User talk:Iridescent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The arbitration committee "assuming good faith" with an editor.

If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it; reply on your talk page.

If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here
, so make sure you watch this page.

How Arbcom Works: part 1

PROMYS page[edit]

SandManMattSH 02:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) You recently deleted a page for a HS program I am familiar with. If I were to write a well-cited page for this program, would you reinstate the page? If so, how can I use the existing (now deleted) page as a starting point? Please excuse me if it is poor protocol to edit a User talk page like this, but I was not sure what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattSH (talkcontribs)

MattSH, assuming you mean Program in Mathematics for Young Scientists, that was deleted under the proposed deletion process—as you've now contested the deletion, I've restored the original article for you to work on. Bear in mind that it's likely to be deleted again if the issues aren't addressed—it needs to demonstrate that the topic has received significant coverage in sources not connected to the subject, which it fails to do at the moment. ‑ iridescent 06:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Iridescent, this edit won't notify MattSH, however this edit will. You need to add the user link and a new signature in the same edit - overtyping an existing signature won't work. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Restore talk page and redirects[edit]

The page Program in Mathematics for Young Scientists has been restored. You should restore its talk page and redirects as well. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the talkpage, although it seems something of a pointless exercise since this page is a piece of spam sourced entirely to primary sources and has no realistic chance of surviving AFD barring a total rewrite. I've not deleted any redirect to it, so don't know what you mean by that. ‑ iridescent 16:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, by the way. It always irritates me when a non-notable article on an non-notable subject is promptly restored because someone swears he'll work on it, largely because those involved in the deletion discussion or PRODding are seldom notified, but more so because 95% of the time no "work" is ever attempted, let alone results in a qualifying article. It's not been my experience that the recreating admin follows up to ensure that it is, and I thank you for doing so. Ravenswing 21:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem. People do sometimes follow through on promises to improve restored content—if you look at the #CDN77 thread further down this page, I can see that the requestor has begun to work on the restored draft. If it's obvious that something could be improved (that is, the sources obviously exist and it's just that noone has got around to rewriting the page), I generally have no problem with leaving articles in a poor state, but I have considerably less patience when people claim that something's "obviously" notable but can't point to any sources to demonstrate that. ‑ iridescent 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Just for your information, but with regard to your deletion of an edit made by Knowledgebattle, there was a past discussion regarding that edit, if it helps: User talk:Knowledgebattle#Warning at User talk: 2015. Dustin (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks—I'll keep an eye on him. It looks like most of his contributions are legitimate—I think he's just forgotten that he's supposed to be on an academic project and not Twitter. ‑ iridescent 16:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for Charles Domery from your "eating disorders of the French Revolutionary Wars" mini-series, precious again. - Did you see this, still dealing with the rigid rulez around TFAR we once had (4 any-date noms max, out after 7 days, replace noms of others according to a point system ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome—I note that, as predicted, the people claiming I've made it up have already started to appear.
I actually agree with the delegates at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Perovskia atriplicifolia; there have been too many plant articles recently (with Cucurbita also likely to run), and I don't see what's to be gained by leaving the nomination open indefinitely until the flood of plant articles slows down. All that leaving it open will accomplish is to put off other people visiting the page, who will see a long argument/discussion and think "this looks complicated and unpleasant, I don't want to get involved in this", making FAC/TFAR even more of a feedback loop of insiders commenting on each others' work than it already is. See WP:In the news/Candidates if you want to see where this particular slippery slope of interminable arguments between a few insiders leads if the discussions aren't closed promptly. ‑ iridescent 08:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I was the first to point out there that we will hopefully have three plants in October, which is enough. Thanks for the pumpkin nom for Halloween! Today is the anniversary of my PumpkinSky Prize no. 1000, DYK? - I don't see why the flower nom should be closed, it shows nicely and openly what arguments we cause by following rigid rulez. We have four slots for any day, and had flexibly six at a time which I trust delegates can still handle. We don't need any fixed time for how long a nom may be open, - it could be closed once a delegate has decided to run it, even before setting a date. We don't need a point system which gives editors the right to kick out another nom, - we