User talk:Iridescent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Iridescent)
Jump to: navigation, search
An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed.

Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article[edit]

Hi, "Iridescent,"

I see that you're a fairly frequent contributor to the Manual of Style's talk page. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?

Thanks if so, 174.23.157.73 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not someone you should be asking—I'm definitely not "a fairly frequent contributor to WT:MOS" and aren't familiar with their customs and practices, and given that I've long been a very vocal critic of the way the MOS is currently implemented and enforced nothing I say is likely to be taken very seriously. EEng or Tony1 might know who the best person to talk to is. ‑ Iridescent 12:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
174.23, do you have a specific query? Tony (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
From this thread on Corinne's talkpage, this (and the section below) relate to an ongoing dispute on Commodore CDTV. 174, I'll echo the warning you've been given there; regardless of your intent you're giving the impression that you're fishing for people who will take your side in a content dispute, something that's unlikely to end well. If you can't settle this through discussion with the other user, WP:RFC is the way to go to get genuine uninvolved input. ‑ Iridescent 13:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested in User talk:Corinne#Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article, User talk:Corinne#As long as I'm asking you for MOS help..., and User talk:Corinne#Talk:Commodore_CDTV Comment (three sections in a row on my talk page). This IP left similar comments at User talk:EEng#Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article and User talk:EEng#As long as I'm asking you for MOS help..., and on SMcCandlish's talk page, and has been determined to be a sockpuppet of a banned user.  – Corinne (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Yup, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" for more detail. Sro23 (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: "given that I've long been a very vocal critic of the way the MOS is currently implemented and enforced nothing I say is likely to be taken very seriously" – To the contrary, I agree pretty much word-for-word with what you wrote in more detail below, and it's very similar to what I said in the version of this stuff on my own talk page. I'd bet good money that other MoS regulars would agree.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying my opinions are invalid—just that given that I've spent the better part of a decade banging the "the MOS should be drastically slimmed down, and it needs to be made much clearer that it's only a set of suggestions and not a part of policy" drum it would be somewhat hypocritical were I to turn up arguing in support of a set of rules to micromanage the rather obscure scenarios outlined below. ‑ Iridescent 06:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Just while on this topic: Any styleguide is going to be long and elaborate—too much for the average writer. But MOS performs two critical functions beyond this, in (i) centralising style disputes away from article talkpages, and (ii) giving imprimatur to gnomes who tidy things. No one should get beaten up for not knowing MOS. Perhaps you're underplaying these "silent" benefits? Tony (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"(ii) giving imprimatur to gnomes who tidy things" The second main reason we have an MoS is for the benefit of gnomes? That's almost as lame as saying we have one to centralise style disputes. I can think of far better reasons for an MoS, but, like Iri, am glad they are only a suggestive guide, rather than the hardline necessity demanded by a self-satisfied minority. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Watch it, SchroCat, BGwhite might block you. See below. EEng 18:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear... there are bad blocks, and bad blocks and then there are crazy snowflake blocks... I'll let you decide which of those categories that one falls in! - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, sure, and I don't underestimate the importance of the lightning rod aspect (although I certainly question whether giving imprimatur to gnomes who tidy things is a net benefit; for every person who performs a valuable service improving consistency, there are three AWB-armed drones monotonously edit-warring to enforce whatever bee is in their particular bonnet). But, over a decade the MOS has grown into a bloated beast of arcane and sometimes mutually contradictory rules spread across multiple subpages, which some people try to enforce religiously "because it's in the MOS"—it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply is the most important sentence in the MOS but too many people don't see or don't want to see it. (Does Wikipedia really need an 1100-word rule on how to describe pool balls?) ‑ Iridescent 13:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Long sigh. You both seem to be unaware of what state WP would be in were it not for hundreds of gnomes. ... often tedious, repetitive work that ultimately gives WP greater authority. Sorry you can't see that. Tony (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Even longer sigh! No-one is beating down on gnomes at all, just that the second most important reason you've given for providing an MoS is to accommodate one section of editor, which seems to be putting the emphasis on why we have an MoS in entirely the wrong place. I would have thought that a list of 'good reasons to have an MoS' should start and finish with something about the benefits to the reader, not a small section of editors. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
What SchroCat said. According to the counter I have over 160,000 minor AWB edits—mostly such excitements as fixing hyphenation and repairing instances of "and and". Gnoming is necessary and underappreciated work, but you know as well as I do that there's a certain sub-class of gnome who take the MOS to be Holy Writ and enthusiastically stomp around Wikipedia demanding compliance with it regardless of whether there's a good reason for the MOS not to be complied with on a particular article. (The obvious example that springs to mind, although the guy who demanded that an article on someone who died in 1798 have a photo because that's what the MOS demands runs it a close second.) ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Where were you bunch when I got blocked for referring to these self-appointed roving enforcers as "self-appointed roving enforcers"? [1][2] EEng 18:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't blame me, I wasn't here… You've noted, I trust, just how well The Community has taken Magioladitis's and Bgwhite's self-appointed roving enforcing in recent days. ‑ Iridescent 19:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't an admin back then but then I don't dabble on Special:Block even now so... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
That's OK. I wouldn't give up my status as early martyr to the cause for anything. EEng 23:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The death of a martyr
EEng dying for our MOS sins
How many times have you come back to life now, EEng? First was in AD33, or 1968BW (before Wiki), I think? Keira1996 01:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as I'm asking you for MOS help...[edit]

Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?


Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initial abbreviations such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms [even as "laser" and "scuba," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased]), or just calling them "initialisms" or "initial abbreviations" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?


Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?


And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?


Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?


Thanks for your opinions, and then we'll go from here,

174.23.157.73 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, I don't know why you're asking me; this is the kind of thing you should be asking on WT:MOS since none of this is anything in which I have any particular interest or in which my opinions would carry any particular weight. My personal opinions are:
  1. "Acronym" is the correct term for all the examples you've given. It's a word with two meanings; if you want OED chapter-and-verse 1. A group of initial letters used as an abbreviation for a name or expression, each letter or part being pronounced separately; an initialism (such as ATM, TLS). 2. A word formed from the initial letters of other words or (occasionally) from the initial parts of syllables taken from other words, the whole being pronounced as a single word (such as NATO, RADA).. In the rare circumstances where you specifically need to differentiate between "each letter is pronounced individually" and "pronounces as if it were a word", you should probably explicitly explain that;
  2. If the source says is "looks like a stereo", then say that, if the source says it "looks like traditional home stereo system equipment" say that. If it doesn't say either and you're just expressing a personal opinion then it's pure original research that shouldn't be being said in Wikipedia's voice. I'd question whether "traditional" is ever going to be appropriate in Wikipedia's voice in this context, since there's no such thing as a "traditional" stereo—what you actually mean is "typical stereo circa the 1960s–1980s";
  3. Ditto; it's not Wikipedia's job to be comparing things, except for things like measurements which can be sourced. Saying "a looks like b" (as opposed to "Expert has said that a looks like b") isn't appropriate for Wikipedia except in a very few circumstances;
  4. Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide so this probably shouldn't be being included at all. If there's a legitimate reason for saying that a floppy disk drive should be attached, and it specifically has to be a floppy drive, then "floppy disk drive" or "floppy drive" would be preferable over "disk drive". The number of occasions on which this should arise would be so minimal, I very much doubt it would be worth trying to get anything added to the MOS to cover these circumstances.
To be clear, these are my personal opinions; I have no input into and very little interest in the MOS, and indeed very little input into Wikipedia at all any more. If you want to hold discussions about this, then either Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) are the places to discuss this specifically in the context of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language if you want to discuss the more general use of language. ‑ Iridescent 12:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Would you please construct a full {{Cite book}} or (for online edition) {{Cite web}} for the OED quote? Want to use it at Acronym.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{OED|Acronym|id=1844}} Face-tongue.svg (it needs the id number as there's a separate entry for "acronym" as a verb meaning "to create acronyms" so {{OED|Acronym}} goes to a disambiguation page). It's better to use the {{OED}} template than cite book/web, as it means that if they one day drop the paywall it will only need a single edit to the template to remove the "subscription required" rather than hunting down every outgoing link and fixing it. ‑ Iridescent 06:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Just my two cents, since we're on the topic: I find the sub-pages of the MoS – linked at the beginning of a lot of sections of the MoS – rather confusing. They're like a maze, and sometimes I find something useful, but when I try to find it three months later, I can't. Would it be worth discussing a different breakdown of the MoS (not to say also a slight slimming down)? For example, if the entire MoS cannot be all on one page, to have the different pages be "Content", "Formatting", "Images", "Layout", etc., but with no more sub-pages within those sections. Then, for example, all information on italics would be on one page, not scattered over several sub-pages.  – Corinne (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You rang, madame?
EEng
