User talk:Iridescent/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Signatures

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

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

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

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

As regards subst putting a minor additional strain on the server, I don't think there's any doubt there. ~~~~ → signature = 1 operation; ~~~~ → template → signature = 2 operations. Obviously the additional strain is minute, but if the practice takes off, on a website with 48,307,318 users all those microseconds add up. — iridescent 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Re: Mistake?

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

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

Question

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

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

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

User:Malleus Fatuarum/WikiSpeak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AzaToth Spammer

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

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

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

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

Congrats are in order...

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

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

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

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

Issac newton (complex)

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

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

Bizarre fake warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar!

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

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

Those Articles Are Related

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

(I'll crosspost my reply here, too)

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

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

offer on working on the UK Transport Wiki

Hi Irdescent,

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

Many Thanks

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs

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

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

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

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

Aaah

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

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

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

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

Huggle?

What is it?

The Transhumanist 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An ultra-high-speed rollback program Gurch wrote; it monitors the IRC recent-changes feed, showing the diffs as the edits are made, and allows you to revert-and-warn with a single keystroke. Describing it, it sounds just like souped-up Twinkle or a variant of Lupin's tool, but it bears the relationship to Twinkle that a machine-gun has to a pointy stick. Read the thread immediately above this one for more of my thoughts on just how Huggle will change Wikipedia. — iridescent 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two words:

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

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

LOL, but seriously the Wikipedia Logo must be on some bad acid or xtasy, i dunno \_(O_o)_/--Editor510 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it breaches some guideline or other. But not policy so that's allright. — iridescent 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the logo is gonna be a lot less bold after this if ya know what i mean -.O--Editor510 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Another three suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finished implementing this, picked a random category to test it with (Category:Dogs), went through the 25 articles in there and found vandalism that had gone unnoticed for a week. Looks like your idea was a good one -- Gurch (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done! I suppose this means that at some point someone will have to wade into the cesspool of Category:Living people. — iridescent 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With 278,330 articles, I think it would take quite a long time to go through. (Actually, trying to load it into Huggle would probably result in it spending hours trying to load the whole category. Perhaps I should set some maximum number of pages that it will fetch) -- Gurch (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth it, as you know somebody's going to try. Quite aside from crashing Huggle, I can't imagine it would be much fun for the long-suffering servers either. — iridescent 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp's ANI thread

I think you can just close the ANI thread now. Gary King (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to this late - someone's closed it in the meantime. Why does every conversation I get involved in turn into a discussion of Huggle? — iridescent 15:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're considered a huggle expert by now.;)By the way I don't mind if you ask questions or do follow-ups on my adooption page.I don't mind and would really appreciate it.There is a 851 ton package of bricks above my head you know......;) User:Xp54321) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my recent answers to the questions posed by J on my adoption page.He was enthusiastic.Wow.:) User:Xp54321) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia World Traveler award

It appears the globe stand was from a copyrighted image.

This means we're back to square one.

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

I look forward to any ideas you might have.

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

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

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

Any thoughts you could provide would be most appreciated.

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

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

I get the feeling I should be humbled here? Note to self; keep this page watchlisted. giggy _(:O) 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for your input. I had to take a day or two off from the graphics editing - I was starting to see GIMP's user interface in my sleep, but with objects from Inkscape all over the screen. After reflecting on the matter, it shouldn't be too difficult to create our own globe stand, either from scratch with Inkscape, or starting with an image and modifying it.

By the way, there won't be any barnstars in the images. These will be non-barnstar awards. ;)

The rotating globe is too big (file size). It'll tax some systems. I think we should stick with a static image, unless we can find a rotating globe that 1) looks real, and 2) doesn't take up a lot of memory.

Don't worry about country designations. As far as inclusion in the contest, we'll put the term "political division" somewhere in the boilerplate.  :) With respect to their inclusion in the final display, the anomalies will either be given a section of their own, or will be tagged with footnotes, etc. Similar to how they're treated in Wikipedia's various country lists.

As for the competition itself, edit counting won't enter into it. Each participant will be "traveling around the world", figuratively speaking. It'll all be made clear in the instructions/rules. There will be an element of randomness to task designation, to accommodate the differences between tasks.

Be sure you are on the newsletter's recipient list, so you receive updates on the contest, etc.

And keep a lookout for globe stands.

The Transhumanist 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to go on mailing lists - as you can see from this page, my talkpage is already unmanageably out of control - but I have enough people (including you) watchlisted that I'll no doubt see it. It would probably be worth trawling Commons - there's a free-use globe-on-a-stand here, for instance. — iridescent 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :)

I modified those ferrari figures just to test if I can do it. I actually argued with my friend if it is possible. Excuse us please!! By the way you are not a kind of bot, aren't you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.28.117 (talk • contribs)

I've been accused of many things, but being a bot is a new one... — iridescent 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, the evidence is fairly convincing. (Seeing that list in black-and-white makes you realise just how significant a change in Wikipedia culture Gurch has brought about.) — iridescent 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That is profound. And profoundly terrifying. Crack-cocaine + redbull...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gurch the Baptist

The long conversations about Huggle these past few days have got me thinking. I'm not sure Gurch realised it at the time (or that the idea has even occurred to anyone yet), but a stable & foolproof version of Huggle — which Gurch seems to be getting very close to — could totally shift the internal "power structure" in Wikipedia. A volunteer "police force", structured so that there are always at least two or three on duty at any given time, could stop (at a rough guess) 90% of vandalism from ever going live for more than a few seconds.

As the vandals come to realise that their vandalism never stays live, they'll drift off to pester someone else. With no need (or a vastly reduced need) for AIV, there'd be a hugely reduced need for admins; we'd gradually shift to a Minority Report style system, where the existence of foolproof vandal-destruction system with an acceptably low level of false positives would mean they wouldn't even bother trying. The admins freed up by the automation of the RBI system would go into other areas, reducing the current workload problems and backlogs across the whole site — or even go write some articles (remember those?).

The more I think on it, the more I'm coming to think that Gurch has potentially (and unintentionally) unleashed the biggest change to the way Wikipedia operates since Larry thought of getting more people involved. — iridescent 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, I find it invaluable, profound, genius level programming. Gurch should win an award for it, especially because he is continuously striving to make it better. And because I'm a bit of a technophobe, it is terrifying. I mean that only as a compliment. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, if there were an election to replace Jimbo right now, Gurch would get my vote. The fact that he's put up with two solid weeks of you & I picking holes in his project and, instead of getting angry, gone and fixed those holes earns absolute respect. (Watchlist Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback and look at just how quickly he either fixes every problem reported, or explains why it's necessary to leave it. Can you imagine BC doing this?) — iridescent 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with that, it could lead to a dramatic shift. I've already seen with a few of the articles that I have watchlisted that vandalism is very often reverted within seconds now. I'd be a bit worried about all the potentially redundant admins though. Would they start going around in gangs and hanging around on noticeboards, handing out punitive blocks to anyone they thought disrespected them? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They do that already. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed. I thought it was just me. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you spelt punative wrong...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I spelt it the British way; we did invent the language after all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually us treasoners also spell it punitive. It's frequently misspelled punative, hence the joke. And notice I wrote spelt instead of spelled? Do you have any idea how awkward spelt is to me? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So, Keeper, how do you spell Jewelry? — iridescent 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I spell it r-e-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n, being married and all...(and that was an ironical thread)  :-)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Aw man, how come all the fun threads happen when I'm sitting in Managerial Economics 301? Useight (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you're scruffy, slightly overweight, and live in your mom's basement. Oh wait, was that a different thread? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to post a generic picture of me on my userpage. First I better shave. Useight (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, your saying there's still some Wikipedians left that are old enough to shave??? Wha??? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... O.O -- Gurch (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight? You're saying that once the stable version of Huggle is out, all them redundant admins will have the opportunity to add content?!? giggy _(:O) 05:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yay! My content contributions have gone in the shitter ever since I got the tools. Two featured lists since January (when my RfA passed) while I had twenty-four before then (done in like six or so months). Well, real world stuff probably played a role too - having to pick between a school in New Jersey and a school in California probably detracted a bit from my ability to contribute when looking back on it :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure Gurch the baptist could help pass your exams? giggy _(:O) 06:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• If he can make a tool that can do the SAT or the ACT, then there are millions of people in the United States who will love him for all time. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my RFB

I found your comment regarding our being "on opposite sides in too many RFAs" very interesting and decided to check it out. I went through the last 50 unsuccessful and the last 50 successful RFAs; 100 RFAs is a decent sample size. Strangely enough, there were only 9 times in which we both participated in the same RFA. Of the last 50 unsuccessful ones, there were 4 times in which you supported and I opposed, 1 time in which you were neutral and I opposed, 1 time in which I was neutral and you opposed, and 1 time we both opposed. Of the last 50 successful ones, we only crossed paths twice, both times we both supported. Seems that we agree during the successful ones and disagree during the unsuccessful ones. Just thought that was interesting. Useight (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's interesting as well, you %_&%^^£^)*^ son of a )&(&$^%$"$£. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually interested by that — weird that I have you in my head as always being on the opposite side, if we're actually not. I'll remove that part from the RFB as I don't want anyone else swung by it. — iridescent 15:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's interesting that I seem to be supporting more than you - I always felt like I'm the nasty obstructionist one who's always opposing. — iridescent 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I'm more stringent or more conservative or something. While we may have differing views on what makes a good RFA candidate, I believe we both have enough experience to be able to discern the consensus, regardless of which side of the discussion we were on. Useight (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Xp54321

I think he is ready to start fighting vandals again, and I told him that. Do you think I should recommend that he use Twinkle? I personally see no harm in it, since it will merely automate the nitty-gritty details of physically typing everything out. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I already used it(sorry,really,:() on np patrol, I think Ive been responsible for the deletion of about a dozen pages and a indefed user at AIV.<nervous laugh> User:Xp54321) 02:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp, you're fine. I only wanted to know if I should encourage you to use twinkle. You were never banned from it, so you don't need to worry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using Twinkle with the one proviso that he keeps openTalkPage configured to [ 'agf', 'norm', 'vand' ], watchRevertedPages to [ 'agf', 'norm', 'vand', 'torev' ] and watchWarnings to true as a minimum. (Xp, don't worry if you don't understand what that means! It's technical material about Twinkle settings; J.delanoy will understand.) As long as it forces him to read the talk page of every user he reverts, he'll be able to see if he's inadvertently stepped into an edit war and/or reverting something that's been added by consensus, and by auto-watchlisting the pages he reverts and the talkpages of reverted users, he'll be able to see complaints about any incorrect usage. Everyone makes mistakes; the important thing is that you put yourself in a position where people can let you know when you make them.

Rather than RecentChanges, where things tend to move at a high speed (and the frustration of other users "getting there before you" puts pressure on you to rush things) — which in any event is fairly well-covered by the Hugglers — I'd suggest using Edits by newly created accounts as a "training ground". It's not as heavily patrolled as RecentChanges or NewPages, but there's generally a good combination of vandalism, spammers, good-faith-but-not-what-we're-looking-for contributions and borderline speedy candidates to practice on. However, bear in mind that because (by definition) every contribution there is by a newcomer, make sure you understand WP:AGF and WP:BITE thoroughly before doing anything there. — iridescent 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. Why don't you add the code to his monobook and if you want, I can try to explain what you are doing. He doesn't really understand Wikimarkup very well, so I doubt he'll know what you're talking about if you tried to simple tell him what to do. I'd add the code myself, but obviously, I can't, so you can do all the work ;) [leans back in chair, puts feet on desk, hands behind my head...] J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

done. He shouldn't notice any difference in operation, but warn him not to change the settings until he (and you) are sure he's ready. — iridescent 23:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Piedmont

Hi Iridescent,

I was patrolling the newpages and came across the above article. It clearly has no references and would only classify as a stub.

I added {cleanup} and {unreferenced} and Checco has removed them stating in his edit summary "rm unreasoned tags".

No-one else has queried this or attempted to add tags to any other "List of Presidents..." articles.

Was I wrong to add these tags? Just seems a bit odd to have an unreferenced list.

Please also see List of Presidents of Marche for another example.

Thanks »xytram« talk 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a problem with lists like this, even if they're not cited. We have literally hundreds of such lists (29 in Nigeria alone) and while ideally they should be cited, they're so easily verifiable that I don't see a problem. — iridescent 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Although I've been a wiki member for over a year - I've only recently got into regular contributing. I'm have a very 'clear cut' mindset and would follow the rules to the letter usually! Cheers »xytram« talk 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wahab Iyanda Folawiyo

Why is my nominating the article for Wahab Iyanda Folawiyo "Rediculous?" It's only sources were two articles from some very shady-looking websites. I'm nominating it for AfD. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Read my post on your talk page. There is no earthly way this should ever have been nominated for an A7. Those two "shady looking websites" are one of Nigeria's leading newspapers and a major news website. Please stop being disruptive. — iridescent 22:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my intention to be disruptive. However, I don't believe there are enough reliable third-party sources to prove this person's notability. And if I'm wrong, then an administrator will deny the AfD nomination and everything will be fine. Please try to be a little less hostile in the future. Also, if you respond, please do so on my talk page. Thanks. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time with this. From his bio before he died:

• "He is the Grand Patron of Nigerian Muslim Council; Chairman, Executive Council of the Lagos Central Mosque; Honorary Fellow, Chartered Institute of Transport; Fellow, Commonwealth Journalists Association; Chairman, Maize Association of Nigeria, and Patron, Institute of Freight Forwarders of Nigeria. He was also honoured with the key to DADE County, Florida, in the United States of America. He is the proud recipient of the national honour of Order of Federal Republic, OFR, conferred on him in 1982, as well as, Commander of the Order of the Niger, CON, on November 16, 2000.
  The University of Lagos also conferred on him - the Millennium Award of Doctor of Science. He was appointed CHANCELLOR, Lagos State University on 17th April, 1999. He is the Patron of the Nigerian-British Chamber of Commerce."