now talk about running an Australian nom the day before or a California one the day after. More democratic and more flexible: I like that. - Different topic: brainstorming for an image for a pumpkin-coloured monster with steam out the ears, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I entirely see Crisco1492's point here. When you look at User:Brianboulton/TFA notepad, which lists everything that's not yet run sorted by category, it becomes very obvious that some categories are about to run out, and running Perovskia atriplicifolia would take "Flowers and plants" down to zero. If they exhaust too many of these categories too quickly, and there isn't a constant flow of new FAs in these categories to replenish them, then in a few months the list will become even more unbalanced and they'll have to run an almost non-stop stream of videogames, Australian pilots and hurricanes to restore balance, which will lead to even more complaints further down the line. ‑ iridescent 09:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Back to my first line: I also agreed, - I suggested June 2016 for the flower. And now Cucurbita is scheduled, the third plant. - I don't need to go to the notepad, - thanks to Br'er I see in the normal WP:FA what appeared and what not, - copy from User:Gerda Arendt/common.css if you want to do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! Face-smile.svgThis e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks—having just deleted about 20 pages on Scottish National Party councillors, I expect the drama level to ratchet up shortly. It's long been Wikipedia policy that we don't cover individual local councillors unless there's some additional reason to make them worthy of inclusion, but I'm sure someone will pop up soon enough to explain at great length why I'm a part of the evil Unionist plot. ‑ iridescent 07:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, you're not part of the evil Unionist plot? /me goes off to find out what a Unionist is. Risker (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"Unionist"="anyone who's not 100% supportive of Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish independence", in the language of devolution, although paradoxically a lot of the most vocal unionists are also the noisiest independence-from-Europe agitators. Surely Canadians of all people should be familiar with the language of "exhausting three-year-long independence referenda" and "interminable discussions about the nature of the relationship with the bigger neighbour to the south"… ‑ iridescent 06:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Regarding my intentions for Denbies: I added it to the list of articles I would like to see on the Main page some day on 27 June. Of the few I have there for any date, two are animals which we had saw a lot recently. We run articles of retired editors, and of editors who don't care about Main page exposure: where's your problem? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:Eric Corbett and User:Sagaciousphil, as this is in relation to a discussion about them.
See my comments there; it's the act of running that would be vindictiveness, not the act of nomination. TFA is probably the most stressful experience Wikipedia has to offer with the arguable exceptions of arbitration and RFA, and inflicting it on someone who hasn't volunteered for it and who's not in a position even to answer questions on the talkpage, let alone try to maintain the articles against trolls and POV-pushers on the day, is just plain nasty. (Brianboulton knows what a soul-destroying experience being the author of a potentially contentious TFA is, and I think the likelihood of him running this is zero.) I'm sure you're well aware of my opinion of QAI, which in my opinion has drifted from whatever good intentions it once had and is now little more than an on-wiki coordinating platform for harassment of editors who don't share your views, and I find your habit of nominating articles with which you've had no previous involvement at WP:TFAR fairly objectionable - anyone who knows Wikipedia well enough to take an article through FAC is going to know where to go if they want something to go on the main page. To many (probably most) editors, TFA isn't a reward, it's a stressful nuisance which is an occupational hazard that comes if you write something of decent quality.
As I've said fairly often, if I were in charge I'd abolish TFA altogether; it's a huge time sink with no obvious benefit (virtually every other website on the planet gets by perfectly well without any equivalent). If we must have some kind of showcase on the main page, make it "interesting facts" rather than a single TFA, which would be more likely to attract readers to articles, do a better job at showcasing Wikipedia's diversity of coverage, and finally end the "mushroom/hurricane/battleship/white male biography of the day" problem. ‑ iridescent 22:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Short on vacation): TFA day seems overrated, I watch the TFA every day I am available (not today and the rest of the week), yes, some vandalism, but nothing extrem recently. Did you know whenthe most horrible vandalism,the addition of an infobox on TFA day occured the last time? More than three years ago). - Selection: I go by topic, only afterwards look at who wrote it. I like to promote Amazing Grace in our sea of warfare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No, not three years ago, Gerda. I don't know if it was the most recent but this was certainly not more than three years ago. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't add "by a QAI member", - we are the ones who got restricted and told to "better conduct themselves", which we try to do ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

