User talk:Iridescent

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

Archives [Jan 06‑Oct 07] [Nov 07‑May 08] [Jun 08] [Jul‑Aug 08] [Aug‑Sep 08] [Sep‑Nov 08] [Nov‑Dec 08] [Jan 09] [Feb‑Apr 09] [May‑Jul 09] [Jul‑Oct 09] [Oct 09‑Apr 10] [May‑Jul 10] [Aug‑Oct 10] [Nov 10‑Apr 11] [May 11‑Apr 13] [May 13‑Apr 15] [May‑Aug 15] [Sep 15‑Jan 16] [Feb‑Apr 16] [May‑Jul 16] [Aug‑Sep 16] [Oct‑Nov 16] [Dec 16‑Jan 17] [Feb‑May 17] [Jun‑Oct 17] [Nov 17‑Jan 18] [Feb‑Jul 18] [Jul‑Oct 18] [Nov‑Dec 18] [Jan 19] [Feb‑Apr 19] [May‑Jun 19] [Jul 19] [Aug‑Oct 19] [Nov 19‑Jan 20] [Feb‑Mar 20] [Apr‑Jul 20] [Aug‑Oct 20] [Nov‑Dec 20] [Jan 21] [Jan‑Mar 21] [Apr‑May 21] [Jun‑Aug 21] [Sep‑Dec 21] [Jan 22] [Feb‑Mar 22] [Apr‑Jul 22] [Aug‑Nov 22] [Dec 22‑]

please check your bot (?)

Thanks, this was a legit clearing of a banned users rants...

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk%3aRalph+Merkle?diff=238880964 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this National Accuse-me-of-being-a-bot Week? This is a blocked user but not a banned user, and the difference is important as to whether it's acceptable to revert edits. – iridescent 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

*cough* TravellingCari 20:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • , I thought I had another secret admirer. – iridescent 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Iridescentie is my favourite, so scenty ;) TravellingCari 21:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of scenty… I haven't even blocked that one, I was kind of hoping they'd have more to add. I have a soft spot for LaraHate as well. – iridescent 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not kewl enough to have copycats. I just have me as a n00b not knowing capitalisation issues. TravellingCari 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You will, you will… – iridescent 21:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What about attack pages named after you? Iridescent? no (but Iridescent is a bluelink, so you've got something there on the rest of us...) Keeper76? no. J.delanoy? yes! And this, and this. I feel so loved! Be sure to read J. Delanoy. It is hilariously funny. You have no idea how tempted I was to make WP:NAZI a bluelink..... But I don't have any spoofs... yet..... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one bothered that this was marked as "patrolled", and only later did it get a G10 deletion? Hiilarious. Keeper ǀ 76 18:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a Huggle deletion, so it may be an artifact of how Huggle handles pages; it may automatically mark attack pages as patrolled pending deletion to reduce the number of newpage patrollers whose innocent young minds are corrupted by the page. Gurch would presumably be able to tell you, should you care. – iridescent 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

When you tag a page for CSD with Huggle, it simultaneously applies the tag to the page and marks the page as patrolled. When a page is simply deleted, it is removed from the newpage queue without having a "patrolled" entry added to its log. I'm not sure what Keeper is saying. I don't think it is possible to mark a page as patrolled after it is deleted unless someone recreates it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How did I know that Huggle would somehow be involved in this? All I saw is "marked as patrolled" in the log for that attack page, assumed someone "marked it as patrolled". Make sense keeper doesn't. Keeper ǀ 76 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They did, and tagged it as an attack page, so an admin deleted it afterwards (I presume). Marking something as patrolled is just a convenience to stop people duplicating work. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Was I the only one bothered that Kewl was a redlink? I've recreated it. Feel free to "check my work". Keeper ǀ 76 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god, please don't tell me you've brought a Cross-namespace redirect into the world? I, for one, don't know how you can sleep at night. – iridescent 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Block me baby. Or just delete it. TC is an admin, she can see my work in deleted pages.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CNR is a personal essay, not a policy; there's nothing actually against CNRs anywhere, or WP:AN/K would be out.

Incidentally, this isn't actually National Accuse-me-of-being-a-bot Week; it's national batshit-nuts conspiracy theory week. I feel like I won a competition to trade talkpages with SlimVirgin. – iridescent 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! (That's what they say, right?) Waltham, The Duke of 00:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keep. But like I said, I'm !Kewl so the true re-direct is better. AN:K makes sense for how his talk page gets used by well, all of us. Funny thing is, when I post to ANI, it doesn't get answered whereas there, someone would have had ideas. I guess I need to create drama to get answered :) TravellingCari 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All the replies in one place as this thread is degenerating into chaos:

1. ANI is Wikipedia's equivalent of a timeshift channel. It's where you go to see the same half-dozen people reheat the same arguments they've been having for the past two years. It's also where you direct people you're getting bored with in the hope they'll get so distracted by an argument there, they'll completely forget about whatever they were pestering you about. If you want incoherent flamewars WT:RFA is always the place to go. You get better replies posting at highly watched talkpages (User talk:Jennavecia and User talk:SandyGeorgia are generally good ones for sensible questions, too) as most sane people aren't going to wade through the 200kb of *** dumped on AN and ANI each day, looking for the two or three serious issues.
2. J.delanoy, you're a total n00b when it comes to attack accounts. (If you want to see the lamest attack page ever, Persian Poet Gal's entry at ED is the way to go).
3. Keeper's talkpage isn't actually as bad as it looks, it's just that people there feel the urge to post at very…great…length.
4. Ironically, this page seems to have now taken on that role. Keeper's talkpage is sadly denuded of 30kb rants, links to ***, discussions about Sarah Palin so detailed Palin herself would have trouble working out what they were about, third parties accusing each other of "uncivility" and "tenditiousness" over issues that have nothing to do with Keeper, and deranged conspiracy theorists. My talkpage is in no such position, and at some point between July and now appears to have mutated into a cross between #wikipedia-en-admins and Wikipedia Watch. – iridescent 16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like your new sig. :) LaraHate ^(Talk) 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Which version are you seeing? The "rip off of yours" is a fallback font for computers without the (awesomely annoying) Zapfino font. – iridescent 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a conclusive reason for choosing Windows over Mac OS X: it doesn't come with Zapfino -- Gurch (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So, to tally: Windows: 1. Mac OS X: 3,145,647. But there's a chance....(he said from his inadequate pc......Keeper ǀ 76 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You can also use Huggle, that makes 2... -- Gurch (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So none of y'all can see how annoying the Zapfino font looks? You don't know what you're missing. (See, Keeper, I told you he was watching). – iridescent 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Zapfino, eh? In text it is an impostor, stealing the identity of another font; in the image it suffers from multiple-personality disorder.