I got that within 10 seconds on Google. Regardless of that, there is no way you should ever be CSDing articles eight minutes after creation. Did you actually read those newspaper articles referenced? — iridescent 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, then put that into the article. The reason it was nominated for Speedy Deletion is because it was lacking sources from major sources. And it shouldn't matter how long an article has been up for; if it meets the criteria, it's applicable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins will NEVER be unneeded

rm ramblings, sorry. I shouldn't be allowed on after 9:30... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with it is that Iridescent's talk page is getting quite long enough anyway without yet more waffle :/ -- Gurch (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My eyes have gone funny

Well not really. How did you get that weird kaleidoscope effect behind the Wikipedia logo? Simply south (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Paste <span style="background:#ffffff;position:absolute;top:-45px; left:-165px;z-index:-3">[[Image:name of the image you want behind the WP logo|164px]]</span> at the top of the page. Don't use any large files (I'd say 120kb maximum) as it'll make the page lag horribly on a dialup connection otherwise. There are plenty of animated images here to pick and choose from. (This always works well, although for you this or this would seem rather apt.) — iridescent 17:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think i've settled with this one. And thank for the know Simply south (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Advertising in edit summaries

No - we generally apply a different standard to Huggle edits. Since Twinkle opens the talkpage (and it's assumed that manual rollbackers are also opening the talkpage) of whoever's being reverted, it's easier to see right away that you're stepping into an edit-war that's already the subject of discussion, or reverting something as "vandalism" when there's talkpage consensus to keep it. As anyone keeping even a casual eye on ANI recently will notice, were we to apply the "letter of the law" in the case of Huggle edits, within a week Huggle would have about three users left. Gurch designed it for obvious vandalism, but thanks to the overenthusiams some users have for the "Q" instead of the "R" button (and the fact that certain users aren't reading the instructions), we're in a situation where people are being reported to AIV with a summary of "vandalism only account" for changing British to American spelling, indefblocked for typing "hi" onto a page, issued with final warnings for adding correct information but failing to include a citation all of these have happened within the last couple of days - as some of you are presumably aware, a couple of weeks ago, disabling Huggle access for anyone except Gurch was being seriously discussed. Luckily it didn't come to that, but everyone using huggle is on a sort of unofficial probation at the moment. Because (whatever you all may think of Those Evil Admins) we don't want to hound people off the project, damage future RFA prospects etc, when good-faith misuse, as opposed to actual abuse, comes up, we'd far rather just quietly disable your huggle access, explain what you did wrong and give it back when you've promised to be more careful, than have "rollback removed: systematic abuse" on your log to haunt you in any future Request For Whatever process. — iridescent 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Current versions of Huggle are very much development/beta versions – and will remain so for as long as the version numbers begin with an '0'; this was made clear in the message accompanying every new version when it was sent out by e-mail, but that has now been discontinued, so it isn't as clear any more.

I've moved "unsourced" out of the warnings and back into the single-use info templates; I was a little uncertain about moving it before but it was requested.

Do you have a link to the AIV incident? Also, was the block for typing "hi" onto a page made directly by an administrator or in response to an AIV report? Thanks -- Gurch (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can probably dig it out, or if J.delanoy is still watching this page, he probably knows it as he was using it as a "what not to do" example when coaching a new user the other day. I know the user who got in trouble for reverting correct but uncited additions was User:CanadianLinuxUser (as per this conversation; other threads on his talkpage seem to indicate a general pattern of Huggle-misuse before that). — iridescent 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Haven't found the "Hi" incident yet, but as a general illustration here's a user reported to AIV - and blocked - for changing "List of Dora the Explorer episodes from a table to a list - didn't get the usual 1-2-3-4 warnings because someone using the same IP had previously got a false-positive ClueBot warning for this edit a couple of weeks earlier. Also, here's someone getting a level 3 warning for adding "Russians attacked" to the wrong part of the page in Trench warfare, someone reporting an editor for what looks at first glance like a good-faith attempt to remove a section from an article (and reverting to a vandalised version) - on this occasion, although the IP was blocked, nobody has actually told it ...

General note that this is not a criticism of Huggle; given the high speed, some errors are bound to slip through. I'm sure that if I dip-sampled 10,000 Twinkle edits there'd be a similar proportion of problem edits (maybe slightly less, due to the forced opening of the talkpage). — iridescent 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this one that's just (correctly) been reported deserves a special mention; undoubtedly right to report this one for vandalism, but "Wikiterrorism" as a reason??? — iridescent 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "citations" incident I referred to above is has now been picked up by our second-favourite BADSITE. (note to overzealous link patrollers - this is a valid link to an attack site per WP policy, as it's of direct relevance to the subject being discussed.) – iridescent 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these things; I appreciate it. I realise they are not criticisms of Huggle itself, but it is useful – the more information I have about inappropriate use of Huggle, the more I can do to try to reduce this.

Regarding the IP blocked for changing a table to a list, the warning was indeed incorrect, though I don't think the ClueBot warning two weeks earlier was related; Huggle only takes into account warnings issued within the past 36 hours, and indeed the warning after that was level 1, followed by a level 3 and a level 4. (It is not required, as far as I am aware, that warnings from all four warning levels are posted; Huggle exhibits this behaviour as a consequence of checking the talk page and incrementing the level of the most recent warning).

Regarding this, while it does look at first glance like it is only removing a section of an already-vandalised article, the previous revision shows the same user replacing a different section with the words "fucking fast"; with this in mind (and there's no reason to think the reverter hadn't also looked at that) I think the revert was justified, as were the warnings and eventual report that followed when the user repeated this a further five times. Many administrators choose not to notify users of their block, as the relevant information is already in the block log and presented to the user if they try to edit. Whether this is a good idea or not is something I won't take a position on, not being an administrator myself.

The addition of "Russians attacked" I would probably have reverted but not warned for had it stood alone, however three minutes earlier the same user had added the text "L again cause my name is IAN" to the same article, and been reverted and warned for that (hence why the level was up to 3 already). This would certainly have made me question their intentions.

The vandalism report with "wikiterrorism" as a reason is odd; it might be worth asking Prom3th3an to use less dramatic reasons in future (or just allow Huggle to report automatically, for which it gives the reason simply as "vandalism").

Thanks again; let me know if you find any further instances of misuse of Huggle -- Gurch (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, you won't hear too much from me; I think virtually every concern I had about Huggle has been addressed. (I'm well aware just by looking at this page & the last archive that my talkpage has somehow become the Huggle & Twinkle Complaints Department, and, even if someone's going to become the unofficial "prosecution lawyer" against any problem that can somehow be traced to Huggle, I don't think it's appropriate that it's me. Oddly, the three reasons I just gave a user for refusing to be his adopter also work equally well as an explanation as to why I'm not the best person to be analysing Huggle in depth. – iridescent 19:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine – sorry, it must be frustrating for you to have to deal with all this talk page clutter. I'm glad to hear you feel your concerns have been addressed. Thanks -- Gurch (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries - it makes me feel needed :). Besides, it gives the bot something to do... – iridescent 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As to the person who was reported to AIV for adding "hi", I can't find the exact diff, but I am pretty sure that when that happened, I had opened the diff in Firefox to use Twinkle's "rv good faith edit" thingy (which would be nice to add to Huggle, if you can, Gurch.) and I got the "our revision #XXXX is no longer the current revision" or whatever it says. I opened Huggle to see what had happened and I was shocked to see that the reverting user had filed a report on AIV. Since the reverted user's talk page was empty, I hope that the report was made accidentally, maybe by clicking the wrong place or hitting the wrong key? Either way, that is, IMO, yet another good reason for requiring rollback: If something like that (hitting the wrong key) happens, I can just hit "O" and click on the "rollback" link and undo my error in like 2 seconds. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Twinkle's "revert good faith edit" summary is that it's no more informative than the standard "revert edits by X" summary, and if you're reverting an edit that isn't vandalism, you have to give a reason; automated summaries can't do that. Huggle provides a configurable list of common reversion reasons and the option to enter a summary manually -- Gurch (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the user 92.13.123.245

Well, concerning this anonymous user, i was wondering whether or not he is a constant vandaliser. I am going to check, but i dislike anonymous users (my signature is satyrical for them) and i would love to block him. Thanks for your time, ((Unknown)? (User)? oh, and please reply on my talk page. thx

Good job irredescent!

I have seen you many times on the recent edits blocking vandalism (you always get there before i do) And i feel the need to award you with my personal gratitude! Also, heres this: {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | |rowspan="2" ||style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | The Special Barnstar|-|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for being so good.|}

Re your latest addition to WikiSpeak

The complete works of Matt Groening, on the other hand... EyeSerene^talk 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite taken by 'The name is derived from the Hawaiian wiki, "edited at high speed", and the Greek παῖdh, "by children"'. That actually sounds quite plausible... — iridescent 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean it's not true?? EyeSerene^talk 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this character, who got most upset when I told him that Pedia-Openess (sic), the "replacement for Wikipedia" he set up after being indefblocked, sounded like a child-molestor's chatroom. (His "about us" page is still one of the most unintentionally funny things I've ever seen). — iridescent 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just seen your reply - I always forget to watchlist the talk pages of those awkward individuals who insist on replying on theirs rather than mine ;) That 'article' is truly magnificent; the mixture of absolute sincerity and complete cluelessness is quite breathtaking. I'd have taken it as satire if I didn't know better. Wonderful :D EyeSerene^talk 09:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) I've just whiled away a happy hour or two browsing the site. If you haven't yet, I'd strongly recommend it (esp. the Policy page). Marvellous. EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The really frightening thing is, it's all written by a grown adult, not a 13-year old. (When Greg Kohs is calling you "Kooky and ranty", you know something is seriously wrong somewhere.) – iridescent 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's my new favourite site. Even the typos crop up with perfect comic typing, and from his religion article, the linux comparison and the phrase "You'll probably also die" are just brilliant on so many levels, I'm truly in awe. Sometimes insanity is indistinguishable from genius. EyeSerene^talk 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

←That page, I hadn't seen, and I'm so taken by it that I'm going to preserve the core passage here so it's Safely Held in the Loving Arms of Jimbo if/when Wetpaint finally shut him down.

Freely we receive so freely we shall give. A lot of people reject the idea of salvation threw faith and God's grace just as they don't believe that GNU/Linux is just as good or better than commercial software that they have to pay money for. God promises us that if we live according to his will and his commandments that he will protect us and keep us just as if you use GNU/Linux you won't get viruses, intruders, spyware, trojans, or adaware that can attack GNU/Linux because right now there are no viruses that attack GNU/Linux.

Absolutely amazing. – iridescent 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah, preserved for posterity! Viva The Wikipedia! EyeSerene^talk 20:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the popular pastime of clicking "Random article" on Conservapedia, too - an excellent way to see loons in their natural enviromnent ([1] [2] [3]). For anyone who isn't familiar with it, Conservapedia is the "rival to Wikipedia" (Alexa rank 45,570)where this was considered vandalism. – iridescent 20:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree...

Greeting!

I saw your comments about how you disagree with WP:FAIL and WP:NOTFAIL. I was struck by several views I totally agree with.

rfa

WRT the weakness of {{rfa}} -- the very first {{rfa}} I participated in was User:KI's 2nd nomination. I asked him some tough questions because I had found him very unwilling to be held accountable, and very prone to make personal attacks. I think I posed my questions in a civil fashion. Nevertheless, when his {{rfa}} failed he initiated an {{rfc}} on my behaviour -- my first and only. I found it very alarming to learn a month or so later that he was a sockpuppet, who had already been granted administrator access, and had it removed.

Since then I have been shocked by some of the people who have been chosen as administrators.

core strengths

I agree even more strongly that wikipedia's core strengths are overlooked.

I agree that stubs on less well-known topics are a strength.

And, I would add that the power of the "what links here" button is highly unrecognized. Wikipedia's links are bidirectional -- a very powerful feature. And it is most useful if articles are confined to a single topic. When one goes to an article, and it doesn't talk about what you hoped it talked about, one of the articles that links to it might.

Biographies of living persons

I may have a different concern about biographies of living persons than you do. I am quite frustrated that BLP, which protects the rights to privacy, and prevention of slander has been mixed with BLP1E. I see the determination of what should and shouldn't be considered a "single event" hopelessly POV. I think BLP1E should be removed from BLP. Violations of the privacy and related aspects of BLP can require urgent action. If BLP1E belongs in policy space it would be far less urgent than privacy or slander concerns. I remain unconvinced that it belongs in policy space, not essay space.

And I have been concerned by a phenomenon I keep encountering. I have come across quality control volunteers who regularly assert that BLP proscribes covering allegations against individuals, even if the allegations were sourced to official publications -- if they hadn't been proven to be "true". That would be, of course, a violation of WP:VER. I don't agree that neutral coverage of allegations from official sources should be regarded as a violation of BLP.

Have we interacted before?

I know your userid is familiar. But I can't remember from where.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

My, my talkpage is getting some long posts this week...

I don't think my opinions on what's wrong with RFA - or what's wrong with Wikipedia - are any secret. While I didn't point Xp towards WP:WIKISPEAK in the long rambling post of mine you mention (it could seem a very bitey page to a new user), I do feel that most of the entries there (whether or not they're the ones I've written) reflect my Wikipedia prejudices fairly accurately. In particular, any structure where this turns into this is self-evidently too in love with process for the sake of process; one of the things I most admire about Gurch's revolution is the very way it's forcing some processes to simplify. (Yes, I know some eggs are being broken in the process, but it's undoubtedly improving the omelette as a whole.)

Not sure where we would have come across each other before (except possibly at RFA/ANI/AFD), as we don't seem to overlap much; were you involved in the Troubles Arbcom or any of the nasty little flamewars that still erupt over it? (I have a feeling I unintentionally helped to kickstart that whole slide into chaos.) Looking over your talkpage, I don't see anyone I've worked with before; although I generally work in a few specialised areas – the "technical" fields listed in this post, and the random(ish) sampling of articles on my userpage is fairly representative – I've dipped my finger into enough ponds that we may well have crossed at some point.