TFA is definitely overrated. I know that for Sinatra is would have been a massive amount of effort from me and reviewers all for something which the vast majority of readers don't even click anyway. You're more likely to get hassle with it than praise on TFA day and the article suddenly attracts all sorts of idiots. It is a nice feeling for some editors seeing it on the front page of such a big website though and Gerda at least appreciates the editors who do it by precious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Manchester Art Gallery - Gallery 3 Etty wall.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Manchester Art Gallery - Gallery 3 Etty wall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And Kirill has a late competitor in the race for the coveted 2015 "Spirit of Betacommand" award for clod-hoppingly literal application of Teh Rulez without bothering to look at the context. Who exactly do you think William Etty's The Sirens and Ulysses is likely to be by? Or are you worrying that because I haven't specifically named myself as the photographer, the rightful owner of the copyright to an intentionally-unfocused mobile phone snapshot is likely to turn up demanding the enforcement of their image rights? As already stated on the file description, which I take it you haven't actually bothered to read, all but one of the works visible is long out of copyright, and the sole exception is by Banksy who doesn't enforce copyright (and said image is a hugely-reproduced image which already graces a million T-shirts and posters), and at a resolution this low is of zero commercial value to anyone even should the world's most famous anonymous recluse decide to break their cover to take the WMF to court. ‑ iridescent 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Just add "own photo" to "author". No point arguing with computers. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you take the photo? If so just label it as own work... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't remind me of Kirill, I am on vacation. I wonder if he would have blocked me for a month without a warning if I proclaimed that I performed half of my featured content with men, without prejudice of gender. I'll make a template about blocks without warning, in case you ever need it, I hope not.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Johnbod, I won't bother - this is only used in a now-closed discussion to give an idea of its scale compared to typical paintings. If there's one thing Wikipedia has taught me, it's that image discussions never go well. Regarding No point arguing with computers, AGF says that Sfan00 IMG is making all these posts manually and is just a very fast typist, since we all know what happened last time someone used an unauthorised bot to tag images for deletion.
@Gerda, no, but he'd do it if you make two further replies in this particular thread, since infobox it's now technically covered by sanctions. I do understand the logic behind letter-of-the-law application - as I said elsewhere, if Eric hadn't been blocked there would have been legitimate complaints about favouritism - but even the harshest judge ought to know when to apply common sense regarding marginal infractions. My issue with Kirill in this case isn't so much the actual block, but his "I had to do it because I'm the only one brave enough" posturing, along with the apparent assumption that his decisions are so perfect they don't need to be discussed, and the implication that every admin who decided to take no action did so out of fear rather than out of a feeling it would be a gross overreaction to a minor comment. ‑ iridescent 18:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Mastering Jenkins Deleted[edit]

This page was created with care so as not to advertise. There are HUNDREDS of pages in wikipedia dedicated to published works. This book's page was no different than say the wikipedia page on Perls cookbook. Please describe why this page was deleted and other programming book pages were not.