In any case, it suffices to explain the recent change in your signature. Although it hasn't solved my question about said signature's amazing language-shifting abilities a few days ago, Ιριδίζων. Waltham, The Duke of 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I only use the shifting-language signature when speaking with those whom I'm certain will recognise the #E45E05#C1118C "brand identity". With new users or users who may not be familiar with me, I avoid it as the "is yanardöner the same person as ιριδίζων?" issues can be confusing; plus, I'm now aware that some of the languages (notably Chinese and Korean) weren't displaying correctly on some browsers. Also, the "branding" is less strong than I thought, as unless your monitor (and eyesight) are both good enough to distinguish pastel shades from saturated primary/secondary color, CrohnieGal's new signature appears very similar (this was one of the drivers behind my switching to a script font). – переливающийся 15:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging from Crohnie's signature, you have failed to patent your "brand identity". Miserably. I have created an entire mythology around my person; look at my Meta user page for a pretty little sample of good marketing, and my Wikipedia article for a full-blown version. (Pre-emptive statement: I am fully aware of my megalomania, and have embraced it as part of myself. No need for psychological counsel.)

My signature, unlike a great majority of signatures, is customised but still uses only the normal font and colour. This adaptability (it changes font in talk pages like yours) is a subtle hint to real-life signatures, which can be produced with any pen and any ink colour (within reason). Another hint is the prominence of Waltham, which is how I'd sign as a peer.

By the way, you could try splitting ιριδίζων not before the third iota but after it; even though the letters would not be evenly distributed, they would appear so, for the first part would have three iotas, which are pretty small. It would also make the latter part a separate word (ζων, "alive"), much like scent—the lavender-like hue of which I find quite appropriate—and have the iride- correspond with its Greek counterpart (and origin), ιριδί-. Just a suggestion. Waltham, The Duke of 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. I have, on occasion, been addressed on Wikipedia as "Dear Mr Scent". – ιριδίζων 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigs, colors, & an image you'll wish you could get out of your head

Okay, but as far as CrohnieGal's sig, please refer to this. I don't care, of course... I'm just sayin'. I be the OG with the orange and pink! Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1 - Iridescenti 16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

2 --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just saying, like. – iridescent 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is dark violet a shade of pink? Just askin'. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you lie awake at night wishing you were me. No point hiding it. – iridescent 12:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I lie awake at night wishing [censored because kiddies read your talk page] you. There's a difference. >_> Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Discriminating against children? Why, I can quite honestly say I have never heard such an awful thing in all my life and I'm reporting you to the Wikipedia Complaints Department. Oh, wait, you're already here. Well, I lie awake at night wishing [censored because kiddies read my talk page] nothing but your Wikipedia tshirt. – iridescent 13:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm an ageist. What are you going to do about it? Punish me? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy lies awake at night wondering how the *** he always manages to come across threads like this when he is supposed to be doing his assembly language homework. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(The Duke of Waltham stays awake at night editing Wikipedia and sleeps during the day, which is detrimental for his class attendance.) Waltham, The Duke of 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it to the point, really, that the image is burned into your brain? >_> Jennavecia ^(Talk) 11:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"An image you'll wish you could get out of your head". Didn't say it was burned into mine. – iridescent 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot your bathrobe, ***!

I was thinking something like this, only with Wikipedia t-shirts. Who says Commons isn't useful? – iridescent 19:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel dirty. Keeper ǀ 76 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You can picture Sarah Palin's face on it if it makes you feel better... – iridescent 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel dirty and cold. Keeper ǀ 76 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for you – iridescent 20:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My corporate computer says "access restricted" when I clicked on your link. Which I should've probably predicted, considering the source :-) I'll check it when I get home... Keeper ǀ 76 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so this is the image we'll want to get out of our head? Because, surely, everyone's life is made better by an image of me in a bathrobe and Wikipedia tee-shirt. >_> Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, all three images work for me. – iridescent 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra Paressant

Hey there. I see you reverted four edits by an I.P. on the aforementioned article. However, this was not actually vandalism. I'm part of the fashion wikiproject and while it doesn't make me an authority on the subject, I'm a follower of fashion for years and there is no serious record of that alleged model anywhere. I will probably take a look at the article soon (it's 2:20am here now so I won't be editing it today -- too tired) but just so you know I don't come with bad intentions if I revert your revert on this article. Thanks! Thiste (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. This wasn't a legitimate edit as it was treating the article as a talkpage, but it's clear that X17 magazine did print a grovelling retraction about Parker, at least; while I'm unable to find any similar retraction from The Sun regarding the Ronaldinho story (and the fact that it's still live on their website makes me think it hasn't been retracted and they're standing by it, given Britain's notoriously strict libel laws), there's a can of worms here.

This whole thing is very odd; I'm taking this to The Unruly Mob for a decision. – iridescent 15:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well of course I see your point on the edit you mentioned, my point was simply that it also added some valid information as well. I completely agree with you on the "can of worms" thing and I have a few french language sources that seriously doubt the claims of this alleged model. Maybe the veracity of her various stories should be decided in a courtroom instead of on a vfd on wikipedia but that's all we have for now. Now I'm anticipating it's gonna be very difficult to decide what to do with this article... Thiste (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping the AFD discussion flushes out some more people qualified to comment. At the moment, we're in a very peculiar situation where we have an article which is almost certainly a hoax, but hav eno reliable source to say it's a hoax and do have reliable sources to say it's true. Ideally, someone will dig up uncontrovertable proof (court transcripts, or reliable press coverage). I'll confess that my opinion is edging towards "delete, causes too much trouble to keep it up". – iridescent 19:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things

(note: two threads on the same topic merged – no content change)
Hey there again. I'm coming to you with stuff related with the Alexandra Paressant case. I've been looking at the what links here on this article and saw that several of the links were contributions from user Tarheelz123 (talk · contribs) who added her name here and there (1, 2, 3) probably not to leave her page a orphan.
I then discovered that he also created a page mentioning her (that I just filed for deletion) after trying to include it in another article. He then proceeded to add the mention "fashion model" on several of the people's pages that this list consists of. Anyways, I'm not sure this kind of behavior is really constructive, and I thought you should know about all of this since you're part of the thing already. Thanks in advance. Thiste (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, it's a fan adding links. It's not particularly unusual for someone writing or expanding an article on something to go round adding links to it, and none of the links seem wildly inappropriate. – iridescent 19:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd say that. My only concern is that a lot of these additions are false and thus need someone to come after the guy and fix the errors he caused, even in good faith. For instance, Paressant has never been a glamour model and ten of the women in his list have never been fashion models. He still added it to their articles and that's more useless stuff that needs to be fixed. He's capable of doing it again too (adding random unverified stuff to articles just because it suits his needs). That's what I was calling "nonconstructive behavior".

