times in a row so it's not a one-off glitch.) — iridescent 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry about that. I recently moved the various user messages from the config page into separate templates to make them easier to maintain, but neglected to replace the "$1" -- used as a placeholder in the same way as some MediaWiki messages -- with {{{1}}}, as required in a template. It should be fixed now (though you'll need to restart Huggle) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsport — iridescent 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always manually enter "$1" as the block reason if you really want to :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True... I'm tempted. (As per the neverending conversation above, I'm currently testing Huggle for a week or so; while I won't make a habit of it (vandal-fighting was never my thing) it is a really impressive piece of kit. Something that does occur to me is, it might solve all the problems if it only worked with rollback; that way removing rollback would automatically disable it, without messing about with stylesheets — and someone who isn't trusted with manual rollback certainly shouldn't be machine-gunning at 500 edits per hour.

By the way, your manual seems to have a typo in it; it gives two different actions for the "D" key (blanking warning and show diff) — iridescent 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The next version will allow access to be restricted to only users with rollback. Unfortunately at the moment every time I think the next version is ready for release I find something else wrong with it. Regarding the keyboard shortcuts, those listed under "Warning form" apply only when the warning form is open (select "Advanced..." from the Warn menu) to allow you to select a warning type quickly -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - makes sense now... (Having seen just how easy it is to make mistakes on it, I've actually toned down my Dire Warning at the top of this page; when I, with 2 years/60k edits, am making slips I can easily see how others do. And they don't have the luxury of G7'ing accidentally-created IP warning pages...) — iridescent 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I feel a little guilty for not doing more to make it less error-prone – adding in Undo and Cancel and confirmation when reverting whitelisted users is about all I've done recently – but I seem to have more than enough to do implementing requested features and fixing bugs :/ -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Compared to the bugs and niggles with AWB all these years on, they're minor. Anything that's usable by anyone is going to be misused. This is why we don't let toddlers drive. — iridescent 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we do let them edit the largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world though. Hmmm....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, do you really want to hear my rant about how even ED requires an account to edit and if Jimbo's so keen on anonymity he can load up Twinkle and help clean up the mess? — iridescent 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do. I'm saying this as someone that absolutely covets his privacy, and will not ever, at anytime, reveal his real identity by name or any other specific criterion. I don't even have email enabled for privacy reasons. That said, it becomes very obvious very early on when a user is a "minor" (usually because their first days' edits include setting up their "guestbook".) Being a minor is very different from being anonymous. (again, IMO). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see the effect Huggle has had on the speed with which vandalism is dealt with. I remember when I first developed and used it (15 months ago) it was faster than anything else (there were no anti-vandal bots at that time) so I had no problem finding vandalism to revert. As it's become more widely used, though, I have found that more difficult – just now, for example, I needed to test something in the new version and had to attempt eight reverts before I was not beaten by someone (usually you :D). It does concern me a little that perhaps there's a risk that by making things faster I've turned it into a race to fix vandalism (which it always has been, of course, though less so) which in turn encourages people to be more careless. Fixing vandalism more quickly is undeniably a good thing, though, as it reduces the chance a reader will actually see it, so I'm not sure what can be done about that – intentionally slowing it down seems a bit self-defeating. Good work anyway, though; I know dealing with vandalism is not really your thing – Gurchzilla (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just leave something resting on the "Q" key, rollback everything and check by every half an hour to indefblock anyone who's complained... Takes less effort than opening new user contributions and hitting "rollback-batch". (note to all Outraged Users who are already formatting the RFC in their minds, that was a joke.) — iridescent 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. We were all newcomers once, you know :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't feel like it... My first edit was to add two links and my second was to clean up unsourced defamation, I think I was born to be on AWB. — iridescent 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rant about IP editing