Ex: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcallister80 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia isn't a webhost or promotional site, and we only cover material which has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. I agree that Mastering Perl doesn't currently meet this either, but it's a book published by a major company and written by a noteworthy author, whereas Mastering Jenkins is a self-published book published by a PoD outfit in the West Midlands. Given that you've re-created it, you need to make a very good case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastering Jenkins as to why this isn't spam. (You should probably read this page as well; while using the site for self-promotion is not specifically forbidden altogether, Wikipedia tends to have a very dim view of people who try to sneak advertorial in.) Regarding "This page was created with care so as not to advertise", why is there no mention of any negative commentary on it? No book has ever been published that was universally liked by reviewers. (If the reason is that it hasn't received any reviews, you've answered your own question as to why it's not an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia only includes information which has already been published elsewhere.) ‑ iridescent 17:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Dear Iridescent,

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikicology, I appreciate your contributions. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and hope it goes better next time. ‑ iridescent 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Marks of Cain"[edit]


I don't know if it's too soon, but I just wanted to tell you how sorry I am about yesterday. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

SRK at TFA[edit]

During the TFA request for Shah Rukh Khan, you mentioned that it had potential to break the most-viewed TFA record. Where are TFA view statistics kept? He is at TFA right now, and I would like to be a able to follow up this later. BollyJeff | talk 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed—the all-time TFA record is 768,586 for Franz Kafka, which had the "perfect storm" of a Google Doodle pointing towards the Wikipedia article, combined with his centenary generating interest. It relies on, which is sometimes wildly inaccurate—I can see from the weekly count that Charles Domery got over 200,000 pageviews on the day, but shows it getting only 27628 views. (User:West.andrew.g might be able to explain why the counts are sometimes so wildly different; I'd be inclined to trust his count over if the two disagree, although he doesn't give daily totals.) ‑ iridescent 09:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for correcting, but Kafka was not shown on his centenary, it was 130 years after he was born, - I remember removing the google doodle news from the article as trivia ;) - Did you notice that even a Bach cantata can almost reach the stats, appearing on Halloween with monster (in the translation of the text, in German "Ungeheuer", the same word Kafka used in The Metamorphosis) and my heart swims in blood (the title), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe the aggregation includes mobile viewership, which is a significant portion of all traffic. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but it shouldn't be that different—in the case of Charles Domery, for instance, the counts are literally apart by an order of magnitude (219,897 hits in a week on your count, 48,974 in the same month on Mobile views aren't going to have that kind of impact. ‑ iridescent 00:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
My report shows Domery in 81st place with 219,897 total views over 7 days. As the other columns in my table show, (39.8 mobile + 0.08 zero) = 39.88% non-desktop views, or 87,695 non-desktop views and 132,202 desktop views for that week. I believe that only aggregates desktop data, but indeed, this is still quite a large discrepancy given their monthly reporting of 48k (desktop) month views. I've done literally dozens of these investigations into the raw data when people found differences between my reports and -- and every time the raw data supports my aggregation. I don't say this as a triumph, but unfortunately as much as people rely on, it is legacy code suffers from some bugs. If you'd ever like counts on an article for a particular day, I do compute and persistently store those for up to a year. Please contact me directly me on my talk page if this helps your investigations. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
As I say above, I'm always inclined to trust your stats over - I've seen too many really weird numbers from them to take them seriously. (In fairness, given the volume of data involved, no system is ever going to get it right all the time.) ‑ iridescent 20:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

According to this [1], SRK only got 52,895 hits. BollyJeff | talk 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've checked my figures which include mobile data, they report as follows:

NOV 1 stats (UTC): desktop 6119 mobile 18393 wpzero 4

NOV 2 stats (UTC): desktop 55364 mobile 53870 wpzero 134

NOV 3 stats (UTC): desktop 17319 mobile 25231 wpzero 52

Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
55k plus 54k means that it should make the list, no? BollyJeff | talk 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I would ask at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Most viewed before adding it. I believe the other entries on that page only list desktop views (for historic reasons, as the WMF didn't formerly publish mobile view statistics) so it may cause issues if two different methods are used to calculate the totals. ‑ iridescent 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
above average, still, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's well above average and looking at this months queue he will probably be the most-viewed TFA of the month. (Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies might overtake him, as in the current climate the "Wikipedia is irredeemably sexist" crowd will be tweeting links to it as evidence of Wikipedia's depraved nature.) In general TFAs usually only get above 25,000 or so if an outside website takes an interest (usually Google or Reddit), if a high-profile celebrity tweets a link to it, or if it relates to a current event and would have have had that many page views anyway; over 50,000 views is remarkably high, especially when you consider that the majority of people with an interest in him are probably going to be reading the Hindi-language article. As West.andrew.g points out above, that number also doesn't include mobile views, which for a biography like this will probably be quite high. ‑ iridescent 12:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Also don't forget the 16k+ yesterday, and today and tomorrow. It's a mystery to me how those mere links below the TFA the following three days attract attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
IIRC, for historic reasons actually counts from 2300-2300 rather than 0000-0000, so 124 of the hits for TFA are always attributed to the following day. Probably most of the other hits in subsequent days are actually people reading "hey, did you see this article yesterday?" posts on social media, rather than actual clicks from the main page.
My stats dump above supports the notion that does have a non-standard definition of a "day", as my numbers are approximately, but not identical with what they report on the desktop side. It is important to note we use the same raw data in arriving at these aggregates. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Useful Tip on finding out if people actually found your article interesting; go to Topsy and enter the article title, and you'll get a little chart at the top showing how often people tweeted about it. For articles that catch the public's attention, you can see the spike in "look at this article on Wikipedia!" tweets on the chart quite clearly (example); you also see the actual tweets, so you can see what readers were saying about your article. ‑ iridescent 12:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi! A wiki page about our company ( has been rejected recently - I would like to know what is the main reason of the rejection, along with what improvements could we make to make the page more "significant". It's just that we have been in the market for more than 4 years now, we are mentioned regularly times by some of the CDN authorities and I do not think that there was much of a difference between our WIki page and Wiki's of our competitors (e.g. I do not know what should we do differently. Along with that, could you retrieve the deleted page so we do not have to start from scratch? Thanks! Appreciate your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdn77 (talkcontribs) 10:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Cdn77, I've restored the page to Draft:CDN77, to allow you to work on it—please don't move it back to Wikipedia article space without addressing the problems, or it will be deleted again. As you probably know, the page CDN77 has been locked against recreation owing to persistent spam problems (which is presumably why you had to create this latest incarnation at Because of this, you won't be able to move the draft into article-space yourself; once you've completed it and feel it provides a neutral summary of the subject and demonstrates why it's considered significant, you'll need to go to this page and follow the instructions to get it moved to the CDN77 title.
The article needs to indicate why independent non-trivial reliable sources (in this case, most likely to be trade magazines) consider CDN77 significant; Wikipedia isn't an advertising portal or a trade directory, and we only include information which has already been published in reliable sources (by Wikipedia's definition of the term). It may well be a viable topic for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, but it needs to demonstrate why people not connected to the subject consider it important. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) has more detailed explanations of what information you'll need to include to have it be kept, if it is genuinely worthy of keeping.
Assuming (given your username) that you work for the company, you should probably also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest closely; while it's not forbidden to write about your employer on Wikipedia, it's strongly discouraged as it's very hard to remain neutral. (Also, if you do succeed in writing a neutral and balanced article it has the potential to get you in trouble with your employer, since it likely means you'll be publicising negative commentary about the company.) In addition, if you're receiving payment for writing this article, then the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. If you have any queries specifically about the conflict of interest policy and how to work within it, ask at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard; if you find that, or anything else, too confusing (Wikipedia policy pages are sometimes not easy to understand for those not versed in Wikipedia jargon), then click this link and complete the form to explain the problem you're having and someone will come to your talkpage and talk you through the problem. ‑ iridescent 12:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, however there is one thing I need to clarify - "As you probably know, the page CDN77 has been locked against recreation owing to persistent spam problems", what exactly does it mean - what spam problems do you have in mind?  ‑ Cdn77 14:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If you click the red CDN77 link, you'll see the issue; this article has been repeatedly recreated in an unambiguously advertorial form (sample quote: "Our 39+ data centers across the globe secure extensive coverage, which translates to rock-hard stability and stunning speeds."). Because of that, the title has been locked so you won't be able to move the draft page direct to this name when it's ready, but will need to go through the complicated requested move process linked above. ‑ iridescent 13:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace[edit]