Oddly enough, with Gurch, Malleus Fatuarum, J.delanoy, Giggy etc currently watching this talkpage, you probably have about as broad a range of "high level ambassadors" of the various "quality control volunteer" fields as you'll find anywhere outside the core policy pages; if you want to rant about a particular problem, ranting about it here at the moment is probably a pretty good way to get the problem fixed. Note to everyone; this is not a general invite to every passing sockpuppet to share with me your five-page essay on "why I hate Wikipedia"; despite the ever growing number of people who appear to believe the contrary, my talkpage is not the Wikipedia complaints department. – iridescent 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I never kwew what RFAs used to be like. *sigh* I know a lot of perfectly good users who would not stand for RFA now simply because they are, frankly, afraid of what happens there. This is clearly not a good situation. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a flipside to that coin. One of the strengths of the current RFA process (yes, there are some) is precisely its trial-by-ordeal nature. Even the dullest admins tend to become magnets for assorted trolls, loons and stalkers people who want to raise justified concerns about their actions, and a process in which you're expected to remain civil while people make dingbat opposes like this does a pretty good job of case-hardening you against our more colourful characters. (In fact, the permanent flamewars on BHG's talkpage - who is probably the most laidback of all the admins - is a pretty good warning of what will happen.) – iridescent 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A few questions

Hello Iridescent.

As you may have guessed, I would like very much to be an administrator. That being said, you are the first administrator which I have substantially interacted with who does not primarily use their sysop tools for things like AIV, CSD, AFD, and the like.

I would like to ask you a few questions. I am asking for your opinion because you work in areas of Wikipedia which I rarely, if ever visit, and you are already an admin.

1. If I ran for adminship, do you think I would have any chance of passing?

   (If you don't feel like sifting through all my edits, most of the info about my Wikilife may be found in the answers to the questions on my recent editor review )

2. I agree 100% with your post on Xp54321's talk page saying that RFA is a popularity contest. Because I fight so much vandalism, if I stood for RFA, I would be likely to get drive-by supports from many less-prolific vandal-fighters. Assuming that RFA was its optimal condition i.e. candidates were judged by merits rather than popularity, do you think I would pass an RFA?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to reading your answers.

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you didn't get that many reviews either like mine,(check my userpage history) But if it were all about merits and based on your review I'd support but I don't know about other users. You'd probably pass though. Somewhere in the 80-95% range most likely or fail. But you'd get the mop by the 3rd-5th time around,ifthe first and second failed.Unlikely.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 01:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're planning to run an RFA, now is probably the time to do it. The aftermath of DHM's RFA has temporarily driven off the serial-opposers and the "dig for trouble" brigade. (DON'T self-nominate, though!) I think you'd probably pass, assuming there are no skeletons in your closet, but RFAs are very hard to judge (and I'm a notoriously bad fortune teller when it comes to RFA).

First of all, disregard the remarks above from Xp54321 totally. RFA isn't shoot-till-you-win; as Giggy can tell you, if you don't succeed the first time, they get less likely to pass each time after that, since people coming to oppose you have a ready-made list of your faults to read through.

You know better than me if you're likely to pass an RFA. Ideally you should have at least one substantial article under your belt (otherwise, you'll fall apart on the "what are your best contributions" question). Huggle use will gain you some opposes and move some people who'd normally support into neutral. As long as you make it clear you don't rely on it - and haven't made any mistakes with it - it shouldn't derail an RFA, though. If you have any skeletons in your closet (arguments, blocks etc), declare them; they will be found out, and looking like you're trying to hide something will derail you.

What I can say for certain would derail an RFA now would be your userpage. The editcount, the "this page has been vandalised X times", and most of all "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday" will all gain you opposes on their own - and project a general air of "not what we're looking for" that will encourage others to go through your contributions more closely.

(Although this sounds obvious, you'd be surprised how many people don't do it.) Make sure you're familiar with core policy, particularly WP:FIVE, WP:AFD, WP:CSD and WP:AGF - and make sure you understand what isn't policy (notably WP:ATA in all its many names, but also WP:MOS, WP:INSULT, WP:DENY and many other things people think of as "policy").

You do need to ask yourself why you want to be an admin. In my experience, the people who really want to be admins tend to be very disappointed when they get it, and often drop off the project. While WP:DEAL is frankly bunk, adminship when you get it is really unimpressive - nobody treats you with any more respect, you have to be politer when dealing with people, you don't get any kind of special status, your talkpage will become a general dumping ground for any crank with a complaint, and you'll use your new buttons a lot less than you thought (see my block log — while it's skewed from when I was testing Huggle, in the six months leading up to that I performed maybe a dozen blocks). Many if not most of Wikipedia's most significant contributors aren't admins - of the four "power users" I mention in the reply above, not one is an admin. Make sure you understand what it is that admins do - and don't - actually do. It's not some kind of exalted rank; it only means you get two extra buttons to help with maintenance and a couple of extra features.

If you do want to be an admin, much as I dislike the process you might want to try admin coaching. Look over the active coaches and pick one who suits your style. Be aware that being coached will automatically pick you up some opposes, but it will knock off any rough edges that might put people off you, as well as give you a better idea of exactly what's involved.

Hope that helps... – iridescent 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate your advice. (that sounds sarcastic, but is not intended that way) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that someone who might be well placed to advise you is Persian Poet Gal, whose editing profile is much closer to yours. She'd probably make quite a good nominator for you as well if you can persuade her. – iridescent 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I just submitted a proposal to User:Jimbo Wales. Please feel free to comment.Note: Original idea by User:IridescentXp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your use of my name on this proposal. It was not "thought of by me", let alone "originally thought of", and totally misrepresents my opinions. I'm also spectacularly unimpressed with "this was originally thought of by Iridescent (Administrator)", as if "Administrator" is some kind of royal title. Personal comments of mine are not policy proposals — if they were, I'd be making them on Foundation policy-page discussions, not a "chat" style post on your talkpage. Please don't try to associate me with things I have nothing to do with. There are many, many "cons" to such a proposal — I don't personally think the cons outweigh the pros, but they certainly exist. The most glaring of them, in my view, are a) the symbolism of Wikipedia – a global symbol of openness – "locking people out", and b) the drop in contribution numbers that would follow from it (along with the probable loss to Facebook of the "most edited website in the world" title, which is significant in raising funds and public interest). There are many more. If you really care, you can read most of the arguments both ways at Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users.

In particular, I want to explicitly disassociate myself with your claim that I think "Users Receive Credit for Work: Why edit as an IP address(a stinking number) when you can create your own nickname(like a lot of sites),have your own userpage and receive things like barnstars as credit for your work?! It's somewhat of an obvious thing." is a valid argument. Nobody should be thinking like this on Wikipedia, and saying things like this is why your RFA was opposed as strongly as it was, rather than the usual WP:NOTNOW close. As many, many people have told you — but it never seems to sink in — Wikipedia is not about editcounting, barnstars, or "credit". If you want to see where this mentality led in the past and why WP:NOT#MYSPACE is such a powerful argument – and have a lot of patience for reading long rambling arguments – read this and maybe you'll understand a little better.

Incidentally, posting on Jimbo Wales's talkpage is vanishingly unlikely to even be read by him, let alone be taken seriously; it serves as a sort of unofficial honeypot for our crankier editors. – iridescent 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why I hate Wikipedia

[insert five-page essay here]

Only kidding. *huggles Iridescent* -- Gurch (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggles? You mean, revert my last edit and block me for 24 hours?</joke> (I must admit, when I saw this section header in the TOC my heart sank.) – iridescent 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:my adoptee

I was going to say something to him, but I saw that he had "left". Honestly, I don't know what to do about him. I have tried almost everything I can to do some writing, but he would not listen. IMO, vandal-fighting should only be attempted by an editor who has been here for at least a few months, and the vandal-fighter should do it completely by hand (Using the rollback feature is still "by hand", IMO.) for at least 500 or a thousand reverts. A new user (less than at least a month and 500 or a thousand edits) simply cannot understand how things work well enough. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the whole affair. It's almost like he and the rest of that wannabe-cabal — you can see the full bunch of them here giving made-up awards to each other — are playing some kind of weird game of chicken to see how far they can push things before the lot of them get blocked. (Also, while there's not enough to warrant an RFCU, there's a very suspicious similarity in their editing patterns, spelling & grammar, userpages, signatures, obsessive editcounting and odd quirks like use of the {{talkback}} template — and does this look like a typical first edit to you?.) I honestly can't understand why any of them are here — the vandal-fighting, spellchecking and semi-obsessive minor-editing of Thriller they do is hardly fun, and I can't see why anyone would choose Wikipedia as a social networking site. I think I've hit the limit of AGF with the disruption this crew are causing (and while it shouldn't cloud my judgement, the fact that their preferred means of debate recently seems to be trolling this talkpage is not exactly helping). I won't block them myself unless they step way out of line, as it would look a bit like bad-faith, but I'm no longer going to keep talking Metros (or anyone else) out of taking action against any of them next time any of them steps out of line — I freely admit that my finger twitches over the block button every time I see Kodster & Realist, in particular. – iridescent 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am quite irritated at you. "Made up awards"? The only Barnstar NOT on the WP:BARNSTAR page is the "Islamic Barnstar", which I received as well (are you going to use that against me too?) Really, you make my day absolutely miserable. If you're going to constantly harass us good Wikipedians, you can block me to hell for all I care. I'm using an enormous amount of self-constraint not to use any profanity here. You're not helping ONE BIT. Honestly, I would think that you may have some personal dislike for us (perhaps prejudice), but I think I'm going to assume good faith. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I would not blame you a bit if you fully protected this page and made a separate talk page for non-admins so you aren't always being annoyed by "you have new messages" every five minutes. Although now that Neo whatever and Xp have left, it may not be quite as bad. Xp got sucked into their barnstar-giving cabel; he gave me like 17 barnstars (not literally, thank God) all at once. He did the same to Realist and Realist put them all in his awards page. While I know that it is not probably good to judge him, I think it is a little strange when you have 20 barnstars and half of them are given by the same person. I would have to agree that you and/or I would not be appropriate ANI whistle-blowers for them, but I have ANI on my watchlist, and I know that sooner or later they will show up on it when they start trolling someone who isn't as patient as you are. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, what is up with the whole "barnstar" giving thing? All the barnstars I've ever received are on my user page, all seven of them (actually I've received about two more but I just refused to put those up because they were, essentially, given by the barnstar-giving cabal). I've been here for two and a half years (since 12/19/05) and have seven while these users have several dozen in 3-4 months? I'm not saying that I want a ton of barnstars, I'm just saying that they lose all "value" lately. The barnstars I received (and other "old farts" too) have been for significant work like the checkuser investigation I dug up or the massive clean-up I did on a bunch of articles that Redvers found. Today, though, it appears that a barnstar is just because you're a "Wikifriend" of another user. *Shrug* Metros (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My star compromise is to only "put them up" if they come with an explanation of what they're for attached. (Each barnstar on my userpage functions as a link to what it was awarded for.) I'm considering taking the table down altogether, but at present have settled for burying it at the bottom of the page. Incidentally, have you noticed this trainwreck of a page? Like a "worst of Esperanza" theme park... – iridescent 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The "best" is User_talk:Nothing444#3000th_Edit_Party_to_Template:Ex.2C_and_of_course_Template:Ex for obvious reasons. Speaking of all this, another telling fact is how frequently these users have to archive their pages. I have 10 archives right now for 2.5 years with a lot of administrative work discussed in there. These users are archiving on a weekly basis because they spend a large portion of their editing hours talking to each other. On top of that, the gaudy, 3-4 lines of signatures they all use fills the kb count in their talk pages in just a few edits. Look at this, for example. I took out Xp54321's signature on 5 posts and lost 1,218 bytes. And, of course, he got upset a few weeks back when I did that. Metros (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh gee, check out this user's barnstar page. [Giggle giggle].</sarcasm> What the hell? Seriously, let's talk about other users behind their backs? Let's persecute them because of the AMOUNT OF BARNSTARS THEY HAVE! Really, please stop accusing us of being some "Barnstar Cabal", our "gang", our "mop", our "club". There's no club. RyRy5 specifically helps people, and people thank him in return. Do vandals get a lot of barnstars? No. Are they better because of it? No. Just because you have seven barnstars doesn't mean you're better than us IN ANY WAY. It's just that no one thanks you enough for your work. What are we supposed to do about that? We don't ASK people to give us barnstars! That's the point! Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm WAY past the point where I should give a damn about your adminship or anything. There's something wrong with the admin process, if they let people like you in there. At least there are good admins to balance you guys out. Admins aren't better than users in any way. You have more tools, and that means nothing. And you can't say that you've been here longer, b/c that's equivalent to saying that you have more edits (ring a bell)? The only way you can say that you're a better user is through the QUALITY of your edits, and your decision making process. Obviously, you are way out of line. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still archiving to archive 4 — albeit big archives, but you've seen for yourself the length of some of the posts here — and Xp's up to archive 8 already (RyRy5 is up to archive 16). After that whole User talk:Jimbo Wales fiasco I really don't want any more communication with any of this mob as I know I'll be tempted to solve the problem the easy way. Incidentally, Xp's "retirement" lasted 1 hour & 40 minutes.

I suspect that at some point, one of them will run for RFA and unwittingly provide enough evidence for an RFCU. As I said above, I no longer AGF with this lot; I very strongly suspect that there will be a whole drawer of socks flushed out (again) the moment it happens (again). – iridescent 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is it with you talking behind our backs? Why can't you be good admins, and stop acting in bad faith and biting the newcomers (and "lesser editors", as you seem to think of us). Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I archive once a month, and none of my archives are bigger than 75000 bytes. My opinion with Realist and Friends™ is that they all know each other in real life, so a RFCU would probably be inconclusive, but you never know... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, 3. AGF only takes you so far. – iridescent 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Um I know you probably don't aren't going to believe me but and I never knew R2,R5,K or any other editor here before I joined WIkipedia. And what's with this deal about barnstars? IMO they're not worth much. I was just trying to be friendly. *sigh* J un-adopt me if I'm going to impede your future RfA. I wouldn't want to get in the way. Anything else Iri or M you'd like to say?Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I just came here after being informed by Xp. "I freely admit that my finger twitches over the block button every time I see Kodster & Realist, in particular." Im seriously NOT impressed with that comment. If you have a problem with Me Honey just say so on my talk page. Dont slag me off behind my back accusing me of all sorts. Seriously, if I hear stuff like that again I will personally insist on a checkuser. How dare you. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I second R2's opinion above.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if there's anyone who knows Realist2 better than I; after initially falling out over his comments on Talk:The Beatles, we worked together to get [[A Hard Day's Night {film)]] to WP:GA status. In between all this, he was hideously abused himself and nearly left the project because of that. While I may not agree with everything he says and does, I doubt he has either the sophistication or the need to go sockpuppeting, and certainly User:Kodster he is not. To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill."

Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 908, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Circuit 2002). Realist2 isn't going to get a WP:RFCU to vindicate himself, because that's not the way we work. If there is evidence, please let's see it. --Rodhullandemu 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive already demanded that my account is checked on the admin noticeboard. After making 17,000 edits, getting 6 articles to GA, starting 2 wikiprojects I wont have my name muddied by that alleged crime or some bitter hormonal Admin. Retract the comment or Im seriouly going to push for a checkuser and we can expose your blatant Bad Faith.— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just came here, seeing a link to this section. I'd just like to say a few things. I'm one of those users who archives every few days. Well, it's not because I'm "chatting with my friends", I'v just been making constructive discussions that actually teach me. When I was first at Wikipedia (I'm sure you all remember), I was almost like Xp here. But I'v been improving. My adoption with User:Steve Crossin is going better than I thaught. I used to "chat with my friends" because I didn't know much about Wikipedia. I used to say "Look, I redesigned my user page", and nonsense like such, but now I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a myspace. -- RyRy5 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hormonal"?? Excuse me? - Alison ^❤ 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say that? --RyRy5 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

R2 said that R5.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 23:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Iridescent, am I part of this "mop" or "cabal"? -- RyRy5 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have one thing to say to Iridescent: April Fool's Day was 2 months ago. How can you suggest that Realist2 and I are the same people??? He's one of those Wikipedians who's actually helped me here, and I admire him greatly. Firstly, I had nothing to do with that "barnstar" thing, so don't stick that on me. Secondly, that is NOTHING, IMO, to block someone on. Okay, let's quote Iridiscent: "there's a very suspicious similarity in their editing patterns, spelling & grammar, userpages, signatures, obsessive editcounting and odd quirks like use of the {{talkback}} template". Let's take that apart. By looking at my editing patterns, you'll see that I am a Beatles fanatic; I have worked extensively on "Rain", "A Day in the Life", "The Beatles", etc. The ONLY reason that Realist2 can be found editing those pages is because I specifically asked him to help with them. In the same way, he specifically asked me to help him with Thriller (album), Michael Jackson, etc. Are you saying that Wikipedians can't help each other with articles, because they might share the same editing patterns? Next: Spelling and grammar. I follow Manual of Style. If I have to use British spelling for an article, fine. If I have to use American spelling (my native), fine. I adapt. So I don't see what that's ablout. Userpages: RyRy5 designed all of ours (if you bothered to look at the bottom of the pages]], so they follow the same basic pattern. Signatures, Realist2 designed Xp54321's signature, and theirs are completely different from mine. Let's see: obsessive editcounting. You've based that (I'm sure) on my excessive use of AWB to (I admit) do unnecessary edits like deleting white space and such. I was warned once on such a matter, and I stopped. Look at this. Average edits per page: 6.85. And it's only that low because I used AWB in the beginning to make inconsequential edits. I of all people do not hold editcounts to be of any importance. If I did, then I would have 6.85 times the amount of edits that I do now. :) Now, "odd quirks like use of the {{talkback}} template". I've used that less than five times, and I've since stopped. I was trying to reorganize my talk system, but it didn't work, so I stopped. I think Xp54321 still uses it, but I'm not sure. Anyway, that ends my tirade, feel free to comment. I'll be glad to answer. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed with you, Iridescent. I applaud Rodhullandemu for understanding that AGF means something, especially when users are acting in good faith. Rodhullandemu, IMO, is a true administrator, and I thank him for all the help he's done for Realist2, I, and the rest of the Wikipedia community. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for your explanation for all of that K. It probably explained a lot. Anyways I support what K said above.A for AWB I have decided to stop using as IMO nowadays there's no need for it. As for "talkback", I use it as a quick way of informing users or responses. Are there any other involved users? As i'd be happy to inform them of this thread.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Near the top you will see K's recent cmt.I completely agree with it. I'm actually supposed to be working on my report but it appears that without ignoring it(which would severely disappoint my science teacher, who's my favorite teacher, and drop me 8 percentage points!!! on my grade from a 101.7 to a 93.5) I would return indefed not in compliance with policy and quite a few of my fellow Wikipedians had met the same fate or had left!Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent you have managed to insult Me, Xp54321, Kodster and you were less than nice when talking about RyRy5 talk/user page. Im glad my connection went down for 15 minutes because I was going to blow a fuse. Seriously dont say things like "I honestly can't understand why any of them are here — the vandal-fighting, spellchecking and semi-obsessive minor-editing of Thriller they do is hardly fun, and I can't see why anyone would choose Wikipedia as a social networking site." ever again. You have no idea how hard I work on these articles "IN MY SECOND LANGUAGE". They were in a hell of a worse state before I got to them. Im glad to know your discouraging, vandal-fighting and spell checking on wikipedia, seriously, you should know better. Jimbo would be proud. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I seriously can not think of anything else to say. Right on target R2,right on target.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you boys give it a rest now, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Malleus, when an Admin slags off 4 good faith editors behind their back with ZERO proof, these things happen. Im just waiting for an apology/retraction and I will be happy. I would like to carry on with my work, but im scared that Vandal reversal, spell checking, article building, working with Kodster will be reviewed as edit counting, bad work, or even arouse suspicitions of SP. Until I know these concerns are gone Im scared to edit.— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with R2 except for the scared part.:)Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 02:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On A lighter note, im happy to know you,ve spent the time checking my barnstars, user page and edit history. As for my very first edit (which you seem to find odd), when I first started wikipedia, my main interest was Michael Jackson. I was just an IP adress and couldn't make edits to the article, only the talk page. Eventually I realised I wanted to stay and edit the article = I needed an account. I started a conversation/"consensus building task" as my IP, then a few days later after my account was set up and the conversation had died down I made that edit. I started the conversation as an IP then made that comment after I had set up my account a few days later. Since making my account on May 27, 2007 I have never again used my IP (unless accidently lol). If you still have further interest in me I can send you regular updates on my stats. Everytime my edit count rises 1000, I get a Barnstar, get an article to GA, review an article for GA or start a wikiproject I could let you know?

You've obviously been doing your research on me, poorly, I might add, if you think im here for some "social" aspect. Yes I have friends here who love me dearly but I also work hard aswell. Your comments about me "editing Thriller 1000 times" or whatever are really rude and the sock allegation... you should just know better. Also, no, Im never going to run for RfA so don't worry, I wouldn't dare give you the satifaction of lying about me again. Besides, Ive seen some of the people who has passed/failed RfA and the system obviously has its flaws.

Im going to leave you to yourself now, Im not expecting an apology of you, admins rarely do. Just stop lying about me because its hurtful. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

What exactly is everyone "demanding an apology" demanding an apology for? Accusing a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer of sockpuppetry? Accusing someone who thinks this is an acceptable comment of not understanding Wikipedia policy? Saying someone with more than 40% of their edits to their own user page is violating WP:NOTMYSPACE?

RyRy5, I'm not accusing you of anything. You'll notice, I hope, that at no point has anyone actually mentioned you. The reason your barnstar page came up is not because of any problem with you, but with the people adding stars to it; on a quick skim through it, just among the names I recognise I see four confirmed sockpuppeteers. As you know, you had problems a couple of months ago, but I'm not aware of any issues affecting you at present.

Everyone above who seems to think "admin" is some kind of superpower, take the time to read WP:SYSOP and see what exactly it is that admins do. Wikipedia is not run like a chat board where moderators restructure and remove posts, ban people they don't like, rewrite page histories and generally have more authority than normal users. Wikipedia adminship means a couple of extra technical powers to clean up vandalism and prevent disruption — it used to be given to everyone, and was limited purely because some people were using the admin buttons disruptively.

Somewhere in the conversation above I posted a link to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1 and I really, really urge everyone who's feeling hard done by at being accused of social networking to read What Wikipedia is not, which is a non-negotiable core policy (the very first link on WP:FIVE, in fact). In particular "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. [...] The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." – iridescent 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

lridescent does make a good statement. I understand you weren't accusing me, lridescent. And I just wanted to add to when you said "take the time to read WP:SYSOP and see what exactly it is that admins do". Well, WP:DEAL is something good to read also. It sounds like in this discussion that admins are these "important people". Well, no! Everyone is basically an equal. I didn't find it good for Realist2 to lose his WP:COOL because your an admin, lridescent. Your just doing what your supposed to do. It may sound harsh at times but that's just what happens. -- RyRy5 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the Stanford Prison Experiment‎. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that RyRy has come along in leaps and bounds in a very short time, btw. Orderinchaos 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that Realist2 does "semi-obsessive" edits on Thriller, and then use WP:MYSPACE? BTW, spell-checking and vandal-fighting has a purpose. See here. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, "a bit like bad-faith". Hmmm.... Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Iridescent is taking the definition for "automated tools" here a bit too literally. That page really should have a Humor Template. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored Covenant Churches of God

Hi there, as per your question, i replied in a new db-spam, so you can review the reasoning behind it. I admit the first reasoning was a bit below par, since I thought it was kind of clear cut. Cheers, Shoombooly (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Already declined. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. There is absolutely nothing in policy against writing an article about yourself or your employer, and even if there were it would not be a speedy criteria. Take it to AFD if you want it deleted. While you're here, would you care to explain exactly how this is a valid deletion nomination? – iridescent 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't asked a question in your declination, i'd not have answered that way. You can ask questions on my talk page like everyone else. I guess your view on advertising is different than mine, and since you are in charge here, i will take your advice and take it to AfD, because i believe that article is not at all suitable for WP. Also, asking instead of ordering works better. Kind regards, Shoombooly (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. since you amended your answer, i will amend mine: if you read my first post here you would see i already covered, and admitted being wrong about, the first nomination rationale. Incidentally, your tone does not become a WP admin. If you look at my edit history, and what i'm involved in, you should notice i try to better this encyclopedia, and have no intention of disrupting it in any way. If you believe a half finished, badly written self promotional ad for an unknown, non notable church is suitbale for WP, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, as I am entitled to mine. Shoombooly (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be bitey but so be it. If you seriously think "half finished and badly written" is a reason for deletion, you should not be involved in deletion in any way whatsoever. I don't know (or particularly care) if you intentions are the best or the worst in the world, but you've totally missed the point of Wikipedia. "Half finished and badly written" means it needs improving, not deleting. Unfortunately, in this case you're not "entitled to your opinion", as your opinion is violating the fundamental core principle of a collaborative work. – iridescent 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Shoombooly, please listen to what iridescent is saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not all of what i said. My point was that it was a badly written advertisement. I've let plenty of badly written, unfinished articles stay. Just not this one, because i think it's an advertisement. Attach all the conclusions you want, if you only select the pieces you need to villify me, it's easy to label me as a vandal, which I am not. Anyway, this is a waste of time, as you ignore half of what i write. If you want an apology for the second db-spam attempt, I'm sorry I did that, it was clearly the wrong thing to do, my mistake, won't happen again. I won't AfD either until i talk to some others, so i can see how wrong i might be in this instance. Regards, Shoombooly (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: I was going to let it go anyway, Gwen. I just don't like being talked to like that for little reason.

Yeah but beneath that tacky ad copy was a big, docking assertion of notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose we take that discussion away from this page, probably better for all of us. Shoombooly (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you've invited me to review your edit history, I have, and I what I see is someone who doesn't understand the speedy deletion process. In the last couple of edits alone, I see "Don't know what it means" and "Que? expand whathandler?? No context" as well as the "Church" CSD discussed above. Speedy deletion is for a very limited number of absolutely indisputable cases and nothing else. – iridescent 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I can see from your talk page & his that you (and many others) have tried and apparently failed to explain the CSD criteria to this user already - can I leave this with you? I have more than enough rambling flamewars on this page to be getting on with... – iridescent 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I try to learn from my mistakes. Also, I have no intention of flaming, I already apologized twice, and proposed to stop the argument. And I brought Gwen in because i value her opinion. If i make mistakes, it is inexperience, for which i will apologize a 3rd time. Let's bury the hatchet? Shoombooly (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As a token of good will i want to let you know that the flower on your user page is most likely an Azalea, like this one. See also [4], different color, but same morphology. Also the stem (hairy) and leaves in background are almost certainly Azalea. Cheers, Shoombooly (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Morten Keiser-Nielsen

Please see my reply on my talk page. TN‑X-Man 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have replied on your talkpage to keep the conversation together – iridescent 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Looks like you're taking a bit of a beating lately for having the gumption to stand tall against the MySpace set. If it means anything, here's a barnstar from a somewhat old and burned out Wikipedian thanking you for the effort - it's only a small one though, I wouldn't want to get carried away with the social networking! :o east.718 at 01:17, June 12, 2008

Agree with east718 here. While I don't agree with everything you said (I don't think a checkuser should be considered or blocks right now), I do appreciate you standing up to say it. Metros (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I enjoyed the 200k talks about Huggle bug fixes more. For the first time this week, I really appreciate what it must be like to be Giggy or Slim. – iridescent 14:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What, you wish you were inundated with peer review requests? Bah! giggy _(:O) 09:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"WTF - I'm away for 12 hours and my talkpage has gone up to 100k of this?" Yeah but it's only like 50K if take out the signatures ;) Metros (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's going on my quotes page Metros. Spot On. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Smile

You're on candid AN ..well sort of. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I had noticed... Read the Thread that Wouldn't Die a few above this one... – iridescent 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you're watching this, but if you are I'm genuinely sorry this one didn't work (although I did start off on the fence). – iridescent 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm watching alright. Perhaps next time, if there is one. Useight (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article restoration request

Yo Iridescent, I found you through WAWWPCODA; could you possibly restore the last version of list of anarchists to User:SwitChar/Anarchlist/Original? We are currently developing a thoroughly referenced replacement for the original here, and there is no sense in re-inventing the wheel with respect to descriptions and references. Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Has been done (with a caveat). Rather that recreate the article, I've recreated it as an intentionally blanked page, with the full history of the article restored; this is the most recent "full" version. (It won't display fully due to the AFD template, but click "edit this page" and the source text is there.) I've done it this way as some of the references are blocked by the spam filter, and it seems that if you're planning to reconstruct it, it's more useful to you to be able to see what they were. To recreate it as an article that will display properly, revert to the version I link to above and remove the AFD template, the categories & the bad links.