I'd support that in principle (and I suspect most of the MOS people would as well), but it would be very hard to find a proposal that would gain consensus. Many of those subpages are the result of assorted WikiProjects inventing their own rules and demanding that they be enforced within their walled gardens, or of people concerned with a particular area not feeling that it's appropriate to make everybody read through a set of rules in which most people are unlikely to be interested. The latter case isn't necessarily A Bad Thing. For instance, merging WP:Manual of Style/Images and WP:Manual of Style/Visual arts might appear to make sense at first glance, but someone writing a biography of a baseball player who just wants to know how to format the image captions in the photos, or a technical article about aircraft engines who wants to know if it's acceptable to force an image to display at double size to make the technical details clearer, doesn't need to know (for instance) how to format the titles for articles about artworks, and we'd be doing them a disservice by making them scroll through a User:EEng-sized browser-crasher to get to whatever it is they need. Add to that the number of projects who guard "their" articles as independent fiefdoms and will resist to the death any attempt to consolidate rules (do you want to be the one to try to MFD WP:MEDMOS or WP:MOSFILM, or to explain to WP:WikiProject Trains or WP:WikiProject Ships that they can no longer unilaterally decide their own rules?). The timesink any effort to streamline the MOS would take is almost certainly not worth the effort; the status quo, of people disregarding those parts of the MOS they don't consider relevant and thus those parts which are being disregarded eventually being removed as no longer representing custom and practice, is probably the least worst solution to the issue one will get. ‑ Iridescent 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, to the extent anyone might have trouble opening my user/talk pages, it has nothing to do with the "size" of the page (whether in terms of source text, or generated html). It's the images. A comparably large MOS page would be no problem; ANI is just as big. EEng 19:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Not quite; it's also templates, of which ANI doesn't transclude many. Try opening a template heavy page like Israel or International recognition of Kosovo in VE (or open the page in edit mode and select "preview", which forces your browser to bypass the cache and load from scratch) and watch your browser cry; I don't recommend doing it on a metered connection. Even ANI is long enough to routinely crash the browser on my phone. ‑ Iridescent 19:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
For readers (i.e. not someone editing) templates have nothing to do with bandwidth or browser performance except to the extent they contribute to the html, which is all that matters (plus the images, as I said). My user page is 646K of html, which is only a bit bigger than ANI at 540K; but with images my userpage is 1.4M. Israel is 1.1M just for the html, 1.6M with images.
For someone editing, there's a delay while a complicated page is prepared on the server end, and the bandwidth used is the above html figures + the source size. That's for source editing. Visual editor creates a complete mess and I'm not surprised it fails on complicated pages. My advice to you on that is: don't use VE. EEng 20:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
We're not just talking loading times and the amount of html clutter—when it comes to mobile interfaces, there's also the issue of readability. Remember, especially in developing countries a lot of editors as well as readers are using mobile devices (and often relatively outdated mobile devices) as their sole interface for editing—try navigating something like Talk:Emmett Till on a phone to get a feel for what a combined MOS:IMAGES/WP:VAMOS would feel like. ‑ Iridescent 21:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
EEng's pages are not fast food. They are feasts for the gluttonous. EEng 22:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't know about those projects using their own rules and rejecting/ignoring parts of the MoS. What's special about those areas that would require different rules? Are their particular preferences mainly about content or mainly about formatting?  – Corinne (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
With regards to the ones I'm most familiar with, WP:VAMOS and the trains project, they're a set of supplementary rules/guidelines for writing about specific articles. As an example off the top of my head, because the European and North American rail networks (and rail engines) were largely built by British or British-trained engineers in the 19th century who used Imperial measurements, on railways miles-feet-inches are far more significant than usual, even in countries like France that have been wholly metric for centuries; likewise, the official measurements for rail lines are often still listed in the elsewhere-archaic system of chains and rods. With regards to WP:VAMOS, there are numerous elements where it's desirable to consolidate and standardize (is it "Botticelli's The Birth of Venus", "Botticelli's 'The Birth of Venus'", "The Birth of Venus (Botticelli)" or "The Birth of Venus, Botticelli"?) but which aren't relevant to people writing on other topics, so it arguably makes sense to have the rules tucked away where they don't get in other peoples' way.