Just wanted to invite you to take a look at this weeks TAFI article Allegra Versace. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I can honestly say I've never heard of her, and to be frank this looks to me like an AFD candidate as she appears famous only for having a famous uncle. (Has anyone ever actually used the word "socialite" other than Wikipedia and the occasional Channel 4 press release since the 1930s?)

I know Cas will pop up shortly to disagree, but I don't really support the premise of TAFI; the point of Wikipedia is surely encouraging people to work within their areas of expertise, not to get a whole bunch of people to write on a topic with which they're not familiar. (How are participants even supposed to have access to the sources? Google Books has an major—and acknowledged—systemic bias in terms of what's included, and while there are cases where websites are superior to print sources they're few and far between. When people try to write Wikipedia articles based on Google searches on a topic with which they're not already familiar enough to judge the validity and weight of sources, it rarely ends well, and leaves those who are familiar with the topic with a large and time-consuming mess to clear up.) ‑ iridescent 18:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Having just skimmed the AN/I discussion about redirects such as booby magnetic resonance imaging, I think the reactions have been a bit overblown. While some of these redirects are silly (booby mri or boob mri might be more plausible search terms), sites such as Yahoo!Answers or the comments sections of YouTube repeatedly remind us that people are pretty stupid. Wikipedia is intended to be a place for people to learn and get smarter. Redirects are a navigational tool to that end.

Wikipedia is radically transparent. Is it fair for people to suddenly complain about redirect creations that took place in plain sight over many years? I'll readily admit not having taken a deep dive into Neelix's history here, but it appears there was an incident in 2010 and not much since? I don't see much indication that Neelix was being repeatedly warned about these redirect creations. And I haven't seen any evidence that he was trying to disrupt the project or cause harm. Every comment I've seen from him since he was dragged to a noticeboard, and a quick read of his user page, indicates to me that he was acting in good faith.

Briefly looking through User talk:Neelix/Archive 21 and User talk:Neelix/Archive 22, it seems like all(?) of the redirects that he was notified as up for discussion have been kept? I see more than a dozen blue links, anyway.

A few people in the discussion have tried to make similar-ish points (slakr and bd2412), but it's quite likely that the mob carrying pitchforks is going to win this round. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The trouble with this particular incident is that unless you were there at the time, it's quite hard to follow the context. The mass deletion means his contrib history gives the impression that either this was a historic incident which was just being dredged up out of vindictiveness, or that it had only just been noticed but happened some time ago. In reality, redirects like Tubular titties and Constructions of the booby were still being mass-created right up until the ANI thread began.
I'd have no issue with genuine plausible search terms ("Boob scan" etc); the problem is that these weren't for the most part plausible search terms, they were nonsensical phrases like Segmentally removes titties and Inter-mammary wanked, or ridiculous non-existent terms he'd made up himself like Antitrousers. (Imagine explaining to someone with breast cancer just why Tumorous titties existed as a redirect.) Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum; given the hay made with "Someone said a word which people in a country on the other side of the world find offensive!", what signal does it send out if Wikipedia doesn't take action here once it had come to admin/Arbcom attention?
As Softlavender has now pointed out, this particular rabbit hole is a lot twistier than it initially appeared. I'm backing well away from the discussions, since no good can come of being involved with this; clearing up messes like this is why we have Arbcom. (And deciding whether they did a good job of handling it is why we have Arbcom elections.) ‑ iridescent 08:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous answer. (Does TAFI have a particular thing for dubious-looking BLPs at the moment? Surely these are the last articles one should be inviting groups of random strangers to add to.) ‑ iridescent 21:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland[edit]