OK, here we go. There is no good reason why IPs should be allowed to edit. It takes all of 30 seconds to set up an account, but (as Gurch can testify) at least 90% of blatant vandalism comes from IPs; that 30 seconds is enough to put the bored-kids off, while not significantly wasting anyone else's time; plus, it means the accounts can be indefblocked and avoid all the collateral damage resulting from schoolblocks, rangeblocks yadda yadda. The "but I don't want to use my username in this controversial area" argument Jimbo & co trot out doesn't apply; users with a genuine reason to want to remain anonymous can set up an SPA just as easily as editing under an IP. Download Huggle (it only takes 30 seconds or so), just keep pushing the spacebar to watch the changes from the IRC feed without making any reverts, and just look at the sheer volume of crap that's currently coming from IPs compared to the minimal amount of useful contributions. If a ban on IPs cut out even ten percent of that crap, then the "useful time saved" more than cancels out the "useful time lost" in forcing genuine users to create accounts. This policy is set by people at WMF who have barely edited since the early days, none of whom are ever willing to admit the problem exists, let alone put the rubber gloves on and help clean up the mess that's created by policies that were set up for an obscure website with 10,000 pages and are completely inappropriate for a website with 2 million pages and one of the highest profiles of any site in the world. — iridescent 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you were talking about IPs. I wasn't. I was talking about "anonymous editing" (via selected names like Iridescent and Keeper) vs. authenticated/real live human being names. I agree. Lots of problems could be solved if, upon clicking the "anyone can edit" button, the first window that pops up is a simple "select a username" button. No need for real world ID, no need for email or IRC authentication, just a generic username. In that case, I'm pretty sure I agree with you. (Although, I've seen stats somewhere about IP edits being a larger percentage of "good" than 10% -- not sure where though...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good anonymous edits as a percentage of all good edits is higher, yes – it's about half, if I recall correctly. However, bad anonymous edits as a percentage of all bad edits is well over 95% – this is the problem. Gurchzilla (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, I didn't say at least 90% of IP edits were vandalism - I said at least 90% of vandalism comes from IPs... — iridescent 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I did misinterpret that. Thanks for the clarification. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just spit diet mountain dew

at your defintion of Moral Support. And I replied on the Wikispeak talkpage. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't mention Mountain Dew... MD & Cheerios are the only things I really miss since I moved to the Land of Dirty Streets & Expensive Trains. Oh, and Wild Cherry Life Savers. — iridescent 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No MD, eh? That would suck. Sorry. Although, a Brit friend of mine (you mean England there right?) who lives stateside brings me these wonderful little cookies called Digestives. Can't find them here, found them online once. Terrifically good little numbers. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.goodwoods.com — iridescent 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY SHIT!!!! That was the website! I obviously didn't look hard enough these are what the good bloke buys me whenever he goes home. AH DANG!!!! I'm adding that to favorites....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a more accurate definition of Moral Support would be "Ten other people already think you're an idiot and I want to be the one person here who doesn't get flamed". — iridescent 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added it. And ordered Digestives. 2 weeks delivery, meh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get HobNobs instead. They're much nicer. — iridescent 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oo! I will! I have a limitless supply of money, and obviously I have nothing but time on my hands....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU

I know you don't like breaking up conversations, I read so on the top of this page, but I don't like leaving comments on my own talk page and instead link to my reply. Anyway, I can see where you're coming from on the recent block idea. I've tried to get the community to nail down some specific criteria regarding inclusion at HAU, but the consensus has always come up that anyone who wants to add themselves can go ahead and do so. I have brought up the matter at the talk page so as to gauge the community consensus on this issue, so we'll see what happens. Useight (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at WT:HAU — iridescent 22:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

I'm confused, what do you mean, what did I do wrong? iMatthew _T._C. 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me my mistake, as I clearly have made one, and not realized such. iMatthew _T._C. 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've advised him to evade the 255 character restriction on signatures built into the MediaWiki software, by creating his sig as a template and transcluding it in the "raw sig" box. This is expressly forbidden (I linked to the relevant part of WP:SIG on your talkpage).