You say it best yourself : maybe he's not here to build and encyclopedia! :) Thiste (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Just to be clear, I'm only suggesting some kind of warning on his talk page, not a ban or anything uh. Thiste (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting to see how the AfD goes; hopefully that will dig up something decisive that he can be pointed towards. (If the article's deleted, of course, than people adding links to it cease to be an issue). – iridescent 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

This looks like it's (probably rightly) headed for a keep. If anyone wants to have a go at cleaning it up, it desperately needs it. I am not volunteering to do this myself as the majority of the sources are in French and Portuguese, and I don't speak either. – iridescent 01:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that indeed. Well, as I wrote earlier I'll probably look into it a little bit, just not this week as I'm pretty busy. Other people might jump in and help as well, who knows. Thanks for your help in clarifying things anyways. Thiste (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed admin looking for an update

Hello! I've been an admin for... jeez, close to 3 years now, but because of a combination of home issues and embitterment with some things, I disappeared. For two years. In the past couple of months I've found myself getting drawn back to helping out here, and I wanted to ask you, is there anything majorly significant in terms of warning, deletion, blocking policy that I should be aware of? I've been reading the admin pages, but I wanted to ask someone who's been "in the field", so to speak, just to make sure. Thanks for your help in advance, Mo0[talk] 18:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, here goes... The major recent changes I can think of in the last year or so are:

1. A huge increase in automation and semi-automation of routine tasks (most notably the ultra-high-speed revert/warn/report/block cycle made possible by Huggle);
2. An obsessive (and to my mind unhealthy) obsession with "civility" in the sense of "don't ever suggest anyone else might be wrong" as opposed to the older sense of "don't be rude without good reason";
3. A huge escalation in the use of jargon to deliberately make new and occasional users feel excluded create a convenient shorthand for frequently cited policies – there's a cynical but fairly accurate guide to them at WP:WikiSpeak which I'd strongly recommend reading;
4. An increased "block first and ask questions later" mentality;
5. An exponential increase in the number of conspiracy theories regarding Wikipedia, and a greatly increased willingness to air said conspiracies online – head on over to WP:ANI, hit ctrl-f and count the occurrences of the word "cabal" on any given day to see what I mean; I'd also recommend at least skimming the principal attack sites (Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Watch) to get a taste for what the outside perceptions of Wikipedia have become;
6. A tolerance for allowing talkpages to degenerate into long, rambling arguments that would never have been tolerated a year ago;
7. An increased obsession with process over quality; the "article writers" are steadily losing the battle with the "process wonks". At the FA level that's not necessarily a bad thing, but there's more of a tendency to slap {{cleanup}} templates on two-line stubs than there ever used to be;
8. A huge increase in the ratio of children to adults, or at least a hugely increased visibility of children, which is both having an effect on article subjects and quality, and leading to a permanent low-level flamewar about whether age, maturity etc are important in an editor and how one determines either on an anonymised website.

I'm sure I'll think of more as I go on – everyone else, feel free to chip in on this one. (Keep it reasonably polite, though; Malleus, Lara, that includes you). – iridescent 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If I have to be polite then I've got nothing to say, re points 2 & 4 above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Malleus is a perfect case in point – blocked for absolutely ridiculous reasons (describing the administrator of WikiLaw as "a wikilawyer" got him blocked because "wikilawyer" is A Bad Word). My points 2 & 4 above both stem from point 8; a huge increase in people who understand "the letter of the law" but are unable to understand "common sense". I cannot recommend enough reading User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general as a "basic primer" to this new (and IMO very unpleasant) mentality. – iridescent 19:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia is going downhill then?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 20:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Read this thread and answer your own question. Among other things it discussed in very great length the "going downhill" and "went downhill but has now turned the corner" views (I don't think anyone would seriously contend that we haven't had serious problems over the last year); make your own mind up. – iridescent 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding to my list:

9. The ratio of admin mainspace activity has dropped dramatically. While admins make up about 10% of active users, a few years ago 50% of mainspace edits were made by admins; in 2007 that figure was down to 10% and I'd be very surprised if it's above 5% now. This has (right or wrong) led some – both admins and non-admins – to see admins as an elite, which is skewing the "all users are equal" mentality and knocking huge holes in "adminship is no big deal"; the trouble is, most of our policies were drawn up by Jimbo and pals in the days when we had a couple of hundred admins and a few thousand editors, and are not relevant for a site with 856 admins and 47,803,202 editors; however the critical mass of those high numbers (and an unwillingness on the part of many to admit there's a problem) makes consensus for change virtually impossible to get. – iridescent 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

10. That The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity at the top of this page isn't plucked out of nowhere. The combination of the current poisonous atmosphere, lynchmob mentality, and overzealous application of our arbitrary "civility rules" is creating an environment where trolls and drama queens flourish, while a lot of people who have come to help are being driven off in disgust (or blocked because they "just don't get it"). Sure, twas ever thus, but I don't think it was ever as bad as it is now. Head on over to ANI, RFA, WQA or most especially WT:RFA and see the permanent catfights that are sapping everyone's time and energy. – iridescent 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Point one reminds me of the Industrial Revolution: less work to do, more leisure time—which in this case is used to engage in politics. And what a curious mixture, too: feudalism with modern political correctness. If administrators spent more time writing articles and blocking were a slower process, there would be less time for drama. Waltham, The Duke of 10:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Feudalism mixed with political correctness"? There's one very obvious analogy that throws up. May I point you towards my contributions to an related discussion back in the dim-and-distant days when people were polite on WT:RFA?

Comparing that discussion with the current trainwreck of WT:RFA is a pretty good illustration of how far we've fallen. Nowadays, every post on that thread would probably have led someone to go bleating off to ANI about "incivility" and "disrespect", and a me-too pile-on arguing to block. – iridescent 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate mob mentality as much as I hate those hypocritical calls for punishment of incivility by people who often are uncivil themselves (if not with their words, then much more with their actions). If we aren't to devolve into Ancient Rome, we need to give more weight to rational discussion than to the obsessive-compulsive voting which has taken the path to ubiquitousness. Unfortunately, the community has grown so much that it's hard to prevent polls from mushrooming, since discussions are so difficult to control, and more so to actually yield something useful. (On the other hand, if only a few people participate in a discussion and manage to reach a decision, they are "trying to impose their minority views upon the community".) It's funny (or tragic) how even efforts to reform the system fall prey to the very same problem.