WP:MEDMOS is a slightly different beast; because of the way PageRank works and the Wikipedia Zero program, Wikipedia's medical articles are often the main—and sometimes the only—available resource for medical information, so it's more important than usual that they be consistent in format and style. If someone misinterprets something on Victorian painting because it's misleadingly worded, not in the place they'd expect to find it, or the article is incomplete, then it's an annoyance; if someone misinterprets something on Poppy tea because it's misleadingly worded, not in the place they'd expect to find it, or the article is incomplete, then Wikipedia is indirectly responsible for someone dying or suffering serious internal damage. Thus, MOS compliance is taken much more seriously on medical articles than elsewhere, and there are additional rules to try to make the articles as consistent and intelligible as possible. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Wow. Thank you for such a thorough explanation, Iridescent. This is so well written that perhaps it should be placed somewhere for people to read it. It might prevent people from becoming upset when coming across these kinds of differences.  – Corinne (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC) It might also help new copy-editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.  – Corinne (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The MOS people (or anyone else) are welcome to reuse and adapt it if they want. (The problems with the MOS don't, in general, stem from the proliferation of rules or even from those occasions where the rules are contradictory; they stem from friction between people who see the MOS as a set of rules that need to be enforced, and people who see the MOS as a set of suggestions which don't need to be obeyed religiously provided it doesn't disrupt the reader's experience.)

I'm aware you're active with them, but I am definitely not the best person to be speaking to about LOCE/GOCE, an project which IMO causes at least as much damage as it fixes. ‑ Iridescent 06:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Downgrading[edit]

I think you have to read and understand about Downgrading , which is totally different than Downgrade. As Downgrade is a dictionary word but Downgrading here referred to a technology standard approved by ICANN and IETF. Its just like POP, SMTP, IMAP etc. Please revert the page to Downgrading or best we can name it to EAI-Downgrading, if its helps.

Thanks.

AjayDAta 15:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaydata (talkcontribs)

There's no way on earth I'm restoring this, which was clearly completely inappropriate as a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a technical dictionary, and you've done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable sources consider the topic notable, which is the bare minimum requirement for a topic to be covered on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN#So unhappy to post this[edit]

Thank-you for closing, but the close says I could be summarily banned without discussion and implies strongly that people have been indef'd for less than my behavior. That is very unfair to me, and places me at great risk from some trigger happy admin with a grudge. That aspect of the close is quite inconsistent with the discussion. Please modify the close to address the actual violation of the spirit of the ban and exclude me from the no discussion banning or any finding of inappropriate behavior. Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair; I'll reword it to make it clear it's Godsy's conduct that has been problematic in this instance. Obviously, the IBAN is two-way, but as best I can tell you've complied with the spirit as well as the letter of the previous wording. I have left Any breach of this ban by either party can be addressed without discussion by any uninvolved administrator with any sanction up to and including indefinite blocking in the wording; this may sound harsh but it's a restatement of the existing blocking policy, not something I've made up; while they appear unlikely, there are circumstances in which a breach by you could also lead to an immediate indefblock, and what I don't want is a closure that means you're subject to lower potential sanctions than someone completely uninvolved. The comment I've just made to Godsy here applies to you as well (other than the "dimmer view" part); if either you or Godsy do feel that this closure is unfair, I think the potential of community dispute resolution procedures has been exhausted and WP:ARC would unfortunately be the next step. ‑ Iridescent 08:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you for the modification and explanation. I can live with this, even though my wiki reputation has been seriously damaged by all this. I will not be taking your close to ArbComm. I truly hope this is final closure. Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Any close was never going to please everyone. As I think I made clear, this close wasn't the close I'd personally have chosen, but the consensus (to apply the same restrictions to both of you) was overwhelmingly clear. ‑ Iridescent 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Self-nominated GAs?[edit]

I think if anyone knows the answer to this, you will. I was reading Forth Road Bridge, expecting it to be a good article (as distinctly different from a good article, which it is logged as) and came away crestfallen, so I went to have a look and see what reviewing had gone on in the first place. I realise GA standards 10+ years ago were lacking (and some might say still are, depending on what reviewers turn up), but I was surprised to see here a bare assertion of "A successful self-nomination as a good article was made last week"; and indeed, the "GA review" on the talk page is simply a diff.