Apologies if my initial post seemed a bit rude; on re-reading it, I agree with CaribbeanHQ that it's a bit abrupt, and have toned it down. Most especially, note I wasn't threatening to block you (which CHQ seems to have inferred). — iridescent 23:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was un-aware of this. I've never heard to that policy, so I apologize for instructing a user to do something against policy. I was, in no way, trying to get him into trouble, because like I said, I was un-aware of the policy. I'm glad you agree with Caribbean H.Q., because I felt as if you were not assuming good faith. No offense, but I think a better action would have been to question me on the matter, because automatically assuming I was doing something wrong, and giving me my only warning. I don't know, but that's what it felt like. Like I said, I was un-aware of that, and I promise I will never instruct a user to take such an action ever again. iMatthew _T._C. 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and as I say, sorry if it seemed rude. As you can probably see if you've been following his talk page, the user in question appears to be fast-developing into a problem user, and I think you got a burst of the frustration that should have been directed at him. — iridescent 23:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll alright, I understand. Just make sure you explain this to him as well, thanks! Cheers! iMatthew _T._C. 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←With him, it's gone beyond the explaining stage (he's had it repeatedly explained to him by multiple editors and is refusing to listen); he's been given a couple of days to salvage any code he wants salvaged and then the templates are going to be deleted. — iridescent 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Martin

Yo bro, can u please verify the edit made to Dino AKA Dean Martin. I believe its Jerry Lewis not 'Jerome Lewis.' Thanks bro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabiggestestitaliano3 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of deleted article

Userified to User:Iunaw/LiquidApps. Be aware that even in userspace, it's still deletable as advertising unless reliable sources are added to indicate notability (although IMO, it ought to go to MfD rather than be speedied if the situation arises).

I think/hope a MfD won't be necessary, it should be either rewritten to meet WP:NOTABILITY if it's notable enough or taken elsewhere if not (i'm not very optimistic after googling a bit, but i could be wrong). I don't know, but i'll be watching it.. Thank you iridescent! :) Iunaw 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe

I do believe that you believe that I am a good faith editor.(lol)Thanks,your warning wayyyy before about awb pissed me off but im wayyyyy over it.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never doubted you were good faith - you just sometimes let your keenness get the better of you... Editcounting really is a meaningless exercise — a single edit can easily take a week of work, but for RFA, RFB and any other process where people look over your edits, will count for far more than 10,000 Huggle or Twinkle rollbacks. — iridescent 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewellery vs. Jewelery

I noticed that you used AWB to "correct" the typo. Note that the proper spelling in American English is Jewelery (see the lead paragraph on the Jewellery article). I'm sure that you know as well as I do that you shouldn't be changing an American article to the British English spelling, especially mass moves with a AWB. I have undone the change for Buffy Waltrip. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate since you come from the other side of the big pond. Royalbroil 04:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read that lead section again... "Jewelery" is a typo in either American or British English; it's "Jewelry" in American and "Jewellery" in British. As "Jewellery" is the spelling of the Wikipedia article, that's the one that AWB defaults to when correcting "jewelery", although obviously "jewelry" (but not "jewelery") is acceptable if the article's in American English. The discussion that led to this decision is here if you need it. — iridescent 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:I just lost teh game

Seems we might have a compromise in the works; as I understand it, they're offering to transclude, rather than redirect, which I believe resolves most of the problems brought up at WP:AN. I've just posted at User talk:I just lost teh game#Protection saying I'd come here and ask you about releasing the protection. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem at all with that. The very reason I took it over to AN was because I wasn't at all sure if protection was appropriate and wanted second (and third) opinions. — iridescent 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