I like the Soviet parallel: In Wikipedia, the sock-puppeteers block you! Waltham, The Duke of 18:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

←The huge amount of traffic on this page has made me think of another change from one year ago, let alone three – there seems to be an awful lot more "what did you mean by that, how dare you" than there ever used to be – possibly because the ever-growing WP:CIV scares people off from changing things they don't like, but that's just pure speculation on my part. – iridescent 14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice, please?

Hey Iri,

I'm attempting to get more active at Wikipedia (again) and just wanted some advice.

Firstly, i'm going to try and rekindle my WikiProjects, UKTrams and Derbyshire (not mine but you get what i'm at!!!).

Secondly, i'm going to do tram related article writing. This will be on systems etc. But, would individual trams be notable enough? Some, such as Southampton 45, which started the tramway preservation movement, are obviously notable, and presumably as they were preserved and saved that would make them notable? I don't know...

Thanks,

BG7even 16:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule regarding things like this. The general result of train-related AfDs has been that individual locomotives notable enough to have independent coverage get their own article; however, there's permanent warring in the grey area once you get below the Mallard and Rocket level, with some of the more hardcore deletionists (especially those in the US and Europe, where it's traditionally been the line rather than the rolling stock that's been considered notable) arguing for deletion of whole lists, let alone the individual engines and carriages. You can see the deletionist and inclusionist arguments – and the cultural gap between Britain & Australia vs North America & Europe when it comes to these things – on this spectacularly foul-tempered AfD.

My gut instincts would be;

1. Anything with a name is more likely to be considered notable than something known only by a number, just because it "feels right" (LNER Class A3 4472 would fare worse in a hypothetical AfD discussion than Flying Scotsman, despite being the same article);
2. While it's a pure example of systemic bias in action, articles on trams associated with cities with active WikiProjects are more likely to survive (and more likely to be improved by others) – articles about aspects of the Manchester, Glasgow or London networks have an existing pool of people able to explain why said tram is (or isn't) notable should the New Page Patrol decide to grace you with their "I've never heard of it, therefore it must be non-notable" witterings;
3. Anything that still exists is inherently more likely to be kept, especially if it's been preserved;
4. If you don't mind losing control of your article, then on anything at all borderline try to get others involved from an early stage (advertise the article at WikiProject UK Railways, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject UK Roads and the relevant town/county project, as well as at the tram project itself). The more people you have reading and working on the article, the more people you have who will argue against deletion;
5. Routes (as opposed to individual trams), you can argue are always notable, since – even if you don't actually have the sources – there's a reasonable presumption that the sources will exist, as any route will have been the subject of significant coverage upon its opening and its closing.

At the end of the day, as long as an article is interesting and informative to a reader with no specialist knowledge of the subject, it's vanishingly unlikely to be deleted altogether. The worst that will happen is that it will be merged to become a subsection of a larger article – and as someone who's always championed doing exactly that (and indeed, carried out the granddaddy of all transport merges), I can't really argue with that as I do believe "one big article" is almost always better than "five short ones".

Good luck! Incidentally, there's another account active which is either you, or stalking your contributions very assiduously; while it's not breaching policy to operate two accounts, if you do plan to keep both accounts active make sure you don't get into any situation where it looks like you're trying to conceal your history, votestack etc. – iridescent 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

Thanks for that. Well I will begin with some that I think are worthy of an article, e.g. So'ton 45. In the event they aren't notable, they can be merged with Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum, which indeed already has a short section on 45 that I wrote with little info - I know have a lot more.

Would you mind reading through it (or another) if I get a draft up in my sandbox, and telling me what you think?

Hmmm... I *honestley* don't know what you are talking about - I personally haven't been editing with any accounts other than this one, but I *do* have two others, Bluegoblin, my legit alt account, and TramMan (or something like that, i haven't yet used it!), which is my single-purpose account for things to do with WikiProject UK Trams, which I don't want on my main account. From what I understand both of those uses are perfectly allowed?

Could you possibly share this stalker with me, either on or off wiki?

Many thanks,

BG7even 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, disregard the part about the alt account, as of the two questionable accounts, one actually predates you & has multiple edits on topics you've shown no interest in, and the other geolocates outside the UK (and in any even is blocked on an unrelated matter).

I'm happy to read over the article(s), but bear in mind I know virtually nothing about trams. One of my talkpage stalkers may also read this and look over the articles for you. – iridescent 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no worries ;).

Tbh I just wanted you to read over them so I could get an idea of if they were notable ;). It's probably better that you *do* know nothing about them ;).

Cheers,

BG7even 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On a quick skim down Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum, what jumps out at me is the tone – it's very chatty in places ("it lives happily amongst the operating fleet"), and – while I appreciate someone not interested in the subject would be unlikely to reach this subpage – doesn't really explain what is/isn't significant about these trams in particular.

I'd be inclined to keep them as sections in this article, rather than a bunch of independent stubs; anyone looking them up will almost certainly be looking for them in the context of the museum, and keeping them together allows them to be compared (as well as serving an "it's useful" purpose in telling prospective visitors to the museum what they're going to see; and don't listen to anyone who says "it's useful" isn't a valid argument – being useful is our only purpose here.

I've asked Travellingcari, who's our resident museum-article geek expert, to have a look at this one, as she'll be more familiar than me with the current standards and policies for museum-exhibit articles. – iridescent 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I admit there may be some issues with it - it is pretty much a solo attempt by me ;). I've also asked on IRC and they say they probably are notable, and I should be bold. I'm going to draft them anyway, but i'll wait for advice from Travellingcari and also from anyone who reads and it and drops a note ;).

Finally, a few things:

1. Congrats on the one year adminship! :D
2. Thanks for all your help i've ever had from you :D
3. It's not normally done this way i know, but I am considering going into adoption again, mainly due to recent incidents and I also want to regain the community's trust - I still have that goal of adminship :D Anyway, I was wondering if you would adopt me? Don't worry if the answer is no ;). BTW, it wouldn't be "active" adoption, probably more just guidance if/when I need it - so I suppose it's more mentoring?