The usual warning about keeping AFD-deleted material floating around for any length of time still applies... – iridescent 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much. I've done this before so I'll make sure we're careful with the BLP and dodgy references issues. Gratefully, Skomorokh 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Venting

AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!. That's all I have to say. I'm going offline (mostly) for the weekend. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor Talkpage assessment of User talk:Keeper76

On hold: This article is currently awaiting improvements before pass/fail.

I have carried out an assessment of this talkpage as per the criteria at WP:Poor Talkpage Candidates. While this page generally meets the Poor Talkpage Criteria, there are certain issues that need to be addressed before I would feel comfortable passing it:

1. Accusation of ageism? 
2. Accusation of picking on user due to their custom sig? 
3. Accusation of misuse of admin tools? 
4. Faint insinuations that you're somehow part of a conspiracy? 
5. At least three posts about you in ALL CAPS to WP:ANI? 
6. So many different fonts used in a single section thanks to all the signatures that it crashes the page's cascading style sheet? 
7. Page contains:
   • at least one pornographic image? 
   • At least one link to an attack site? 
   • At least one link to a post about your conduct to User talk:Jimbo Wales? 
8. Use of the following phrases:
   • "If this continues I will remove your access to Huggle"? 
   • "If this continues I will remove your access to rollback"? 
   • "If this continues I will remove your access to Twinkle"? 
   • "If this continues I will have no alternative but to block you"? 
9. At least one person referring to a conversation that took place on another page over two weeks ago, with no link to said conversation, expecting you to know what they're talking about? 
10. At least one conversation involving six or more editors, at least three of which are arguing over a petty point of trivia? 

All of the elements currently lacking are fairly easily addressed, and overall the general quality of this talkpage is easily poor enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. If the issues raised above are addressed within a week of this review, I will have no hesitation in passing this as a Poor Quality Talkpage. If you are having trouble in raising the number of flames on this page, you may wish to consider asking some of the editors posting here or here to assist. – iridescent 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

oh em gee, Iridescent, I haven't laughed so hard in days. You've earned a barnstar for that one. I'm not giving it to you though, wouldn't want you to surpass your "admirers". :-) I'll look for some diffs to clear up those failings...I'm sure I can find the ANI posts and the "abused the tools" post...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't give me a barnstar. I haven't found your secret page yet. – iridescent 15:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

But you welcomed 100 new users, didn't you? And signed my autograph book? And logged on this morning? And made an edit? And then made a second edit? All qualifying events fer shur. More seriously, (barely), is it true that in order to use the newest version of Huggle you have to have rollback? That is incredibly good news in my opinion, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - and Gurch has set it so the earlier versions won't work, so non-rollback users can't now access it at all. He's also set it so it always adds "using Huggle" to the edit summary and users can't override this in preferences, which should put a stop to the "is it misuse of Huggle or just misuse" questions. As I think I may have said before, I am very impressed with how quickly Gurch is fixing every issue raised about Huggle. – iridescent 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that is a beautiful, beautiful thing. Yay Gurch! That has completely made my weekend. I'm pretty sure you played a large role in getting that changed, so Yay Iridescent as well! That's like 14 barnstars earned, on the weekend no less! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At the going rate, I think WP:AWC owes me 65 barnstars. I think it would be a lovely surprise for BHG if she got back from her holiday to find 141 barnstars on her talkpage, too. – iridescent 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of compiling 159.6 barnstars for Blofeld...chuckle.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Kew Constabulary Cleanup

How was that a bad rewrite? You've confused me in my view my edits helped the article to come out of its confusing current state. I think it deserves better than current and has POV in it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You posted this as I was writing an explanation on your talkpage — see that for (I hope) an explanation as to why I reverted your edit. – iridescent 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A query regarding vandals

Greetings Iridescent! I just noted that you left a level 4 warning for User talk:67.162.115.75. I had just reverted another edit left by this IP, and left the prior warning.

>>insert long story<< For the better part of the last nine months, I spent most of my time on vandal cleanup. I felt productive. I was happy. About a month ago, I came across a vandal-only account (about a dozen edits over a month; all vandalism). He had been warned twice already. As I reverted, I left a warning, then reported him as a vandal.

An editor (I don't even remember the name, I'm not looking it up, its not relevant, accused me of bad faith in reporting a vandal without the requisite four strikes, and that I had tagged their user page after the fact. I tried explaining: its a vandal only account (not an IP .. an account), and that editors are well within their right to report and have a vandal only account blocked without four warnings. Meanwhile, another admin blocks the account. This admin fights to get it unblocked, citing "we need to follow the rules". I tried making him see the light: I was (or at lest I thought I was). The account was unblocked, and less than a month later, it was blocked for continued vandalism. I decided to get out of the anti-vandalism business if I was going to be accused of bad faith. >>end of long story<<

The IP address that you and I recently warned had several acts of recent vandalism. I'm not talking about filing a report, but I am concerned: should warnings about those other incidents of vandalism be tagged on their page? I only say this because I was also told that part of the problem is the lack of tagging on those pages postpones blocking.

Thank you for letting me take some of your time ... I hope all is well in London ... no place like it on Earth! LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant vandals aren't "entitled" minimum number of vandalisms. The 1-2-3-4 escalation ladder is to prevent users being blocked for such things as adding :) or "this is a test" to a page.

I'd personally say don't re-add the history, especially in the case of IPs, where the user today likely isn't the same user as last month. The warnings are all there in the history whether or not the page is blanked.

However, take anything I have to say with a pinch of salt, as I have very little activity in the vandal-fighting side of things. You might want to ask one of the prolific vandal-fighters such as Persian Poet Gal or Moonriddengirl, as they're likely to be more familiar with policy. – iridescent 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get my head round the deletion process

Hi, I was wondering if you could point me to the deletion debate for Jim Stanton? It was proposed for deletion earlier this month and I'm intrigued to know why it survived.Jonathan Cardy (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't a deletion debate: it was proposed for deletion, which means that if nobody contests the deletion it's deleted; however, User:Norman Michael contested it, which automatically stops the process.

If you think the article should be deleted, follow these instructions to nominate the page for an AfD debate. I agree that there's a good case for deleting it at present, as the article appears more about Thomas Jefferson than about Jim Stanton himself — but be aware that there may be a much better case for cleaning the article up and keeping it, then for deleting it altogether. – iridescent 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

As I see you use huggle, you might consider adding Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle to your userpage. Spencer^T♦C 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but seeing as I'm (famously) one of Huggle's most vocal critics I'll decline the offer. When Gurch makes a Category:Wikipedians who test new releases of Huggle for faults, I'll join that... – iridescent 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

um, i have stopped?

I havent impersonated an admin for bout an hour now. Why do i keep receiving these warning messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GENIUS(4th power) (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You last impersonated an admin four minutes ago. Please stop this now or you will be indefinitely blocked. – iridescent 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I see of this sort of nonsense on your talk page Iridescent the more thankful I am that my last RfA crashed and burned. Those who believed that I wouldn't have the patience to put up with that sort of crap were quite right; I wouldn't. Besides, taking a leaf out of your book, I think that adding to the sum of human knowledge is much better served by creating articles on obscure events that nobody really cares about. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The temptation to d-batch this page does get more tempting by the minute, I have to admit. I think Gwen has just discovered this, too. Incidentally, I've found the greatest article on Wikipedia, and the mission of Malleus, Lara, Keeper, Karanacs and any other GA/FA types loitering around this page is to get it to the main page. – iridescent 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a tough one: "The only known reference in scholarship is Tatomir Vukanović's account of his journeys in Serbia from 1933 to 1948" isn't too encouraging. I feel more naturally drawn to this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Managing to find 11 references for Hypnodog is still one of my proudest achievements. (I did manage to get a full-size article out of a bloke with a raft once.) This is a dazzling example of "refreshing brilliant prose", too. – iridescent 01:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that I'm way out of my league here. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I hasten to add that I had nothing to do with Saint-Saturnin-lès-Apt — one of my first edits was this to one of its sister articles. Which I now notice has been reverted as "spam". Sometimes I wonder why we don't just hand the keys over to the IPs and Myspacers and have done with it. – iridescent 01:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yesterday I issue a block threat, and today this gets a block threat for admin imitation. :) giggy _(:O) 01:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I did snort when I saw this coming from you... – iridescent 01:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Malleus can probably warn you what happens when you use the word "Wikilawyer"... – iridescent 01:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can. It's a grossly uncivil term apparently; leads to a 24-hour block. Particularly when applied to a trainee lawyer who runs a site called WikiLaw. Or was it because I told the administrator where to stick his block? Can't remember now. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Be nice - this time next month he might be in charge. (When the most sensible sounding candidate in an election is Greg Kohs, something is seriously wrong somewhere.) – iridescent 01:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he is, then it'll be in spite of my vote, not because of it. I ranked Kurt pretty highly; at least he's unlikely to just roll over and pucker up, like too many others. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually voted for Kohs, on "he won't win but a high turnout for him might give Jimbo the kick up the backside he needs to sort out some of the BLP problems" grounds. One of the reasons I tend to work on things of no interest to anyone is the sheer level of idiocy on the high-traffic articles. – iridescent 01:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I put Kurt and Kohs second and third respectively (IIRC). And Sarcasticidealist first. Clearly I'm a good for nothing WR troll. giggy _(:O) 02:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He looks like a reasonable choice. As a genetically modified contrarian I found deciding difficult though. I wanted to rank the candidates in reverse order, starting with those whose Internet access I'd like to see removed, then those I'd be prepared to consider allowing supervised Internet access, and so on, with those I had no opinion on being at the top of the pile, not the bottom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, do I get a barnstar for this? I mean... with rice? giggy _(:O) 02:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think would be the top? At least this one had a range of edit summaries. And I'm afraid you don't get your barnstar until you've disrupted 100 talkpages. – iridescent 02:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The irony of this challenge has not passed me by. giggy _(:O) 02:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is my personal favourite challenge. I'm surprised WR haven't spotted it. Yet. Remind me again why MyWikiBiz was banned but this is allowed? – iridescent 02:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I could do with $50 for writing about... erm... these guys... giggy _(:O) 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, more from the home of the quality image. – iridescent 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I forgot to say it at the time, but my caption contest entry for this one would be "Can you call me back, I'm posing for Commons?" giggy _(:O) 03:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO EyeSerene's "I'll have to call you back, I'm a bit tied up at the moment" is the winner. BTW while you're here, is there any way to rename a Commons image or does it have to be deleted & reuploaded? (This is in relation to the Mystery Flower, which — while nobody's actually identified the species — there seems to be a general consensus that it's some kind of wild azalea & not the bauhinia I originally thought.) – iridescent 03:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's commons:Commons:MediaMoveBot. I doubt you've been approved by the powers that be (you know who I mean - or click the link and you will), so I can force it through for you. Or you can reupload; either way works. giggy _(:O) 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, having clicked that link I somehow doubt I'll be added to the approved list any time soon. Easier to just reupload it. I'll wait until someone actually identifies it before I rename it, though. – iridescent 03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Red Light Junkie

You declined speedy when someone else tried to G10 Red Light Junkie. However, I researched it and the real reason it should be speedied is A7. It's a neologism which results in trivially few google hits, none of which have anything to do with the definition as proposed. I speedied it appropriately, but it's been hanging around for 3+ hours. Need we really AfD it, just because someone else speedied it inappropriately? Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no possible way that's an A7 and I've removed the {{db-a7}} template; A7 is for people, organisations or websites and nothing else. The correct deletion process for this is either PROD or AFD; "only a few Google hits" is never a speedy criteria. – iridescent 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, it looks like I've successfully AfD'ed it. Thank you for your support. Please see my talk page for a reply to the thread you started there if you haven't already. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem... Basically, the speedy deletion process is only for cases when there's no possibility of the article being kept (either because the article is unsalvageable, or because it's already been deleted via a full AfD discussion). – iridescent 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kerotan

Thought you may want to see my comments on Kerotan RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with you; the more I see of "the IRC crew" tag-teaming and acting like some kind of social club, the more I'm coming round to the Giano/Bishonen view that it causes far more disruption to us than ED/WR ever do. – iridescent 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nods, but I don't know if I'd go quite that far. IRC and other forms of communication have quite legit uses too, but there is abuse. One of my peeves is all the non-admins allowed in the admin channel. I'm considering ignoring the admin channel from now on. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sahil Chowdhury

Well, I'm not sure whether the text should be there or not. I thought that my use of rollback (and violation of the 3RR) was appropriate because each time I reverted, I undid an edit which removed a block of (well, what I thought, until now, was) properly referenced text, which is (at least I thought it was) "blatant and obvious vandalism". Was there something wrong with the reference? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would read this edit as a removal of apparently irrelevant content about his kids careers, and a pointless discussion of his memorial service, both of which look like perfectly legitimate edits to me. Remember, removing of sections isn't the same as page blanking; there are often very good reasons for removing sections - sometimes virtually the entire article. I know everyone is sick of hearing it, but rollback is not to be used if there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back. Hope that helps... – iridescent 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. I will remove the warnings from their pages. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries - if you're still talking with PPG she might be able to give more pointers in vandal-spotting. I'd say a golden rule for Huggle is "if you're not sure, leave it alone"; because Huggle only shows the diff, not the text, it's often impossible to see the context of what you're reverting - so you get reversions because people see the word "penis" being added, or reverts to vandalism because the fix "looks like blanking"... – iridescent 22:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Huggle, how on earth did I manage to make this edit? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd better point that one out to Gurch. If IPs are able to use Huggle, he's likely to be besieged by an angry mob once the news gets out. – iridescent 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what I mean is, I accidentally signed out of my account in Firefox, and then I signed back in (in Firefox). All this time, Huggle was still open, but minimized. Then I maximized Huggle and hit "R", and it did that. I'll tell Gurch. Just so you know, I tried logging into Huggle as an IP and it wouldn't work (incorrect password :P ), so Gurch's life is safe. For the time being... :) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just managed to replicate it three times so it's not just you. Odd. – iridescent 22:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, tried logging off as me and on as a newly created SPA, and it logged the rollbacks to my IP address. Hmmm... – iridescent 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