Was there really a time you could just self-assess something as a GA and assume your opinion was the only one that mattered? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There was certainly a time—up to when Malleus shook the GA project into shape circa 2007–08—when GA reviews were a straightforward tick-box "does this meet the criteria" exercise; 2006 would have been when the old system was still in place, so I wouldn't hold that against it. (Just to put the general rise in standards in perspective, this was what FAC looked like on the day of that GA review—note that such things as "Support. Wow! Impressive!" and "Support. Good work." were considered perfectly acceptable grounds for supporting.) It did get a GAR in 2009 (by Pyrotec, who wasn't exactly known for being soft) which it survived, so it can't have been too far out of keeping with community standards. The bridge project is virtually dead—when it came to the UK, it basically consisted of me—so I'm not sure who the best people to talk to would be (I wouldn't wish the roads project on anyone). ‑ Iridescent 18:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
My point was rather that there's no evidence of a review actually having taken place at all - not even so much as a "looks awesome, good 2 go" sort of comment. I am not generally a fan of projects, as I think I've mentioned before, so I don't see any point in going there as you'll never get anything. (That's a little harsh on WikiProject London Transport as DavidCane does product some nice stats about this time of year, and there is a little bit of traffic, but questions can stagnate for months on there.) FRB basically suffers from having been in the local news a lot for the last ten years and having a lot of drive by editors come in and add a bunch of WP:RECENTISM into the article - I'm sure it can be sorted out one way or another without too much of a headache. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Your view of WP:LT appears to be a little rosier than mine. That's no criticism of DavidCane, who's doing excellent work, but he's very much a flower growing in the sewer—the self-appointed owner of the project is one of the more toxic personalities I've encountered in my time and the project has consequently become something of an echo chamber. If you have anything to raise about the tube, you're much better off asking at WP:UKRAIL, which (once you learn to tune out the anoraks) is one of Wikipedia's less dysfunctional projects. ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
(adding) Ritchie333, looking at other GANs from the time the "drive-by passing" doesn't seem out of the ordinary. This was the entire GA review for A215 road (which, like the FRB, is a UK transport article about which there's not as much of interest to say as you'd think) at about the same time; This was the entire GA review for the mammoth A1 in London. If it was the author of FRB who assessed their own article (I haven't checked the history) that would be iffy, but even then it's survived a GAR so presumably wasn't wrong. It probably needs a wipe-and-rewrite from scratch in an ideal world, but I don't volunteer to do this. Edinburgh has always suffered in Wikipedia terms from having an unusually low population for a city of its significance (it's about the same size as Omaha in population terms, and a significant proportion of those are students with little attachment to the place), meaning there are not only fewer people to write the Wikipedia articles, there are fewer people to write the source texts on which to base Wikipedia articles. ‑ Iridescent 11:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I do mean to get round to doing some more cleanup. I don't doubt the GAR was effective, but a lot has happened to the bridge (at least politically) since then, which has meant it has got further away from the GA criteria. The recent opening of the Queensferry Crossing means now is probably a good time to keep an eye on FRB's article before it runs the risk of more well-intentioned edits that nevertheless deteriorate the article. As there have been no significant edits for nearly a week, I think I'm within my rights to take it to GAR again; I can't revert to the 2009 version as it would cut out a huge part of history.
Is it worth doing another round of "GA sweeps" as there were in 2009? If GAs deteriorate and stop meeting the criteria, they shouldn't be marked as such as it'll mislead the reader. Same goes for FAs, which do get swept on a regular basis (though I also recall Backmasking had slipped through the net somehow). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
A fresh round of sweeps would be a monumental undertaking. Last time, we had a group of people driving it who were fairly universally respected (even people who loathed them personally would concede that they knew what they were talking about with regards to quality control)—if you look at the actual list of who did what, a small handful of editors conducted the overwhelming majority of reviews. I don't have much dealing with GA nowadays, but the impression I get is that it no longer has a force-of-nature like Eric to hold peoples' noses to the grindstone, but instead has a far higher proportion of people who don't really know what they're doing and are working from WP:WIAGA as a checklist. I also get the impression that it's taken over from FAC as the favored haunt of the special snowflake prima donnas, many of whom will throw tantrums at the prospect of their shiny green baubles being taken away. Plus, there's the obvious elephant in the room in that when the first sweep began there were 2808 GAs and it still took three years to clear the backlog; there are currently over 25,000.
A more practical solution would probably be to break the lists down by category, and dump a "here are all your current GAs, can you skim them and see if anything is obviously wrong" list on the talkpage of every wikiproject. Some shit would slip through the net, but it would at least get people looking at them.
Personally, I think the whole notion of "article assessment" in the sense in which Wikipedia uses it is about a decade past its time. It's a legacy of a long-dead pet project of Jimmy's to cram Wikipedia onto a CD-ROM so he could play Great White Saviour dishing them out to suitably photogenic children in the developing world, and the WMF needed the quality/importance matrix to decide which articles would be included in a space-limited medium. Nowadays, when that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so is far more likely to have internet access than she is to have a CD-ROM drive, long discussions about whether something is B-class or GA are just a massive timesink. The only quality scale Wikipedia really needs to function is "shitty or not shitty", while "importance" has always been meaningless. (The topics that are deemed top importance are almost invariably those topics it's least important that Wikipedia cover, since they're the topics where there are plenty of other sources available. If Wikipedia shut down tomorrow nobody researching The Beatles or Elvis Presley would bat an eyelid but people wanting to research Damageplan or Faryl Smith would really suffer.) ‑ Iridescent 23:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
By the time my article at Malvern, Worcestershire was reviewed January 12, 2010, the review was almost as strict as a FA. However I have increasingly come across many short articles that users have been passing on a 'I'll pass yours if you'll pass mine' basis. I assume this to be mainly by younger users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Need a problematic userpage (not user subpage) to article-page move sorted out[edit]