Anyway,

Cheers,

BG7even 19:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm happy to answer questions, I won't do "formal" adoption of anyone - my work means I'm away for long periods, often with no notice, so can't take on the "watching out for you" side of things. Someone on this page may well read this and make you an offer. – iridescent 20:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway ;) It's good to know you're there for questions! :D.

BG7even 20:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent for clarity, numbers and bullets confuse me) Thanks for the heads up, Iri, I"m a bit behind on my TPSing after three days off line. General consensus (meaning as a Wiki-whole and project) seems to be that while museums are semi-inherently notable (I can only think of one that failed AfD for an issue other than spam/copyvio and that issue was really close) exhibits are less so. I think the issue with the current article is that of tone and also unnecessary detail for an encyclopedia article. It seems that the tram cars are a significant part of the museum but I don't know that a) it requires such detail and b) that it couldn't be trimmed and merged into the main article. There are issues where the collections need their own child article or a hybrid of the two. Victoria and Albert Museum for example is a mix of the two, with the bulk of information on the main article but a child article was also warranted: Cast Courts (Victoria and Albert Museum). I don't think the tramway museum requires this level of detail and I think there is some reundant content between the two that would allow the tramways article for a trim. It's a solid article with some good research but it would benefit also from some secondary sources rather than the museum itself. Thoughts? TravellingCari 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some digging around comparable museums, and this split (museum article/list of items in the collection) doesn't seem wildly inappropriate – what would appear to be the nearest comparable museum, National Railway Museum (on which I suspect you've modelled this article), has a similar List of locomotives in the UK National Collection subpage, and in both cases importing the "collection" page into the main page would make it wildly long. That said, some of the true mega-museums, such as the Prado, the National Air and Space Museum and the Hermitage Museum, don't have a similar split. National Gallery of Canada has what may be the most sensible solution (although when did anything here have to be sensible?), of a single article on the museum including a brief list of the collection, and a category for the individual items within the collection. My instinct would be to merge the list into the main article, and create separate articles for those individual trams that warrant it (again, as with the National Railway Museum). Aside from those trams that have something exceptional in their history, I suspect you will struggle to defend yourself against the "what makes this particular tram notable" arguments. If it comes up, you may want to ask User:DGG for advice, since (as anyone attempting to close an AFD discussion finds to their cost) he's very good at thinking of reasons to keep articles, and stubbornly standing by his arguments.

Incidentally, while skimming through some of the "world class" museum articles looking for examples, I'm struck by the awesome wretchedness of some of them – Imperial War Museum and Montreal Museum of Fine Arts read like school essays, while MALBA and Hong Kong Museum of Art's current substubs are both shorter than the *** Museum of Iceland. And I won't even mention MoDA. Oops, I did.

At least I now can sleep better at night knowing the world has a Barbed Wire Museum, a Needle Museum and the International Quilt Study Center. – iridescent 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tate Modern is in need of TLC as well but the museum article in the worst shape is probably Art museum. Ugh. I wish I had more time, although some of these it would be faster to start from scratch. Transporation elements seem divided at AfD and in some cases come out like bldgs. Churches may be notable if the bldg is in someway notable (i.e. NRHP, etc) but rarely the orgs within are. I think that might be the issue with the trams as well. I think it does have some potential for a good article with some child articles. TravellingCari 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to be at MALBA in a couple of weeks so will try to get some photos and guidebooks to at least build a respectable stub. That one is frankly embarrassing. – iridescent 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply in detail later, but here's the first i've got online. Personally, it's probably about as least notable as you can currently get, but if it's notable then i expect the rest will be as well. General consensus on IRC is that it is. Many thanks, BG7even 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Link is User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox9 btw ;) Thanks to tombom on IRC for reminding me! BG7even 19:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, there are serious neutrality & tone issues. If you open the collapse box below, I've highlighted in yellow what I see as the "problem" parts of the current version.

As well as these, there's also a "why is this particular tram notable" issue; yes, it's been preserved, but is there anything significant about this particular tram as opposed to the model? As a comparison, our article on Imperial War Museum Duxford contains links to our articles on Concorde, SR-71 Blackbird, Cierva C.30 etc but not to articles on the individual airplanes – it might make far more sense to have an article on the model of tram, with the information about the individual trams as sections within the article on the model of tram. (I hope that makes sense!) – iridescent 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll have a work on it :D. I do agree with the notability issue. Certainly with this one anyway, as it probably is one of the least notable of all the trams at the museum (the only notable point that it has operated in Edinburgh, Blackpool, Glasgow and Crich. And going to Glasgow and Blackpool for celebrations).

I will consider your suggestions!

Thanks,

BG7even 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

MALBA, I'm jealous. No exotic museum trips in my future. Well that's not true, I am going to Chichen Itza in December but I'm in dire need of vacation so won't be even wiki-working then. TravellingCari 22:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's dependent on one of the world's least reliable airlines (one of the few edging towards overtaking Air Koryo on Skytrax), so I won't be totally surprised if I end up stranded in Miami or Havana. – iridescent 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Srsly

Thanks for that, I just choked on my coffee. I don't know what's more impressive though; the diff or your recall of it ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's my all-time second-favourite diff (after Wet Floor Sign). I don't go round memorising every diff... – iridescent 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's reassuring... though not 100% convincing! I absolutely agree about that version of Wet Floor Sign; it's my favourite article :D EyeSerene^talk 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

God that was funny. I've never seen that WFS diff, you've been holding out Irid. My favorite is the pipelink for "some people say" in the "regulation" subsection. Brilliant humor :-) Keeper ǀ 76 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to know who it was – a Certain Banned User tried to claim credit long after the event, but it doesn't have any of the hallmarks of his accounts – iridescent 18:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention Keeper ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya

See this, under Sept 2008. I made the mistake a couple of hundred times now too (guessing it lagged sometimes?) but I got rid of them now. Anyway, thinking you may want to remove them :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agents of the Wikipedia Malfunctioning Semiautomation Patrol track Gurch down to his underground lair. The search continues for whichever bright spark at AWB/T set it to auto-replace Montana→Mountain.