←Incidentally, once Gurch has seen it, I'd suggest removing your posts & mine on the matter unless he's able to fix it; I can see some of our more colourful characters being interested in the matter. – iridescent 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. One interesting thing I noticed was with the last two edits here. When I made those reverts, I hit "Q". Huggle reverted the edit, but did not issue a warning. Weird. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hmmm

You'd better have a read of this. Let me know when you have & I'll give the conversation the WP:BEANS treatment. – iridescent 22:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to get to Huggle's main window without logging into an account which passes the user group and config page checks, so all this does is allow users who would be able to use Huggle anyway to reveal their IP addresses; abuse from said IP address would result in a block that would also affect the user, unless they were an administrator (in which case they should know better), so I don't think there's any scope for abuse. I'll make sure it's fixed in the next version, though, as it's certainly confusing (and some people might not want edits attributed to their IP address) -- Gurch (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

True enough - someone using it to vandalise anonymously wouldn't accomplish anything except to get themselves caught in the autoblock. – iridescent 23:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Found the reason for this. When retrieving an edit form, Huggle checks to make sure the user is still logs in, and won't save if they aren't. However, rollback doesn't involve an edit form. Anonymous users can't rollback, of course, but if Huggle tries to rollback and fails, it then tries to revert manually instead -- thus skipping the logged-in check. When it comes to the warning, it correctly finds that it's been logged out and doesn't leave it. (Though at that point it should display a message telling you you're logged out; apparently that's not working either). It should be fixed in the next version -- Gurch (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever considered charging for it? Given the amount you put into it, I'm sure enough people would pay. Hell, WMF would probably pay. – iridescent 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to charge for open-source software. I could try charging for continued maintenance and development of Huggle, but I'm not sure Wikimedia's budget would stretch to that -- Gurch (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Karanacs's RfA

Can you have a quick look at SandyG's question here? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's already sorted it (the advantage of Australians; they're awake when everyone else is asleep). – iridescent 10:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew there had to be some advantage to them. ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They counterbalance the mass of the planet. If it weren't for Australians, the world would wobble on its axis and we'd all go flying off, like a record that's slipped off its spindle. I think we owe them all a debt for that. – iridescent 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you've indicated it's a joke, but 1) I don't get it and 2) I don't see how it helps her RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it on reflection – iridescent 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But what did you mean? For example, on Ima Hogg, she did all of the research and most of the writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it was a far-too-much-of-an-in-joke on the fact that principle→principal usually seems to be one of the first things the FA regulars jump on (along with the dreaded Spaced Em Dash) – iridescent 17:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Heya, just a heads up... as you may have noticed, I've been keeping a fairly close eye on the RfA for most of the day, and plan to continue to do so over the next couple of days, although less and less as it gains its own momentum, and so long as new distractions don't break out. However, I will be going away from Friday, so hope that you can be sure to anything that needs attention over the weekend. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, although I'll be at work for much of the weekend. I assume enough other regulars like SandyGeorgia are watching it to cover any issues that come up. – iridescent 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Did you set this up, its not funny, [5]. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An IP that isn't even in the same continent as me set it up, as it would have taken you all of ten seconds to find out. Stop trolling. – iridescent 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :-)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me to the reverts so often, I'm awarding you this barnstar to get you off Huggle for two minutes so I can have a chance! :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You really want the WP:NOTARACE lecture again? (You'll be pleased to know I'm not going to be on here too long; trying to find some specific types of vandalism to test out the templates. You should have it to yourself fairly soon...) – iridescent 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oy, I forgot about the NOTARACE thing... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

i am sorry, please forgive me :(

I didnt realize what i was doing. While my meaning was to speedy delete the page, i accidentally ended up undoing it and allowing the page to be remade. I am sorry :( wont happen again. -me —Preceding unsigned comment added by IaM7DeadlySins (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it happens - although from anyone other than the author, that wasn't speedy material, as it clearly contained an assertion of notability ("seen in magazines such as Tatler, Vogue"). But please fix the colour scheme on your talkpage! – iridescent 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

is that better? -me —Preceding unsigned comment added by IaM7DeadlySins (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No: one of the main problems — the fact that headers (which are always black) are invisible, isn't addressed.

I'd strongly advise against using any kind of dark background; with the possible exception of blue-background-white-text, light-on-dark is almost always harder to read then dark-on-light. That said, it's your userpage and certainly not something you'll be blocked over — but if you leave it like this, don't be totally surprised if someone comes along and changes it at some point. – iridescent 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who showed him the coding to add it. I told him it was too dark, and that it would be hard for people to read, but I'm thinking of just removing everything. The coding is just too dark, no matter what color it is changed too. -- RyRy5 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. Black-on-blue is not a good combination. Although if things carry on the way they're going, it will provide some contrast for the block notice. – iridescent 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I can actually read it now. He'll hopefully just come running to someone or he'll just add it back. -- RyRy5 (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't come running to me, he can run where he likes. My AGF reserves are well and truly exhausted with this one. – iridescent 22:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

MySpace

I was going to edit the page and add in content about Blogs and Content, but there is no edit sign. Has MySPace (the page) been protected? If so, when will it be unprotected?

-me—Preceding unsigned comment added by IaM7DeadlySins (talk • contribs)

The page is semi-protected, which means new accounts can't edit it. Once your account is four days old and has 10 edits, you'll be able to edit it. Be aware that this article is very heavily patrolled, so if you don't provide reliable sources for anything you add to it, anything you add will likely be reverted.

Incidentally, when posting on talk pages (but not articles), you need to sign your name with four tildes, like this ~~~~ at the end of your post. – iridescent 20:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My signature is too long to put into the preferences tab, so i just copy it from my Word page with it on, and paste it onto the page i edited. And, i unfortunatly, do not feel like reducing it so significantly that it fits. See for yourself (its nice, isnt it?) Iamthe7DeadlySins ^{greed, gluttony, and wrathenvy, sloth, and lustpride}

 —Preceding comment was added at 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 

That's because youre not allowed signatures that long... I suggest you change it, or get into deep dodo. BG7even 20:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What BG7 said. Wikipedia has a very strictly enforced 255 character limit on sigs, and users are being blocked and/or having the sig templates deleted as we speak for violating it. – iridescent 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

oops

okie, i sorry. Ill reduce it to 255 characters. Please dont get me into trubble for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IaM7DeadlySins (talk • contribs) 20:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

it feels easier on the eyes now

My talk page. It feels alot more soothing, i sorta like it! Blue background makes it soothe and calm the body. Its a psychological thing. Just stare at my talk page for a minute. Dont you notice it too? Its awesum! -me —Preceding unsigned comment added by IaM7DeadlySins (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the sixth (unsigned) post from you in a row to this page. Sorry to do this, but I've (very temporarily) semi-protected this page so you're no longer able to post to it. See at the top of this page where it says "If I leave a message on your talkpage, I'm watching it"? Means what it says. – iridescent 20:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

hey, im so happy!

I have now just written down one of the very historic Wikipedia Guidelines. Go to this page to see it! 7Deadly Sins^{greed, gluttony, and wrath} _{envy, sloth, lust and pride} —Preceding comment was added at 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Already nominated for deletion. I appreciate you're new, but this is an encyclopedia, not your personal chatroom. If you carry on being disruptive, you will end up blocked from editing Wikipedia. – iridescent 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

hey

Is it okay if i use 3 edits to perfect my signature? Cuz i really, really want to, but i dont wanna get blocked. Comment I would appreciate it if this was userfied, but i dont even know what that means. 7Deadly Sins^{greed, gluttony, and wrath} _{envy, sloth, lust and pride}

No. For the last time, this is an encyclopedia, not a chatroom. – iridescent 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is what?

The vandalism thing? I was testing to see what would happen if i was paged. why? Is something wrong?

7Deadly Sins^{greed, gluttony, and wrath} _{envy, sloth, lust and pride}23:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, final warning time; LISTEN TO WHAT EVERYONE IS TELLING YOU. I have absolutely no desire to block you but if you carry on being disruptive I will; so far today you've vandalised an article, created a nonsense page, repeatedly ignored what everyone's told you about signatures, and repeatedly posted borderline-nonsense to assorted talkpages – iridescent 23:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You okay Iri? It sounds like you're getting real frustrated.(I'd be too) Take a wiki-break.:D--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp, remember a couple of weeks ago when someone (I think Metros) was explaining the difference between good-faith editors who unintentionally disrupt things, and editors who just plain disrupt things? AGF has a limit and if this carries on much longer, it's about to be reached. – iridescent 23:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Um..yeah I think I remember. And yes there's a limit. My opinion is the user either is intentionally disruptive or testing the system to see how far he can go You gonna indef?(if necessary)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You're both far nicer than I would have been in your shoes. I would have given HIM the wikibreak and given him a list of pages to read while waiting for his short (~4 hour) block to expire. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the indef, no. Having had about two hours of my life wasted by an insane flamewar on another talkpage, I'm well aware that my AGF levels are lower than usual and that I'm not in the best state to judge this kind of thing myself. I've asked another admin who's been dealing with him to give their opinions on the issue instead; in the meantime, I've (very temporarily, as I say above) semi-protected this talkpage to force him to keep it on his own talkpage instead of spreading the discussion all over the place. – iridescent 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

First could you define flamewar? And where?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's own definition: "A flamewar is a prolonged exchange of deliberately hostile messages over the Internet." If you follow the talkpage links from the users on this page, you'll find it soon enough if you really want to — but it's about a matter that doesn't concern you in any way and you probably won't understand it, as the original basis of it has been deleted. If you do find it, then I cannot emphasise enough not to join in. – iridescent 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

<nervous laugh> Don't worry I'm a horrible finder of things and the last thing I want is a block.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 7 deadly until he changes his/her signature. Enough is enough. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the source

It's real info on Daly. --SmackingMonkeys (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fat slob" is a BLP violation and a personal opinion. Stop adding it. – iridescent 03:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a personal opinion. It is sourced by a credible website. Commentators always say that Daly would have been a star but is a slob who is a drug lord. --SmackingMonkeys (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(note: Indefblocked troll)

Bauhinia Azalea

Anyone want to identify the species? Someone?

Hey, I think that Bauhinia on your user page is most likely Bauhinia variegata. The shape of the flower is more like variegata. Its colors can range from magentas to white, and I think the color fits the description best. bibliomaniac15 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a thought - although I've also been advised that it looks like it's actually an azalea of some kind. I'll leave it up a while longer and see if I can get some kind of consensus – frustrating, as it's quite a striking photo and it's irritating not to know what it's a photo of. Open note to anyone else reading this – if you have any thoughts as to what this is a picture of, please do let me know! (Taken on Lantau island, Hong Kong, on 1 March 2008, if that helps narrow it down...) — iridescent 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have identified the Azalea in the photograph. I can't find the name of the species or hybrid, but your photograph looks just like the one shown here: http://www.ncazaleafestival.org . It's probably a good idea to wait for the input of experts though; I don't claim to be an expert on plant identification. CalamusFortis (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! As I say above, it's really irritating not knowing what it's a photo of. — iridescent 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

General note - the consensus now seems to be that this is some kind of Azalea. If anyone knows what kind, please do let me know! – iridescent 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(Further) general note: it now seems to be pretty positively identified as some kind of azalea due to the stem. Anyone want to have a crack at what species it is? – iridescent 14:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some searching, and I think that the photograph may be of the Azalea hybrid "George Tabor." Some pictures of this hybrid have very pink flowers, while others show an amount of white matching the flower in the photograph. I can't be sure that it is "George Tabor," but I suppose it's a start.CalamusFortis 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I realise this is Not An Important Thing In The Great Scheme Of Things, but it's really bugging me not knowing what this is. It's quite a striking photo & I'm sure I could find a good use for it if I only knew what it was! – iridescent 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

re Karanacs RfA

"...Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people..."

You been peeking at my userpage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Eek! You might have warned me... That's still not the most alarming user portrait on Wikipedia; that goes to Ryan P. – iridescent 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen much worse. As an incentive to anyone reading this, all you hafta do is run through RFA so that you can see deleted images, have fun with this one, Iridescent. Payback for all the shockimages you've planted on my talkpage recently...er, I mean...it's an image of an Arcade...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. I'm not getting caught by the "what links here" pixies. – iridescent 21:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a caption competition.... WjBscribe 01:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Are we in?
Starting off with the rather bland Ryan:"You taste like the sockuppet I blocked."
I'm sure the iridescent one can do better. giggy _(:O) 11:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Adele: "Dammit, I shoulda said Truth". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Just checking if you violate WP:LIC, Adele". – iridescent 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

'When you said "biting the newcomers", I didn't realise this was what you meant' (I'll get me coat...) – iridescent 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Old bug seems to have resurfaced

Although, WTF is a two week old account doing with Huggle access? – iridescent 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what was a one week old account doing with rollback? Would a minimum account age limit be useful? -- Gurch (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since that post, have done some digging through the contribs of that account prior to it being given rollback (I agree the circumstances look very odd) and I think they're telling the truth about being an experienced user under another name. At least, they're not making either typical newbie edits or typical sockpuppet edits. PeterS was the one who granted rollback, and I can't imagine he wouldn't have checked as well. If you're happy, I'll remove that entire section from Feedback, as it could look a bit bitey & ABF to Gail. – iridescent 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Schools of the Sacred Heart

Oh wow, you're brave for touching that one. It's such a merge mess. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd move it to List of Schools of the Sacred Heart — it's above & beyond a normal disambiguation page now — but I'm certainly not going to lose a second's sleep either way. – iridescent 19:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well at one point it was at Network of Sacred Heart Schools which was entirely untrue because the scope wasn't ever limited to those that were in a network, unless said network just included the name. I'm not sure what it accomplishes other than being a merge target, under any na,me. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If I was planning to clean it up (which I'm not, as what I know about it could be written on a postage stamp), I'd split it into a long Schools of the Sacred Heart explaining the organisation itself, and a separate List of Schools of the Sacred Heart. A glaring problem I can see from the start is the sheer number of "Sacred Heart" named organisations in any area with a substantial Catholic population that have nothing to do with this particular organisation.