Hi Iridescent, I don't know if you got my ping from WP:Articles for deletion/Community Displacement in Philadelphia, but there's a devil of a problem in that the article creator (Sunshine424) created the article directly on her userpage (not on a sandbox or other subpage), and then moved it to article space, so that her own "talkpage" is now full of article banners and citations-modified bot notices in addition to her talkpage welcomes, notices, warnings, and discussions. This needs to be sorted out before the AfD closes, because the deletion of the article will delete all of her legitimate talk-page notices and warnings, etc. I have no idea how you would fix this mess without involving a move-back and then some cutting and pasting, but I'm sure you are up to it. Right? Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a case for a history split to me, but I am going to ask for a second opinion as it'd make the attribution of the edits a little chaotic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to wait until the AFD closes. If it closes as delete we can just selectively revdel the history to recreate the talkpage, which will be a lot lot lot easier than splitting the history. (Or, we can just delete the whole thing—yes, policy says we should preserve talk history, but it's very unlikely anyone will ever care in this case.) ‑ Iridescent 11:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Softlavender:. This is quite easy, just move the article talk page back to the user talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung: Is it possible to move ONLY the article talkpage? Usually during a move both the article and its talkpage move together. Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be Softlavender. I don't think I've ever done it, but if it goes wrong you can always revert. No one would box your ears for trying. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Since it is Iridescent's "project" at the moment, I believe it is up to him (or someone who has an absolute certainty about it) to resolve the matter. Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
A talk page can be moved without its accompanying main page. --Izno (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Explaining why I altered the template[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry for changing the template of the Tiffany Sessions page, I just saw that there were some missing words, and that I called a user an administrator which is misleading, so I didn't think that there would be any harm in just making some touch ups to it, so I apologize if I upset you. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(This AFD from three months ago, for the benefit of confused watchers; I have no idea why it's being raised now) I'm not upset—I was just undoing your disruption since you were ignoring the large No further edits should be made to this page notice, and warning you that of all the things to get blocked over this would be a truly stupid cause for which to go over the top. (The Wikipedia community takes a very dim view of people retroactively editing discussions.) ‑ Iridescent 11:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bitcoin Magazine for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, or merged with Vitalik Buterin. I notified you as you have contributed to Buterin's page.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)