Gurch! When people flame you, it's things like this that make them do it… (Any idea why it's doing this? Is it that VasilievVV isn't on the whitelist yet, in which case IMO it's "acceptable collateral damage", or is it reverting whitelisted users?) – iridescent 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of me yearns for the good old days when people who wanted to get another user's attention posted a message on that user's talk page, rather than their own talk page... yes, he seems to be missing from the whitelist. Which is odd, since the only requirement is 500 edits, which he has made in an hour before now. And Huggle usually adds people who use it to the list automatically. Perhaps he skips that step (it does take rather a long time for it to edit that page these days) -- Gurch (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If it had come up again rather than a one-off I'd have posted something on Huggle/Feedback, but it hardly seemed worth it if it's a one-off glitch rather than a systemic problem. It looks to me like what happened was that he made his 500th edit at about the time the server crashed and it probably got lost in the system – there might also be issues regarding his weird status (admin on ru-wikipedia, which I believe gives him global admin rights except here) – reading your feedback page, Huggle is clearly getting confused by SUL and it maybe picked up on his admin status from elsewhere? – iridescent 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace

My dear Lovelace keeps coming under attack by IPs, but every time I request a protection, the viewing admin tends to say it is not enough, or inconsistent (as they are always different IPs). So, I wonder what will become of her? Since she isn't well known outside of those who know either computer science or Byron, I suspect that most of the vandalism is from bored Comp Sci majors. Thank you for cleaning up. My desire to discontinue my 0RR policy is tested quite often from that page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Given WP's userbase, I'd guess bored William Gibson fans, as she features in The Difference Engine. – iridescent 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Thats a fair explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Who'd you *** off today?

some interesting edits to your page. Eek. TravellingCari 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this one. Short, concise, and to the point. – iridescent 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'll never tell if that was my IP. Never tell (except, it wasn't me, and I blocked him/her good... Keeper ǀ 76 22:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

↑This post put me into the Army of Immortals. I can now complete my evil plan to run rogue and there's nothing any of you can to to stop me mwaah ha ha. – iridescent

Another satisfied customer… – iridescent 22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow...aren't you lil Miss Popular today. I propose an immediate addition to WP:MVP haha —— RyanLupin • (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose we all get together and mass-vandalise /b/; why does it always have to go one-way? – iridescent 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one, really like the idea of vandalizing /b/. It's not like we don't already have a long list of new open proxies at our disposal. Also, I would assume that it would not be that difficult for Cobi to write a vandal-bot to attack /b/. That would be like the ultimate payback. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The lulz of knocking out the ED servers would probably be greater. – iridescent 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and they're running MediaWiki too, so it would be much easier to program for it. Hmmm. I'm starting to be really happy I chose a CS major..... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do, then be prepared for 4chan to target you for the rest of your life and for whatever personal details Brandt can dig up to be plastered across Hivemind for ever. – iridescent 00:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"I propose we all get together and mass-vandalise /b/; why does it always have to go one-way?" Hilarious. That quote deserves to be turned into its own essay. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Split off thread about editcounts as this was getting hopelessly messy

I find this even more amusing. A touch of editcountitis? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See this and this. You do know that I'm not even on the high score table, right? – iridescent 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? You're not on there? Well then by all means continue huggling... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And never will be, believe me. IMO that list goes against everything we should be about.

I assume I'm not the only one who sees something fairly ironic about my being called a "Huggler"... – iridescent 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As of now the list begins at about 7,000 edits, so I assume you'll be there shortly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If I do get on there shortly, whoever adds me will be explaining how I got there via their {{unblock}} request… If I wanted to join their silly game, I'd more than qualify. – iridescent 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice tool; I've been using wannabe Kate so far. (I'll probably continue to, considering that I've used it for all my statistics so far.) Please explain to me this thing, though: why does my count say that my deleted edits are −123? Waltham, The Duke of 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (minus a minute or two)

I have no idea – you'd need to ask SQL, who wrote it. Did you make a lot of edits to an article/talkpage that's since been oversighted? That's all I can think of. Does your actual editcount (displayed under "preferences") match the figure the script is giving?

WannabeKate is a lot harder on the servers, and the stats it generates are totally screwed up for anyone with an editcount of over 45000 – try it on me and you'll see that I've been on Wikipedia for just four months, have never made more than 12 edits to any article, and my main interests include Zhang Heng, Borat Sagdiyev, John D. Rockefeller and, er, Satan. – iridescent 14:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mystery solved: The toolserver count can be higher than either of the others, though, because not all deleted edits are counted in the server count for users who have had an account for a long time (because the server counts have not existed forever and don't include some old deleted edits, although they should include all edits that have never been deleted, as well as edits that were deleted since the server counts came into existence). – iridescent 15:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At 6610 edits (6611 with this one), I think it will be a while before having a problem with Wannabe Kate. :-) (But it is hellishly slow.) Mind you, I can't see myself using any sort of automation in the near future; I never have. I hardly use Twinkle, as a matter of fact. If I do start mass editing at some point, I have an account waiting for that use.

Anyway, about the problem. I don't know why any of my edits would have been oversighted, but 123 is just too high. Wannabe Kate, as I've said, gives 6610 edits. SQL's Tool gives the same number, and also gives 6487 edits "including deleted edits", which is the number shown in my preferences. There is some consistency here. Your explanation (where have you found that?) confuses me; how many counts are there? And my account was created in December 2006—is that old? Please enlighten me. Waltham, The Duke of 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That quote is from Wikipedia:Edit count#What is an edit count?. The one showed under "preferences" is your "correct" edit count; I have no idea at all where the "extra" edits have come from. Short of going through your contributions and seeing if there's anything in there you don't recognise, I can't think of where the "phantom" edits have come from. (You only have 67 deleted edits, so it's not even a case of the figures being "switched"). If you did a lot of work on an article that's been oversighted altogether for legal reasons that could possibly explain it – eg, a run of edits to an article, all of which were to a version that included something seriously libellous – but it doesn't seem very likely. – iridescent 14:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can Huggle do ...

Came here to ask about a use of huggle, and since I see above you recently (?) started using huggle, I'm hoping you're still dubious enough to be dissatified with it as is. Let me ask, is there a feature to avoid leaving some infection behind when debriding the wound? I go too slow I'm sure, but the thought of leaving the nasties untouched bothers me as yet. Shenme (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Found a better (?) example. LeaveSleaves sees an obvious bad edit and reverts that editor using Huggle. But the bad edits just preceding that one are missed. Any tools that do this better? (the finger point towards...?) Shenme (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever tried using Huggle before? Even very experienced users make errors with it. That is common knowledge. What exactly are you trying to ask? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More or less "have you done the research for me?" I worry that these tools have rapidity, yes, but might not make it any easier to judge the recent history of edits. Thus they can miss that the preceding series of edits might be bad, as they focus on just the latest edit or the latest editor. I've seen a number of times where simply reverting the latest most obvious bad edit actually restores another vandal's bad edits. Thus I slog along my watchlist checking recent histories manually. Do any of the tools allow an adjustable 'window' of recent history, with the view to making it easier to find the better point to revert back to? I'm wasting time, yet finding things missed using the simplistic tools.