Hello, iridescent. I stumbled across some of the recent signature discussions in which you've been a participant and ended up here. I notice a few sections above that you scolded iMatthew for advising another user to tranclude a template as his signature. I agree that the whole customized signature craze is inappropriate for Wikipedia and that iMatthew was making such a recommendation to circumvent the implicit 255 character limit (as imposed by the MediaWiki software), but he was in fact advising that user to substitute the template. Assuming the signature template is under 255 characters, does substituting a template as one's signature break policy? I didn't see a provision for this in WP:SIG, but such action wouldn't be susceptible to most (all?) of the disadvantages of transclusion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point - he was advising to subst the template so he could have a 450 character signature. Personally, I think the spirit of WP:SIG, if not the exact wording, bans the use of templates at all (whether subst'ed or not); since the purposes of banning them are clearly stated to be that signature templates can be easily vandalised, and that every transclusion (whether subst or not) places a small but perceptible strain on the servers. Both of these would continue to be an issue whether or not the template is subst'ed — and I can see no legitimate reason for having the sig in a separate page, other than to circumvent the 255 character rule. — iridescent 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't missing the point. I actually stated that I agreed that "iMatthew was making such a recommendation to circumvent the implicit 255 character limit", which I thought clearly indicated that I understood the situation. On the real topic, how could a subst'ed template be vandalized in the manner WP:SIG describes? It's a permanent insertion of the text of the template. Future changes to the template would not affect the substituted text. I don't believe that there would be a performance hit either, since no lookup of the template itself would be required as, again, the text has been permanently inserted. I am especially puzzled by your implication that substitution is a type of transclusion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confusing myself by using fuzzy terminology here... Basically, what I'm saying is that, while it would be very hard (and immediately spotted) to follow User:The SRS around vandalising his signature on talk pages, it would be a matter of seconds to vandalise User:The SRS/Signature. In the case of subtle vandalism, like (redacted per WP:BEANS), it would quite likely not spotted for some time in at least some cases of newish users, who either don't check their watchlist every day, or don't auto-watch pages they create.

As regards subst putting a minor additional strain on the server, I don't think there's any doubt there. ~~~~ → signature = 1 operation; ~~~~ → template → signature = 2 operations. Obviously the additional strain is minute, but if the practice takes off, on a website with 47,939,264 users all those microseconds add up. — iridescent 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point regarding the vandalism now. It didn't cross my mind that someone might not immediately notice if their signature was different, even something subtle like a different link. I also see your point regarding the performance strain, but I am not familiar enough with MediaWiki to know if you're right. I would imagine however that even a signature set in one's preferences still requires a lookup: ~~~~ → retrieve sig markup from preferences → signature = 2 operations. In any case, I didn't want this to turn into a technical disection of Wikipedia and my initial curiosity regarding the signature policy has been satisfied. Thanks. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userboxes

Almost made me fall out of my chair. dorftrottel (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deny all knowledge. It must have been Bad People sullying the good name of Wikipedia. Probably the Cabal. — iridescent 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gomez

I am aiming to nominate this article for GA and to be a FA on 21 June. If you can suggest any improvements to the article please let me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I know about boxing pretty much stops at McGuigan, so I suspect anything I'd do would make more harm then good. I know this is usually my answer to everything, but it would probably be a good idea to ask User:Malleus Fatuarum to take a look - he's very good at getting almost-there articles over the line. — iridescent 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two words:

The. WP. Logo. Is. Trippy. Wait, that's four! EVERYTHING I KNOW IS WRONG!--Editor510 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to please... — iridescent 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My username pronounciation

I responded at RyRy5's talk page, you can see my explanation here. Useight (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mistake?

Now, Gurch, as I was saying about people using automated tools not checking who they're templating... — iridescent 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did call Giggy an "arrogant bastard with too many FAs", so it was probably warranted :) Gurchzilla (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you think you could reply to some questions that I asked on my admin coaching page, as my coach is offline at this time? Cheers, Razor flame 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so. Bear in mind that my opinions are just that, and not any kind of policy. What I will say is, don't do things you don't enjoy for the sake of an RFA; if you go into adminship expecting anything more than a couple of extra buttons you rarely use, and an tripled level of vandalism to your talkpage, you're in for a tremendous let-down. — iridescent 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I am expecting from the sysop flag is the ability to help the English Wikipedia more than I already do. Cheers, Razor flame 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me to several reverts! Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 23:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why,thank you... — iridescent 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :) Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malleus Fatuarum/WikiSpeak