You may wish to contribute to the vote taking place on the talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, assuming you mean Talk:Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland#Must vs May, it's not really something on which I feel strongly enough to express an opinion. (Of the four suggestions, I think option 4 looks clearest, but I still have an unpleasant enough memory of the years-long chain of arguments that led to this to be reluctant to get involved in any Ireland-related vote.) Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex is an awkward phrasing, and the legal experts who drafted the constitutional amendment knew it was an awkward phrasing, but they chose "may" for a reason; "must be contracted" would imply that couples in a relationship are legally obliged to marry, which was certainly not the intent. The clearest way to explain it IMO would be "the amendment made same-sex marriage explicitly legal and forbade the Oireachtas from passing legislation forbidding it without a further constitutional amendment", but that's a confusing mouthful. Pinging the go-to guy for summarising legal formulations while avoiding ambiguity. ‑ iridescent 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Irish constitutional law is well outside my core competencies, but I've posted a suggestion for the editors there to consider. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input guys. And I can well understand your reluctance to dip a toe into Irish wiki projects - it's a bruising experience. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you recently deleted the Technikal page. Please could you ensure that all links to the article in question are removed from other articles? He contributed heavily to Example's most recent album, which charted in the UK Top 10, and so his name is mentioned on various articles and I'd appreciate you making sure there aren't red links left lying around as a result. Thanks. —ItsLuke (contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; I think he actually has high potential to be a valid BLP subject, if the article's written and sourced properly (he even has his own category). The issue here wasn't so much notability, as the fact that it was a de facto unsourced BLP (the sole sources were a dead link to and a link to his page on iTunes). To me, this is one of those situations where the link ought to remain red in case someone comes along and writes a decent quality article on the topic. ‑ iridescent 20:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair play, I'm glad to hear that! The page was definitely in a terrible state; I would've given it a makeover myself but I just never got around to it. Hopefully it'll get revived eventually in a better shape :) —ItsLuke (contribs) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music if anyone wants to take a stab at him. He almost certainly does meet WP:N, but the sources to write it are likely buried in back issues of Mixmag and DJ Mag, and not easily available to anyone without a big heap of old magazines in their bedroom. ‑ iridescent 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures[edit]

Dear admin,

I kindly would like to ask you to restore the article European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures and the associated redirect ESFRI. The former was deleted based on a prod contesting notability, but the ESFRI programma is a major part of the European Union funding of research infrastructures, which certainly is notable, for example proved by:

And this list goes on and on... (try Google News search on "esfri".

Probably the article needs improvement and I am willing to spend some time on that over the next weeks.

Best regards,

--Reinoutr (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Restored, although if this isn't improved to something other than the current totally unsourced piece of promotion within a month, I'll nominate it for deletion and I'll warn you that in its current state it has zero possibility of survival. Claiming something is important isn't enough; you need to demonstrate why independent reliable sources consider it important, and you need a reference for every potentially contentious claim in the article. Pinging Jujutacular for info as the one who originally proposed it for deletion. ‑ iridescent 20:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, although I must admit I do not understand the hostility in your response. I am well aware of WP guidelines, having edited here since 2004 and being the main author of one featured article. I'll do my best to improve this article within one month. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And deleted again, since on looking more closely it's a verbatim copyright violation. The article before the copyvio was cut-and-pasted read—in full—The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) is an organization in Europe., and I'd venture to say isn't worth restoring. ‑ iridescent 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 voting[edit]

Having just got four emails asking me for WP:ACE2015 recommendations, posting this here to save repeating myself. As remarked elsewhere ad nauseam, this is probably the weakest set of candidates in the history of Arbcom elections, so there are a few weak "make up the numbers" supports of people I'd oppose in a normal year.