In any List of areas that no-one valuing their sanity should ever have anything to do with on Wikipedia, "Schools" and "the Catholic Church" must both rank pretty high. Part of the reason you see so many articles on shopping malls, disused railway lines, ornamental lakes etc from me is precisely because you tend not to get irate fans editwarring on The Mall Wood Green about why other shopping malls are so much cooler (although someone did try to nominate it for AFD as "spam" once...). That said, one of my proudest unsung achievements here is the way in which the permanent BLP-editwarring on Beki Bondage ground to a complete halt as soon as I rewrote it. – iridescent 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, impressive. I don't like lists. I limit my work on them to red-link development such as List of museums in New York and related articles. A delete !vote about an AfD list came up in my RfA and thinking back, I still agreed with my initial vote. Some are useful, the vast majority are not. As a whole, school articles drive me nuts, churches are easier because a fair nummber are clearly non-notable and don't turn into the all out wars that schools and police departments do. As far as this particular list, I think it requires a gut to clean up and like yourself, I just don't care about this one. I'd rather spend on-wiki time elsewhere. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate lists. Personally, I think the onus on every list should be to demonstrate why it's useful to other Wikipedia articles. The only grounds I can see generally see for them are to serve as "redlist farms" to show which articles still need to be written. Notable residents of Crouch End (currently out of the article, but I've no doubt it will reappear yet again) is my personal bugbear. – iridescent 20:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a personal bugbear as of yet but I was surprised that List of motorcycle clubs came back to my RfA. It's no longer the mess it was but it has no inclusion criteria: clubs where? and no definition of notability. That and it's also entirely reundant to the list in the article. But I gave up on that. Have a good evening. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the only opposes are Kurt, Majorly and LGRDC I really don't think you need to worry. While they all (particularly Kurt) do excellent work elsewhere, I don't think there's anyone left who takes them seriously at RFA. – iridescent 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

False Warning

Dear iridescent, you have accidently restored a vandilism on a article and sent me a lvl 1 vandal warning. please reply on my talk page about this incident and remove the warning so that the administers now it was a mistake. Thanks for taking your time.

Your , Alexnia (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like we might have to revoke your Huggle access, Iridescent... *ducks* :D -- Gurch (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd ban me. At the very least issue me a final warning...

Seriously, Alexnia, this is not your fault; it stems from a problem with Huggle, a program used to revert vandalism at high speed. If you save your edit at the same point someone else clicks the "revert" button in Huggle, it can cause the program to incorrectly think that your edit was the vandal edit. Some users think that the problem is serious enough in cases like yours, where a perfectly good editor is incorrectly tagged as a "vandal", that Huggle shouldn't be used; however, the general consensus is that the good caused by keeping Huggle active (no other process is as effective at keeping vandals off Wikipedia) outweighs the problems it causes.

Gurch (the poster above me), who wrote Huggle, will probably certainly be better placed than me to explain exactly how it works, if you have any questions about the process. – iridescent 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that Alexnia is not on the whitelist, as the account is only a few days old and has yet to make 500 edits. Another 1-week-old account with Huggle... :/ -- Gurch (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexnia was approved here, after originally being denied access exactly two days earlier for inexperience reasons. Seems fishy. PeterSymonds (the approver) usually is an excellent screener of new editors...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also approved by PS. What do you have to do not to get rollback? Maybe WP:RFHUG isn't such a crazy idea after all (although I think "anyone can use it, but screw up and it gets disabled" is more in spirit with Wikipedia). – iridescent 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Alexnia has 239 mainspace edits of which 198 are rollbacks, their third edit ever was to install Huggle, and has never made a mainspace edit that wasn't a revert, including "blatant vandalism" like this. What the hell is going on here? – iridescent 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should address this with PS? Or Alexnia? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexnia's not at fault - I've posted a (hopefully) non-bitey warning about rollbacking of non-blatant vandalism and warned her that others may be more willing to remove rollback without warning. As with Xp last month, you can't really blame someone for misusing a tool if no-one's told them how to use it correctly. Unless more worrying examples come to light, I'd say leave PS alone for the moment; there may be excellent reasons for granting rollback (a returning right-to-vanished user who's notified him of their real identity via email, for example). It's not like removing Huggle access is difficult if it starts to cause a problem. – iridescent 22:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(hope I have enough colons)...agreed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

←(to Iridescent) I have gone through all (read: 100%) of this user's Huggle reversions and I have found six (including the one you gave) that are 100% definitely not blatant vandalism. Two of them actually restored vandalism. Should I post the diffs here, or should I just not say anything unless Alexnia makes more mistakes after s/he reads your poke? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, am I scrutinizing too much? I have never checked the last 250 or so of my reverts to see if they are all legit. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends how bitey you want to be... If they're potentially serious (restoring a BLP vio, for example), then warn - but it would probably be worth checking the edit immediately prior to Alexnia's to make sure it wasn't two Hugglers reverting at the same time, which (as Gurch has heard very, very often) causes this "double-revert" problem (see the post which begins this section...).

If there's an Xp style pattern of misuse, as opposed to the occasional mistake (lest we forget, some Wikipedia editors are human), let me know and me (or one of the assorted characters watching this page) will disable Huggle. I prefer disabling Huggle to removing rollback; you can explain where a user went wrong and then quietly give it back to them when you're satisfied, whereas removing rollback leaves a permanent blot on their log (see this example which I suspect you're all too familiar with).

Useful tip for wikistalking scrutinising edits; if you type the user's name into the navigation bar on Huggle and then select "recent edits" from the menu over the queue, it will bring up the user's contribution history; pressing the spacebar will automatically walk you through every diff of theirs. (I think for non-admins the viewable history may not go back so far.) – iridescent 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

None of them represent major problems, so I will just let them disappear into the cavernous vault know as ctrl-shift-h... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

For quickly denying the speedy deletion on José Azueta (sailor) and for your comments to the editor who tagged it. I was displeased to see that pop up so soon, but since I knew what to do, I wasn't worried. But like you said, newbies might not feel the same way about that. --AW (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. One thing I absolutely loathe here is the editors who think they get some kind of bonus-points in the Wikipedia MMORPG by nominating articles for deletion 30 seconds after they're uploaded. I think it's more disruptive than vandalism, as it drives so many people away. – iridescent 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was reminded of this. The creator of the article didn't make any changes after that. I do wonder how much of this sort of stuff goes unnoticed. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot. Especially when CSD's backlogged, the temptation to assume the nominator's probably right and not to check the history is always there. And that's quite aside from the trail of destruction the image-deletion-bots's "kill them all & let God sort them out" attitude left.

AGF and all that, but there's something very odd going on with the editor who nominated this, who has a bunch of FA/GA userboxes on their userpage for articles where they did nothing more than fix a couple of typos. No idea what's going on here. – iridescent 20:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This might shed some light [6]. I've been following a discussion about this across several people's talk pages, prompted by the actions of a few users, including the one linked in your message. If you've been seeing any patterns with relatively new users like this, you might want to talk to User:Laser brain. Karanacs (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The really odd thing is that this isn't a new user; over 3000 edits, over a period of more than a year. I can understand the "Myspace cabals" of new-ish users who seem to think Wikipedia is some kind of MMORPG with the high-scores measured in barnstars & userboxes (not mentioning any names...), but this is an established user with a history of genuine substantial contributions (on Michael Curry, for example) who now suddenly seems to have started doing this for no apparent reason.

I believe my opinions on the award center – and all the other Esperanza-lite unwelcome recent developments like secret pages & autograph books – are a matter of record. (Be aware that by mentioning it here you've probably directed a gaggle of trolls & sockpuppeteers towards both the MFD and your own talkpage, who will explain how YOU'RE ALL WRONG at excruciating length.) – iridescent 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I raised this same issue with that editor earlier this evening. It really pisses me off when people try to claim credit for things they haven't done. I got dragged into this by what I though was a genuine request to GA review the Anahim hotspot. On investigation I find that I, as the reviewer, made more than five times as many edits to this article as this nominator did. Weird! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the nominating – I could imagine nominating something even if I hadn't done much on it, for example if I were nominating a topic to WP:FT and wanted to demonstrate consistency across the range of articles. It's the claiming credit bit that's weird. – iridescent 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also the incessant chivvying [7] [8] to pass the article once the review is opened that's weird. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And surprise surprise... Appears to be another wannabe working through a checklist. SandyG is spot on, that coaching program causes way more trouble than it's worth. Anyone who has to be taught common sense probably can't be taught it. – iridescent 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This ninja star is hereby presented to Travellingcari in recognition of her... well... wanting a star. Are you sure you wouldn't like the Myspace barnstar instead? It had a smiley face.

On Award Centers and what not, they are such a mess yet they seem to have their defenders. I don't get it. I don't get why this is such a competition. What am I missing? What memo did I miss when I signed up? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a memo. It was a note folded neatly into a ninja star that was passed around at recess. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, not me, pointed this offering from the Award Center out, but the irony bears repeating. – iridescent 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG?!?! WP-EN izz n MMORPG?!? No way!!! LOL, ROFLCOPTER, etc!!!! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• LMAO* Someone spiked your coffee today. I think it's the sweet smell of wins. Seriously... I don't get it. I want a ninja star. And recess. :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Does every discussion here turn into one about myspace, cabals, me, RfA, and admin coaching? giggy _(:O) 00:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (Btw. Irid; I think I agree with you (following my day on the main page) that IP editing isn't that flash.)

I thought every discussion here turns into a discussion of Huggle? Besides, I think every discussion everywhere turns into a discussion of you. Except occasionally when they turn into discussions of Lara instead. – iridescent 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Iri, that's going to get a place of honor. Given that I refuse to have anything to do with MySpace and twitch when I have to use it for work, I'll take my ninja. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to complete the social-networking, I'm entered your haiku contest too. – iridescent 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons actually has good images (and a category!) for moments like this. giggy _(:O) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

and I restored your sanity ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Grr...

you just beat me to vandalism:-( Actually, you've beat me a handful of times. You're doing a nice job fighting vandalism on wikipedia, and I hope we can continue to rely on you to fight vandalism:-)--SJP (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you won't... Vandal fighting is (to put it mildly) not high up my list of priorities. But thanks for the compliment! – iridescent 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re : please be carefull

sorry about that I thought that , that was a paragraph cut off so i reverteted it thanks for noticing me. For the future I will be a bit slower while I use huggle and check what paragraphs I am restoring. I will keep in mind to watch over paragraph restoration, sorry for wasting your time and thanks for warning me.

p.s please don't remove my rollback rights you can remove my huggle rights but I need the rollback to fight vandilism at school (school computer's only have Internet Explorer so twinkle dosn't work on them and I hate it when Huggle users beat me while I am using twinkle or the old school way.Alexnia (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

oh damn silly me, sorry for posting this on your talk page forgot to read one of the boxesAlexnia (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine... and don't worry! – iridescent 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind giving me huggle back? I just got rollback back and Huggle is a very useful tool. It has been quite a while and I think Metros said I could have it back around now but I decided to ask you cause he doesn't seem to be online.Thanks!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Iri!!! Did you find out yet what type of flower you have on your userpage is yet?:D--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by ****Provisionally****?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 15:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By "provisionally", I mean that any misuse of it will see it taken away permanently and without further warning; Gurch, Metros etc won't give you the "benefit of the doubt" that, for example, we've given Alexnia in the thread above. I've explained at further length on your talk page. – iridescent 15:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the flower, it seems to be established as an azalea; the question now is identifying the species. – iridescent 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's an azalea, see this pic. It's called a "Simplicity" Azalea, of the Evergreen type. Of course, there are 10s of 1000s of variations worldwide, so I could be off by a speckle or stripe or two....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Iri please block User:Ip2164915073. He/she is the account of the IP vandalizng my takpage and the one you just blocked for 48 hours. Evasion of block....Extend by 2-6 hours if you'd like--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 16:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He's gone into personal attacks and wiki-stalking.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this troll to WP:AIV. Should be blocked soon. Cunard (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Troll indefed..:D--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been quoted

FYI: Quoting your awesomness here. giggy _(:O) 11:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hellingly Hospital Railway

The article Hellingly Hospital Railway you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hellingly Hospital Railway for things needed to be addressed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It was painful (places nobody cares about, see), but I managed! Now we can go to the next phase of admin coaching! giggy _(:O) 14:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't know..

...There's a meetup on July 13th in London. Coming? Ironholds 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly but unlikely, and not under this name; I have no particular desire to be hiveminded. – iridescent 14:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas & Diamond Joe Quimby

Yes, I knew that they were the same account, but I wanted some way to tell other Wikipedians that DJQ and PT were the same person. I didn't know a better way than to easily communicate this fact. I noticed that some users who had been reverting DJQ and his other SPs were not doing the same to PT thinking that he was a different user. So, how do you let people know without going to each and every one of them and leaving a message? (I also think that a contributor involved in a SP or other on going case, should be aloud to change their user name until the issue is resolved. It was obvious the he changed this account in order to evade the case against him and/or the block that may result.) So, if you know of an easier way to let others know, go for and let me know? ~ WikiDon (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How about {{User Alternate Acct}} tagging? It doesn't have the same connotations... – iridescent 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug?