Don't know if you thought I wouldn't notice this, but I have. I realise it's intended to be humorous, but frankly many of the entries are more insulting that funny -- Gurch (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've contributed a few of the entries, it's Malleus's page, not mine, and mostly written by Malleus, Keeper76 and Dorftrottel, so (unless it's specifically in relation to something I've said there) you're probably better off telling Malleus, not me. If the problem is one of my contributions, let me know and (provided it's a reasonable objection) I'm more than willing to take it out — or, this being Wikipedia, take the entries in question out and leave a note on the talkpage. Given that it's in userspace, not linked to from anywhere (other than a few user talk pages of those involved) and clearly a tongue-in-cheek response to the torrent of flames Malleus received in his RFA and his subsequent block for 'inappropriate use of the word "Wikilawyer"' I can't see a problem with it; (I don't think) it could possibly be mistaken for a policy page. — iridescent 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Guess I overreacted a little to the description of a couple of hundred hours' development as "rollback that has washed down the crack-cocaine with a redbull" coupled with attacks on those who use it. Forget I said anything -- Gurch (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one, at least, you can't blame me for... Part of the problem with that entry is that Keeper originally wrote it as part of a single section on various automated tools, which someone has later split up; because you come before "rollback" and "twinkle" in alphabetical order, it looks like an attack on Huggle out of nowhere. (edited to add) I'm sure Keeper (and Malleus) wouldn't object if you took the entry out. — iridescent 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not taking the blame for that one; I got into enough hot water over that wikilawyer debacle. If you [Gurch] feel that the entry is disrespectful of your efforts – which I'm certain it wasn't intended to be – then please feel free to either remove or amend the entry. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, wasn't blaming you either - that one was squarely down to Keeper (pass that buck!). Although at some point you'll get an unholy alliance of the wannabe-myspace editors and the scientologists coming for you pitchforks in hand, when they discover my offering for "Userbox". — iridescent 02:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fish of an altogether different colour. Bring 'em on! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left an apologetic note for Gurch. My analogy just meant it's fast. Sorry for dragging you both (mall and irid) down to my level :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AzaToth Spammer

Thanks for looking into it wasnt sure who to tell about the incident. Yes it is highly unlikely but still needs to be reported. ChristopherJames2008 (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, while credible threats should certainly be reported, "the ILL KILL U U FAGGIT U DELETED MY PAGE!" attacks are safely reverted, blocked, ignored — otherwise we'd never get anything done here. (Just look through the history of this page or the talkpage of any other reasonably active admin & count how much similar abuse is there.) Not to say you shouldn't have raised the matter if you had any concerns, though. — iridescent 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI if you haven't realised, your helpful contributor above has been stuck in a drawer. See here for more info. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that, I did not see coming. Who the hell creates an SPA to report talkpage vandalism? — iridescent 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Another three suggestions

Given the volume of "unexplained blanking" reversions, would it be possible to add a single-keystroke revert-and-{{uw-delete1}} (2,3,4) alongside the current revert-and-{{uw-vand1}}? As you (Gurch) know, I've been monitoring Huggle usage & testing it recently, and people being given vandalism warnings for removal of content (which can have some perfectly legitimate reasons which aren't obvious in the diff box, in the case of BLP violations and duplicated sectons) seems to be an issue that comes up repeatedly.

Also, I personally think it would be a good idea to set "watchlist:warnings" as the default setting; the new users you're dealing with here won't necessarily understand the "reply on my talkpage" etiquette, and are likely to post any "why this edit wasn't vandalism" explanations underneath the warnings on their own talkpage. Just a thought...

And finally, is there any way to set {{anonblock}} as the default block message, at least when warning IPs? — iridescent 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the next version, {{anonblock}} will appear as the default block reason whenever the user's talk page is tagged as being a shared or dynamic IP address. The documentation for that template states that it shouldn't be used as the block message except for blocks longer than three months, so the default will remain the standard block message -- Gurch (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the problems with good-faith edits sometimes recieving level 1 vandalism warnings, hence the default level 1 warning avoids all mention of 'vandalism' and only states that the edit "appears to be unconstructive" (which it presumably does, at least in the eye of the reverter).