I'm wishing not to have to sample each of the tools to find what is dissatisfying regarding this aspect. I was hoping for some revelation like "Oh, I use this because it is a good fit to the high rate of vandalism, but for a broader review use "WhaleTail" to slap em down." (sigh) Can you point out any 'reviews' of the tools? Shenme (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no simple way to fix this; just check the past few revisions, especially if another IP has edited very recently. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You can use Huggle (or Twinkle, or VandalProof, or rollback, or popups, or old-fashioned MediaWiki) to look through the revision history of an article and revert to a clean revision if necessary – or just edit out the vandalism.

I think you may be misunderstanding what Huggle is; it's not an article-editing tool, but purely a tool for immediate rollback of recent, blatant vandalism as it happens, and only shows you the paragraph currently being vandalised. Thus, if IP#1 adds "is teh *** lol" to the Marriage & family section of George W. Bush and nobody notices it, then when IP#2 adds "sux monster cox" to Domestic policy, Huggle will only show the "Domestic policy" section of the article. There's nothing to stop you looking back over previous diffs if you suspect there might be further vandalism (generally, if the version you're reverting to was itself an IP or new-account edit).

When all is said and done, Huggle is a tool for making one particular task quicker; it's not intended for dealing with bulk-vandalism or /b/ attacks – and because it runs on rollback, cannot be used for non-blatant vandalism (inserting incorrect information, non-blatant POV pushing, possibly legitimate section blanking etc). Blaming Gurch because it doesn't do another task for which it was never designed is like blaming the spellchecker for not detecting invalid fair-use rationales.

Hard though it can be at times, one has to assume a certain degree of intelligence among our readers; our primary line of defence against vandalism was, is, and always will be people reading the articles and spotting problems. Huggle, Twinkle, and semi-protection just reduce the inflow of vandalism to a manageable level. Think of them as the MediaWiki equivalent of Tamiflu; it doesn't stop the infection entering the body, but it slows its spread enough for the body's immune system to deal with it.

In answer to your other question, the full list of recent changes monitoring scripts can be found here. – iridescent 15:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried Huggle, but I find that just using my Watchlist and Rollback or Twinkle, but also checking the article's history, is the best way to keep an article vandal proof. Too often I find that if I just rever the latest edit I've left vandalism. I usually do a compare if that seems appropriate after I've used Rollback. Doug Weller (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of what Huggle does; it's to prevent vandalism to those articles that aren't on peoples' watchlists as it takes the feed direct from RecentChanges, sorted by the editor's vandalism history. As a tool for monitoring your own watchlist, while it can be used for that purpose, it's a square-peg/round-hole situation and not particularly useful for it. – iridescent 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I could make it pop up a dialog box saying "Warning: You are reverting to a revision by an anonymous user, please check that this revision is free of vandalism first" but I imagine it would soon get annoying -- Gurch (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree (besides, the previous diff is shown, anyway). When all is said and done it can't be expected to do everything, and if you try you'll end up like the last guy who thought he could make a script to cover every possibility. Huggle is Huggle and AWB is AWB, the two shouldn't be mixed. – iridescent 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I know what Huggle's for. It was just a general comment. I just fixed a month old bit of vandalism - 'two hundred buildings excavated' had been replaced by 'tree hundred thousand buildings excavated', some kind editor changed 'tree' to 'three' without noticing it was ridiculous. You just have to know the limits of your tools, I guess. As you say, Huggle works great for the situations it is designed to handle. Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The above comments have helped me (be lazy). :-) And indeed I was not blaming Huggle for anything (much less someone who did the work to create it (Gurch?)), but asking if I should expect it to do as I was describing. Thank you again for the comments. Shenme (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hey. I don't get that. What is wrong with redirecting the page? It obviously isn't important enough for its own article, but surely a redirect is useful. 86.147.219.114 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for warning you regarding blanking it - I can see you were trying to help by keeping something, even if only a redirect, at the name. On a closer look, I'm declining the {{db-bio}} request as it clearly asserts her notability. (Note to TPSs - the page in question is Madeleine d'Houet). – iridescent 18:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

re Vancouver WA

I did include a rather lengthy explanation in my edit summary, if you bothered to look. I thought the list of private schools was far too rambling. 75.148.54.233 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts I agree and sorry for reverting you. This is a level of detail that isn't appropriate for a "main" article on a town. – iridescent 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me to get reverted, I just like an explanation why... thanks for your response! 75.148.54.233 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Nr9krw

and his/her IP are removing material on the Youtube article, info that has been used as a reason to delete. Time to block at least on of the accounts? — Realist² 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • , leave them to it. He can vandalise his own article as much as he likes. It keeps him out of mischief, and it's going to be deleted come what may. – iridescent 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A sock case has been set up. Oh well. In other news, crazy fake images on the new Britney single. I would never want to get on the wrong side of a crazed Britney fan, they might be more obsessed than us Jacko fans. Chilling. — Realist² 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people accused the organizers of the all-Alaska "spot the odd one out" contest of making it too easy this year.

I had noticed... (although how can Ogioh simultaneously call them fakes and copyvios?) – iridescent 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, your so funny. Unrelated, what happened to your talk page, there are rude pictures everywhere. I'm not sure what's more scary, those pictures or images of a politician pointing a rifle at you. — Realist² 22:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All those pictures are for a reason if you read the threads they're attached to... (There's only one that could conceivably be considered rude - it's just that it's used twice). This talkpage rarely drops below 100kb (and that despite the archive period currently being reduced to 72 hours - and once AN/K is no longer with us there's a reasonable chance this will take over as the "new Village Pump"); I deliberately occasionally use images and font changes to break up the huge mass of text. – iridescent 22:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no, despite what you might think, this is not my bedroom! — Realist² 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lord help us. (In a purely practical sense he's being stupid, as leaving them all out to fade is knocking cash off the value every day). – iridescent 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure true, a lot of music there. — Realist² 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He's re adding that thing to articles. His IP did a few others. I think it's best to leave til the article is deleted and all accounts blocked. — Realist² 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting the most glaring ones as we speak. Once the article is deleted I'll go through Special:WhatLinksHere/Most Viewed On YouTube and clear up any more his socks manage to slip through. – iridescent 16:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