Definite support
  1. Casliber
  2. Opabinia regalis
Grudging weak support
  1. Drmies
  2. Keilana
  3. Timtrent
Weak oppose
  1. Callanecc
  2. Gamaliel
  3. GorillaWarfare
  4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
  5. Kelapstick
  6. Kirill Lokshin
  7. LFaraone
Definite oppose
  1. Hawkeye7
  2. Kevin Gorman
  3. Kudpung
  4. MarkBernstein
  5. Mahensingha
  6. NE Ent
  7. Rich Farmbrough
  8. Samtar
  9. Thryduulf
  10. Wildthing61476

If any of the candidates request it, I'll give the reasonings, but otherwise I don't see anything to be gained by doing so. Whoever's clerking this, please don't add this to the "official" voting guides box. ‑ iridescent 13:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Pre-emptive note[edit]

Pointing readers at this thread now, so I can say "I told you so" in two weeks. ‑ iridescent 21:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The UK Government's Knowledge Network Programme[edit]

Thanks for deleting The UK Government's Knowledge Network Programme. I guess here most users protest such PRODs ;). Zezen (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is a viable topic if someone ever decides to write the history of the increasingly hare-brained government IT schemes of the Blair years, so I've left the incoming link from Knowledge Network in place for the moment in case anyone decides to take a stab at it, but that article in its current state was unsalvageable. ‑ iridescent 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You deleted Ognjen Radisavljevic ...[edit]

You deleted Ognjen Radisavljevic (BLP prod), but didnt delete the redirect Ognjen radisavljevic. I could csd it, but then somebody else would do your home work :-) (Have a nice day) Christian75 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done ‑ iridescent 00:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mdann52, shouldn't you be substing this? The server load from transcluding this on 100,000 user talk pages must be astronomical. ‑ iridescent 16:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe - however, only a fraction of pages this is posted on are likely to be looked at. If you think it should be subst, I can do this going forward, but bearing in mind the page size and compared to other templates of similar sized that are also transcluded, I don't think this is too much of an issue. Mdann52 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It would probably be worth asking one of the WMF techies how they'd prefer it. (Paging WhatamIdoing, who seems to be the current holder of the "WMF Engineering's ambassador to the human race" short straw.) Bear in mind that although only a fraction of those talkpages are going to be looked at, many of those talk pages get a very high number of page views, so the server load isn't going to be insubstantial; AFAIK this is why we have the set-in-stone rule that everything in Category:User warning templates always be substed. ‑ iridescent 17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I would have assume that the "subst everything on user talk pages" rule applies, merely because it would make sure that the version currently displayed on the page is the one that was originally delivered (i.e., in case someone decides to change the text). Solely on those grounds, I would suggest subst:ing it for any future deliveries.
I'll see if I can find anyone in Ops who has a strong opinion about it. Fixing it should be easy, if they want that done (or if you decide to do it anyway). There are several bots that will subst templates (see list at the end of WP:Substitution). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The general word from Ops seems to be that they'd prefer that such things were subst:d, but the 'cost' of going back around and subst:ing it now (and thus having an extra revision in the table/another round of flooding people's watch lists) is similar to the cost of leaving it alone. So therefore my recommendation is to just leave it alone (individuals can subst: their own copies at any time, of course). Also, I gather that if the number had been much higher, than their POV might have been different, so now we have an idea of what their threshold is for something of this size/(lack of) complexity. Face-smile.svg WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
To be slightly clearer, this is a direct quote from one of them: "doing another edit after the fact would be worse than not doing anything at all, assuming the template is not edited frequently". I'm assuming this template isn't ever going to be edited. Perhaps under the circumstances, we could reduce the odds of vandalism, etc., by getting it protected? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It already has been—I think it's a fairly safe bet that if it hadn't been protected, a lot of people would be asking confused questions regarding why their talkpage had been replaced with goatse by now. ‑ iridescent 20:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)