One problem with keyboard shortcuts to revert-and-warn for other reasons is that I'm starting to run out of keyboard shortcuts; given the way features have been added over time it would be more logical to start over and reassign everything from scratch, but that would confuse people no end. I'm considering adding shortcuts similar to the existing shortcuts for leaving warnings but with 'Control' included, so for example Ctrl + Shift + D for removal of content, Ctrl + Shift + S for spam, but I'm not convinced Ctrl + Shift + D is that much faster than R followed by Shift + D (the quickest way to currently do this). I could use Ctrl + D, Ctrl + S and so forth instead, but that would mean reassigning some of the existing shortcuts, and people might end up reverting and leaving warnings when they meant to nominate a page for deletion. I can't use Alt as that interferes with the menu shortcuts (which are useful since there are some actions that only have menu items). I haven't used the number keys nor any of the function keys except F1 yet, but I feel they could be difficult to remember, especially for something like reverting and warning -- Gurch (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - hadn't actually realised the R, shift-D combination. If/when you do run out of keystrokes, you could always have a double set of controls, with a "use old controls/use new controls" check bo, in the same way that MS Word has (or at least had, I don't know if it still does) a "use WordPerfect keyboard shortcuts" checkbox.

The next version will allow keyboard shortcuts to be customized, which should help -- Gurch (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it would take more than ten minutes to code then ignore this question, but would there be any way to set the Huggle shell to work on something other than recent changes? It would be really useful to be able to import a list of articles and rapidly go through the most recent diff on each - for example, the contribution history of a school IP that's made a lot of vandal edits but also some valid ones so they can't all be bulk-reverted, to be able to go through Category:Living people looking for abuse, to go through a "mini watchlist" of frequently vandalised articles, etc. It would also be a really good tool for rapidly reviewing an account's contributions for vandalism cases, RFAs etc (and making it something that's undoubtedly useful from an admin/crat point of view, would presumably defuse a lot of the distaste for it you see among some admins). The code for generating the text-file lists of articles using assorted criteria already exists in AWB, so that could be used to generate the lists and all that would be needed at the Huggle end would be a facility to turn off the recent changes feed and instead create a queue out of the text file. — iridescent

I was experimenting with such a feature in earlier versions of Huggle written for personal use, but took it out when I was making a more stable version for general release. It will take rather more than ten minutes to implement properly, but I agree it could be useful, so I will consider doing that at some point -- Gurch (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is implemented in a basic form in the next version -- Gurch (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are waaay too efficient... (After having suggested this, I've since realised there's actually an excellent argument against this, which I won't post here for WP:BEANS reasons.) — iridescent 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? I suppose it would make it easier to "stalk" contributors, if you can call it that, though I think far too much of a fuss is made over such things, and it certainly doesn't allow anything that isn't already possible through the wiki. Or are you thinking of something else? -- Gurch (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking wouldn't be a problem (it's not like the contrib history of any account is hidden), and being able rapidly to go through an account's contributions outweighs the nuisance value of a vandal rollbacking all of an account's contributions. On reflection, the problem I was thinking of would actually be easier to do with AWB (and that's been round for two years and it hasn't happened yet), so ignore the above post... — iridescent 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. If you meant something like the potential for it to be used by a vandal, if they had rollback they could do just as much damage without any sort of tool by opening an RC patroller's contributions and clicking all the "rollback" links. However reversing them would be as simple as doing the same thing to all their contributions, and they'd then find themselves and their IP address blocked and they'd have wasted however long it takes to get rollback. The average vandal doesn't have anywhere near that sort of dedication -- Gurch (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

offer on working on the UK Transport Wiki

Hi Irdescent,

I am creating a Wiki all about transport in the UK and i was wondering if you would like to join and edit it. This offer has been offered to you as you are interested in London Underground. Please write back on my talk page.

Many Thanks

Dudleybus ^{Spake 2 me} 16:42, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Wikipedia World Traveler award

It appears the globe stand was from a copyrighted image.