KK, will remove any I see. I thought he had "only" three accounts, but probably has loads running back. — Realist² 16:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll see who recreates it once it's deleted… – iridescent 16:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done and all links to it cleared – iridescent 16:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kylie in The One.JPG another image he created "all by himself". Probably more in his edit history. See this sort of stuff I could do myself with the tools. — Realist² 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Obvious copyvio is obvious. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're running Twinkle, just click the "di" tab at the top of the screen when you're in an image and it'll automagically make its way to WP:PUI. – iridescent 17:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Another useful pointer, to think I used to do everything manually, cheers. — Realist² 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

St. Anselm's

They say they've been in touch with Wikipedia, whatever that means. Doug Weller (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about this guy, I think I'll manage to sleep safe tonight despite whatever threats he cares to make. – iridescent 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, you wouldn't happen to be referring to this school would you? If so, I'm rather wowed right now seeing as I'm currently 2 minutes away from it. Small world eh?...—— RyanLupin • (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favour, go over there tomorrow and havea word with Blahbjjiobjbvkjiv :) -- Gurch (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And Blahbjjiobjbvkjiv is such a lovely name, too… – iridescent 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the school. A very small world! Doug Weller (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'll do my utmost best to track down this 'Blahbjjiobjbvkjiv' (wow...what a pleasant name!). On finding him, I will grab him by the scruff and give him a huggle from Gurch! I also found out recently that I live in the same village as Epbr123‎. Small world :) —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat politer than the suggestion I thought better of making… – iridescent 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a much longer reply written out, but thought better of posting it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired

This thread serves no meaningful purpose. It's just that I did not get but a few short hours of sleep, as per usual, and I am sleepy. I share with you because 1/ I can, 2/ with your new 72 hour archive, we can't risk you having a talk page of manageable size, and 3/ I still can. I have new messages... the dread. Please be a new thread. >_> Jennavecia ^(Talk) 11:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New threads are good; the bot always leaves the four most recent threads on the page regardless of age, and any four of the monstrosities above would still be four too any. (I've broken my unwritten rule and manually archived every "stale" thread, and it's still at 100k). Besides, without WP:AN/K around to act as a honeytrap for everyone with a weird question, I have a nasty feeling this page is going to be seeing a lot more threads. – iridescent 14:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

awww *hugs Jennavecia* -- Gurch (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Would Huggling Jennavecia look something like this? – iridescent 17:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ew, no. No, this is a Lara/Gurch hug. :D Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Or this (make sure your volume is up high before you hit Play). Gotta love Commons, the Kid In Africa couldn't cope without that. – iridescent 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's pretty much how hugs for me go... I'm like the gray cat. Yao jus doan wanna fuz wit meh. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel dirty. Why do I keep reading this page? It's like a pretty blue bugzapper, I just can't look away....Keeper ǀ 76 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you just broken the record for the shortest-ever retirement? – iridescent 17:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said I was retiring? I'm not retiring. Keeper ǀ 76 17:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Dear Iridescent, thanks for reverting that vandalism in my user page, you were so quick I didn't even relise it had happened. I guess he won't be bothering anymore now. :) Rsazevedo ^msg 17:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see him coming back any time soon. – iridescent 17:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

reply

YOU are violating neutral point of view by deleting a disscussion point that is always brought up when the issue is discussed in the media. You should include both sides of the argument fairly rather than deleting a main argument of one side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.182.241 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way The seal hunt only gets so much attention because seals are cute; the killing of cows is a thousand times larger an industry, but people don't care because cows are fat and dumb. is a neutral edit or a valuable addition. The arguments are already covered at great length in the article; adding a rant to the lead is not helping anyone. – iridescent 18:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for cleaning on my talk and for all the other great revert-stuff! :) Regards, abf /talk to me/ 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem… – iridescent 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits

Legitimately speaking, the structure of the Church of Scientology, requiring participants to pay large sums of money to progress through the ranks (at which point theoretically they may be paid in turn), is in fact akin to a Pyramid Scheme. I fail to see any difference between the two. 128.227.127.149 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is why articles have talkpages. Take it there. – iridescent 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy this one

Ping. — Realist² 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw it. Both of you, leave each other alone. Britney Spears is one of our most-watched articles, let someone else defend it. – iridescent 23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the poorly sourced stuff he's adding to the womanizer (song), this is unrelated to the previous stuff to my knowledge. — Realist² 23:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

{{cn}} is your friend. – iridescent 23:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, no way, purge it the minute it arrives, they soon learn. I've never been one for "oh I heard it somewhere so I'll add it, it must be true". — Realist² 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Shambuka

Actually, if you have a closer look, you'll note I removed unsourced POV which was added by a user (User:Goldenhawk 0) who received an indefinite ban for adding POV of exactly the sort I removed to other articles.

Compare, also, if you will, the text of the passage I removed (not a single footnote to be seen, full of vague opinion, fluff, weasel words, and what-have-you) with the rest of the article (well-sourced, nicely worded and footnoted) and you'll see that your reinsertion of that passage is definitely not an improvement. For pete's sake, surely the fact that the section is titled "Unlikely story" should raise a red flag???

Anyway, it's Wikipedia's loss if it has rubbish pages, not mine, so do as you will. -- 144.32.126.14 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It looked (and still looks) to me like you removed a section with what appears to be a perfectly valid reference, and (re) created a section with a bluelink in the title in explicit violation of the MOS. Yes, edits by a banned user in contravention of their block may be reverted, but that does not equate to must be reverted, and these particular edits were almost a year old (and made long, long before his ban). – iridescent 00:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

One footnote to Hindunet (yeah, obviously an unbiased and reliable source that is world-renowned for fact-checking and accuracy) for a fact that has nothing to do with the argument being advanced in the paragraph. And that trumps the fact that the section is called "Unlikely story", is a morass of synthesis, and cites nothing to support the main point it makes? I give up. -- 144.32.126.14 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And the point re Goldenhawk's ban was not to say "Eek, banned editor writing, must remove", but to point out that he was banned for being a single-purpose account adding POV to articles. That's the POV you're stopping me from removing. Oh well, there's only so much I can try to do. -- 144.32.126.14 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to re-remove it (or merge it with the "criticism" section) I'm certainly not going to editwar over it. I care about this particular content dispute slightly less than I care about the Britney Spears editwar in the thread above. – iridescent 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like original research from here. He says "the story of Shambuka seems false" because it, in his opinion, doesn't show the legendary king in the same way as in other stories. Pretty silly. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Unconstructive??? My edit to Mr. Newmans racing section was accurate and gave further detain into his racing history... He raced for Datsun... then Nissan. In the US Datsun was a separate name. Look at the name plates on the cars and look ath Bob Sharp history.