This means we're back to square one.

We need to either find another globe stand (please keep a lookout for one), or we need to come up with a new idea altogether for the "Wikipedia World Traveler" award.

I look forward to any ideas you might have.

During the competition that this award is for, each participant will be "visiting" (and changing an item on) a particular type of country-related page for every country of the world. By doing so, he or she will have "traveled the World".

But I have no idea what the award should look like now.

I'm still in shock from the last 3 weeks' of effort being trashed.

Any thoughts you could provide would be most appreciated.

The Transhumanist 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any part I played in the trashing... I don't know a great deal about images, but I'd suggest asking Giggy; whatever run-ins you may have had with him in the past (I don't know you have had any problems with him, just working on the possibly unfair assumption that most people have had a disagreement with him at some point), he does know an awful lot about where the images are hidden and what constitutes legitimate free use. — iridescent 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above was posted before I was aware of Recent Developments — while I still think he'd be the best one to ask, I think he's been flamed off the project for the foreseeable future. How about this (or this, a smaller version), both of which are free-use (although bandwidth-munching); the smaller one overlaid on the "generic" barnstar would probably work quite well.

A problem I can foresee right away is you will have every nationalist POV-pusher arguing over what constitutes a "country"; is Transnistria a country? Greenland? How about Taiwan? Does an edit to Gibraltar count towards Britain or Spain? Also, are you only going to count significant edits — I could probably pass fairly quickly (and may have inadvertently done so) by loading Category:xxxland-stubs into AWB and running until it flags a typo, then correcting it and moving on to the next.

That aside, it does sound like an interesting project, and (depending on exactly what sort of edit you're looking for) I would certainly be interested - it would make a welcome change from the "welcome 500 users" type challenges, on which I know you and I have opposing opinions. — iridescent 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats are in order...

I could probably just link your WP:WIKISPEAK contributions list, but since that will likely be MfD'd to oblivion by the humorless, I found a better quote. Spot on. Welcome to my quotes page :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel unworthy... That RFA is going to be a very interesting one, particularly if Giggy & Balloonman both make good on their offers to co-nominate. While she IMO deserves to pass 100-0-0, I have a nasty feeling that it will turn into a pissing contest between the FA and the GA crowds, with anyone else who ventures into it in the unfortunate position of standing immediately downwind. However, my RFA prediction abilities are not the best. — iridescent 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

48 supports? So you were predicting what the tally would be after the first 12 minutes right, not at closing? I would love to see a water/balloon drop...(couldn't resist!) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people who were striking out their votes on both sides, that might have even been how it ended up... — iridescent 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issac newton (complex)

Hi iridescent. Thanks for your help on this article. Maybe I was a little too hasty in my CSD request. Ho hum! Cheers »xytram« talk 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... it's easy to see something that's been cut-and-pasted from somewhere & assume it must be a copyvio from somewhere. — iridescent 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre fake warning

The recent edit you made to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —User_talk:Ozzie425er 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an only warning; if you make any more disruptive edits like this I will remove your rollback/huggle/twinkle access and if necessary block you as appropriate. As per the warnings on downloading automated tools, "Use of automated tools" is not an excuse for failure to check edits. — iridescent 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... this one is confusing me. That's a Huggle warning template, but that user doesn't seem to have, or ever to have had, Huggle access, nor made any edits with Huggle. Which implies they used it manually, which is very odd, as Huggle's templates aren't even located where the comment says they are (that's for the benefit of bots like ClueBot that only pick up warning template names if they begin with "uw-"). Also, the diff they linked to wasn't made by you, so Huggle would never (unless there's a serious bug I don't know about) leave that particular warning on your talk page, even if you asked it to leave one. Any ideas who this user is? :/ -- Gurch (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the contribs, it looks very likely to be a bad-hand account of User:Kstearns - they've both made edits to the same school article, and then proceeded to revert each others' vandalism on the Obama page — but IMO there's not quite enough evidence to warrant a RFCU yet. Rest assured that both their histories are going to be watched very thoroughly. — iridescent 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So they have. Thanks for looking into that... and sorry that you seem to be on the recieving end of automated warnings so much, even when they're not actually automated at all, as in this case. Perhaps the user was just doing it to annoy you, I don't know :( -- Gurch (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it more closely, it reeks of good-hand/bad-hand - this block is identical to the one that one account gave the other - and I assume they cut & pasted it from somewhere. If I see anything further out of place from either I think there's sufficient evidence to ABF and block the pair. — iridescent 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For giving me good advice, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razor flame 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... although I'll warn you, you may not want to take advice from me as gospel. If you read this talkpage — and even more so, Archive 4 — you'll see that (ahem) certain prominent editors are not fully in agreement with my opinions. — iridescent 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those Articles Are Related

Repost from my talkpage, on the off chance you're not watching it. Iridescent: I think a brief look at the edit history of that page shows that the articles Axolotl and Mudkip are related; the least that should be done is to link them in the see also section. Perhaps a "Axolotl in Popular Culture" section should be added, but I haven't time or interest. My edit was done at the request of another user who apparently cares. I don't usually edit wikipedia myself as the wiki developers refuse to fix the captcha problems, making me as a blind member unwelcome. Vandalism? For one wiki link? That seems a bit...much. 206.126.88.124 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll crosspost my reply here, too)

No. Mudskipper to Mudkips, yes - but Axolotl is not related. — iridescent 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repost from my talkpage to avoid breaking the conversation. I'll take your word on that, I guess. The original request I was given was to do a revert on the entire article to a much older version with something like 3 entire sections devoted to Mudkips, and several pictures. Some people, apparently, are strongly under the belief that these two things are related. As the older article was in violation of WP style and I didn't want to revert as a blind user who couldn't sanity check the images, I stuck in the see also link instead. I can't make any changes to the Mudskipper article as it's semi-protected, and I can't complete the captcha as I can't see the image. I'll go tell Jeff to do his own bloody edits whenever he gets his IP block sorted out with the admins. 206.126.88.124 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs

Hi Iridescent. I revamped my answers to the RfA questions today. I'll read over it once more before I go offline tomorrow, and then I'll likely transclude this on Monday the 16th when I actually have internet access again. While reading over the page again I noticed a small error in the nomination that I hope you won't mind fixing. I'm not an extremely active vandal-fighter, but I have done some. I warn vandals who I've seen do naughty things to the pages I watch, and when they've vandalised after their final warning I have reported them to AIV (probably about a dozen in the last 9-12 months). Would you mind making a slight amendment to your statement? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any other changes you'd like made let me know and I'll do my best. I've still used the phrasing "relatively low", which isn't meant as any kind of disparagement towards you, but is a deliberate pre-emption of the "she doesn't have 200 posts to AIV, she can't understand the blocking policy" arguments.

Incidentally, one thing those two premature opposes have done for you is given a hint as to what arguments your opposers will use against you; you may want to use the issue they raise as examples in your answer to Q3 - since you know now that those two issues are going to be raised anyway, you may as well discuss them from the start. — iridescent 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah

You keep beating me to reverting the vandals! Dave the Rave 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... If it's any consolation I'm only doing this as part of "destructive testing" of Huggle (basically, running it at high speed to see how easy it is to avoid false-positives); you should have the RBI arena back to yourself fairly soon... — iridescent 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Iridescent is good at beating people to things. See, I was beat leaving this comment. Useight (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent is a great name Dave the Rave 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 386: / Line 386: @@
 :Sorry... If it's any consolation I'm only doing this as part of "destructive testing" of Huggle (basically, running it at high speed to see how easy it is to avoid false-positives); you should have the [[WP:RBI|RBI]] arena back to yourself fairly soon...<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —  [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">''iride''</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">''scent''</font>]]</font> 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::(edit conflict)Iridescent is good at beating people to things. See, I was beat leaving this comment. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
+:::Iridescent is a great name [[User:Davie the Rave|Dave]] [[User talk:Davie the Rave|the Rave]] 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)