Iri as a test I changed my huggle config page "rollback:false" but I can still use huggle. Bug?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 17:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already responded here. Is that how you understand it, Iridescent? You've got a bit better knowledge of Huggle than I do. Metros (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your (Metros's) talk – iridescent 15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you, Iridescent, for nominating me for adminship and then providing so much enjoyable commentary as the RfA progressed. I was a bit surprised at how smoothly the process went and how I've emerged without feeling run through a large wringer (maybe just a tiny one). I'll do my best to avoid doing something stupid so that I don't make you look bad ;) Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure and thank you for being my first RFA nom to pass! If you aren't aware of it already, you may want to bookmark this, which is a good way to give yourself (and others) an idea of what you're doing with your new-found powers. – iridescent 16:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP Question

Iridescent, I would like your opinion on a reversion I made. I do not believe that the assertion removed by another editor violated BLP, and reverted it, and I was reverted again, with the other editor citing BLP at me. I'm not going to sweat one unsourced statement which I didn't even add to begin with, but I'd like your opinion on whether I was really in the wrong or not. Diffs here. Thanks for your time. Jclemens (talk)

I think "he is not a licensed attorney" is on very thin BLP ice with regards to an article about someone who gives legal advice, unless you can provide a citation for it. If it turns out that he is in fact a licensed attorney — or is working in a jurisdiction where the term "licensed attorney" has no meaning (while I know nothing about New Hampshire law, most New England law is based on English common law and there's certainly no such animal in the UK) — then you're re-inserting a defamation of a legal professional. In this case, there isn't even a source for there being allegations, let alone for them being true. I'd say it should stay out; remember, with BLPs the burden of proof is on whoever is adding to the article, especially with something potentially defamatory like this. – iridescent 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting way of putting it. Having studied under the man personally, calling him a lawyer would be more likely to be viewed as a hostile statement than calling him NOT a lawyer.  :-) Interestingly enough, I've been trying to cite him not beling a lawyer for half an hour, and I've yet to find someplace that expressly says it. He's referred to a "notable firearms expert" or "self-defense expert" in hundreds of places, but "not a lawyer" or the like mostly turns up ghits for "I'm not a lawyer, but I went to this Massad Ayoob class and..." It's back to the old problem of proving a negative--there are probably thousands of other notable non-lawyers who couldn't be RS'ed as a non-lawyer.

At any rate, thanks for your time and quick response. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As a thought, he may well have a resume publicly available somewhere, which would presumably list his qualifications. Otherwise, the NH Law Society (or whatever body NH lawyers are registered with) probably maintains a public list of authorised lawyers (although he may practise elsewhere). – iridescent 16:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I finally found a couple of cites. They're not the best, but the way they're phrased, it's hard to argue that they're negative--i.e., "As former Vice Chair of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), he is believed to have been the only non-attorney ever to hold this position." Thus, the way out of the situation was always about finding verification for a fact that I knew to be true, and that was never really in question. Next time, I won't revert a BLP allegation, no matter how trivial and POV-pushing I think it is, without putting some sourcing in. Again, thanks for discussing the nuances with me. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. A general rule for unsourced material, particularly in BLPs, is, "if this turned out not to be true would someone potentially be hurt by it?". – iridescent 17:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Hear Me?

Since you might not be watching the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Hear Me?, I just thought I'd drop you a note saying that I have a question about your reply. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. As I say, I'm not all that familiar with exactly how AMG operates so am more than willing to be corrected. – iridescent 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I'll keep a lookout for more info on this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SOCIAL NETWORKING!!1!

		The Defender Destroyer of the Wiki Huggle Barnstar
		On the positive side, at least people will stop complaining to you about it on your talk page now, right? .... Right? Oh shit I just gave a barnstar. Metros (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This barnstar is the best laugh I've had today. A hearty laugh, thank you Metros. Excellent perpsective, excellent timing. I may very well return tomorrow....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks. I was torn between the line about the talk page and a line about how dozens of users will never get adminship now because they can't edit without Huggle (not saying everyone who uses Huggle is like that of course before any junps all over that!). Take care Iridescent and Keeper, Metros (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You know I did answer your question on my adoption page waaaaay back.....--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Replies: Thoughts On Huggle and the Hugglers

So, all I have to do is press this red button, right?

You do all know that Huggle is (for the moment) still active, right? For the record:

1. I've no idea what's happened to Gurch and have no intention of prying; he's been through far more shit than anyone else I respect on Wikipedia (with the possible exception of Lara and Giano). If he's had to leave for personal reasons, good luck with whatever it is; if he's left because he's fed up with dealing with the non-stop torrent of crap from drunks, lunatics, petulant schoolchildren and obsessive admin-wannabes that, laughably, passes for "debate leading to consensus" on Wikipedia, I can't say I blame him one bit. I'd urge everyone to leave him alone;
2. While I'm not going to comment on the "who should take it over" thread (a post which has I intended to be a four-sentence heads-up notification has managed to blossom into a 100k shouting match), the only name of all those suggested whom I'd personally trust is Fritzpoll. In particular, I think the idea, which seems to be being seriously suggested, of entrusting potentially the third most destructive tool in the entire toolset to someone who listed at RFA their "best contribution to Wikipedia" as being a cut-and-paste copyvio is just plain crazy;
3. I don't have a problem with Huggle per se — although I've been arguing in many places about how it's used, I've never once actually advocated it being banned, even when Gurch himself was suggesting this. If anything, I've been advocating an expansion of the use of it.

Xp, yes I did read your answer. Like I said at the time, there's no right answer to that question (if hackers hadn't taken Wikipedia Review offline, you could read for yourself a large number of crazy people arguing over that exact question at extreme length). I haven't posted any reply to you there or on your talkpage, as while I've no problem with you, I am thoroughly fed up with taking abuse from your nutjob friends.

BTW, for anyone who wants to see exactly what kind of people Gurch has unleashed on us, this post (in his own RFA!) illustrates the current level of AGF and civility of Huggle users. (Before anyone complains, yes I know there are dozens of perfectly decent Huggle users. Unfortunately, it's only the misusers who come to notice). – iridescent 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware it was back online and I had a decent idea of how you felt about Huggle and the related issues. I just thought I'd try to lighten things a bit because everyone appeared to be stressed and pissed off yesterday. And you better appreciate that barn star, damn it...I spent 10 minutes trying to find that photo and all (see, now I have concrete evidence through first hand experience of why social networking drains productivity! :) ) Seriously though, keep up the good work. Metros (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pride of place – nabbed the very last slot. I really do hope that either Gurch comes back, or Fritzpoll agrees to take it on. As you may have guessed, I'm less than convinced by the motley crew who've appointed themselves as Huggle-masters in Gurch's absence. – iridescent 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The huggle related AN discussion provides a convenient list of people whose RfAs you can oppose. (Original (slightly modified) quote by Friday... not that I disagree with it ;-)). giggy _(:O) 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do need to point out that, whatever Majorly may think, I've never once opposed someone for using Huggle. I think he's mixed me up with Lradrama. – iridescent 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, it's not the reason for opposing that's a problem. It's the fact you opposed. giggy _(:O) 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many, many people whose opinions I respect on Wikipedia. I don't think it's any great secret that some people are not as high up that list as others. – iridescent 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering

Is it your magnetic personality, your winsome smile, or your natural charm that brings you so many new friends? Risker (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, people seem to mistake my talkpage for the Wikipedia Complaints Department. Which as everyone knows, is actually User talk:Keeper76. – iridescent 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good God, that is so true. AIV/WT:RFA/ANI/AN/WQA all wrapped into one. I've got a real rabble going over there most days. Poor Mizcabot...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, be honest. You'd miss it if it stopped. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Never said I wouldn't.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp

Extended (and batshit insane) discussion

Iris, I have a terrible feeling Xp is going to start something he regrets. :-( — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I've tried to warn him as best I can to let it go, and posted something similar to Malleus. I can see you've warned him; maybe if he hears it from you, Kodster, RyRy etc he'll take it more seriously. I don't think he realises just how thin the ice is at the moment; I know he (and you) see Metros and I as the bad guys, but we've been far more lenient then most others will. (This is what would normally have happened regarding his old signature, for example.) – iridescent 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I'm actually going to give you a piece of advice (whether or not you take it is obviously up to you); do anything you can to try to keep him away from the "regulars" on Malleus's talkpage. I know you're trying to get a couple of articles up to FA yourself, and these are the very people who'll be reviewing it. While, to their credit, they will be fair, they're only human, and if they see you and think "oh, the disruptive one" they might nit-pick more closely. – iridescent 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I understand, hes really .... pissed off. He's taking it personally because of his own age, but he's going to get burnt. Ill go and ask Kodster for help, glad to see you realise we are different people. :-) As for my articles, lol, im doing Michael Jackson, I fully expect biased nit-picking, thats what will make it all the better when it does eventually pass. Anyway thankyou for your advise, dont tell anyone about this little discussion, I want to keep my reputation as a stroppy cow you know. Cheers. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think that's anything that anyone, including Xp, ought to be worried about (upsetting FA reviewers before taking an article to FAC). People would always consider the article on its own merits, and if they didn't, then they'd soon feel the Wrath of SandyG. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Re Michael Jackson (and good luck with that one - keeping it clean must be like trying to nail water to a wall), you might want to run it past Giggy if you haven't already. He's usually pretty good with music articles, and he's very good with the policy-and-process side of FA/BLP. – iridescent 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC) He seems to be letting go of it. Hopefully thats the end of it. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Good. Malleus is always reasonable, but his style sometimes means bluntness could be mistaken for rudeness. Hopefully that will be the end of it. – iridescent 02:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Yes I'm eating dinner,took a shower,basically a wiki-break. I'd kill myself if I prevented an article from going to FA status.<sigh>--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Was that comment really needed? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I meant I won't continue the "flamewar I single-handedly started against several high profile editors".--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC) And Iri (To metros too) I really need to apologize for seeing you two as the bad guys. You are right you were both amazingly lenient. If anything I should have been blocked 12 hours for "harassment,personal attacks,etc.".:D Thanks for so much (R2 I haven't gone crazy,;)) wiki-love and AGF!!!--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I have replied to you on my talkapge.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Replied there, but I'm afraid you're not going to like what I say. And that really is the last I'm posting in this idiotic argument of yours. – iridescent 22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This has forked into two totally unrelated conversations

(to Malleus) I almost feel like taking something to FAC just to see this famous process in action. You think they'd take Market Place (Finchley)? – iridescent 14:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think they would. Take it to bits in very short oder that is. You'd stand a much better chance with your masterpiece, The Mall (Wood Green) I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mall (Wood Green) is a bit too racy for my tastes. Maybe Hammerton's Ferry. I still can't quite work out how I managed to get 11k out of that. – iridescent 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That one's not bad actually, might be able to squeeze a GA out of that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(Ahem) – iridescent 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See? I have a nose for these things. :lol: This is why we need a little green dot ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One day, someone will explain to me how something as mind-numbing as that qualifies as GA but BWFE doesn't. I still don't quite understand that one. – iridescent 16:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We both know that the problem with BWFE was mainly the size of some of the pictures. Curiously though I think the Image MoS guidelines may have changed since then, so it might be worth another punt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

← No, the MOS guideline is still "The image subject or properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Apart from the lead, other cases where a specific image width is appropriate include (but are not limited to) images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts, and images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.". Which AFAIK BWFE complied with scrupulously throughout; although there are forced image widths on five occasions (I've just unforced a sixth), two of them are enlarged to show specific architectural details, and three have extreme aspect ratios. But What Do I Know. The MOS and me don't mix. – iridescent 16:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There was at one time an idea that image sizes ought not to be set in thumbnails. What's changed is that it's now OK, so long as the size is at least 300px. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah well. It's the second-highest traffic article I've ever written, I'm not going to lose sleep over a green dot. – iridescent 16:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

Sigh and double sigh. Metros (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I think I've said all I can on Xp's talk page; if he chooses to ignore it there's nothing I can do. I've gone above and beyond in trying to talk him out of his various "bright ideas", but this is taking far too much of my time. I'm not going to carry on defending him. – iridescent 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

??

What's going on with Deadly? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Alison#Since you know these things – iridescent 02:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Figures. Support indef block. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I added sock templates to the appropriate pages. Sigh. Next? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

Oh yeah thank you! Too many false positives is a VERY good reason. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a proper noun: Ancient Greece:) TestPilot^{talk to me!} 02:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes... but IMO there are far too many false positives where it shouldn't be capitalised, where "ancient" is just being used as a qualifier "the ancient Greek goalkeeper", "the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome" etc etc... I think it ought to stay off the list. At the moment, it's failing the 'run a wiki search on "ancient greece" and see what comes up' test - there seem to be more cases where it shouldn't be corrected than where it should. – iridescent 13:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan

I apologise for the earlier conflict here. Perhaps we can reach some agreement on such debate? Cheers, and good morning (etc.). :-) --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Don't worry about it... Just bear in mind, expressing a valid opinion with which you happen to disagree is not the same thing as a personal attack. There are excellent arguments both for and against age limits (under the Florida law which governs Wikipedia there is a legal definition of "child" in the context of the internet, whether or not you like the fact), and attacking one of Wikipedia's leading contributors in this way is not going to change his mind on the issue. – iridescent 14:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but my point was not against his opinion (as he has every entitlment to that, as well as his stance at RfA), but the manner in which he presented it. An insulting remark such as this could cause him to be blocked again for incivility, and that was the last thing I wanted to see. I've no wish to start arguing, but I found that to be a little insulting. I completely concur, however, that a user of his age cannot (and shouldn't be put in a situation where he should be) be held accountable for admin actions, so I do not oppose him, just the way he said it.

Thanks, and good day. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

No problem at all. Whatever you think of the issue, it's certainly not worth the insane lamewar [sic] that the RFA and WT:RFA are descending into. – iridescent 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nice pun, BTW. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I really would like to let this drop now. My final word is that I do not accept the charge of incivility over this edit, and I never will. If that's the kind of thing that merits a block these days then I will have to leave the asylum to be run by its inmates. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, please let this one drop. As I've said (it feels like) everywhere, there is no way on earth that that was a personal attack, but continuing to kick XP and Mizu for reacting to it isn't doing anyone any good. Underage admins (on a website, lest we forget, with no age verification process) are not exactly the biggest problem we have right now. – iridescent 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, let's let it go. Just so you know, Malleus, I made this post before we discussed everything, so now it's all understood. Thanks, and sorry for the misunderstanding. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for repeatedly beating me. I really appreciate that, and I am awarding you this barnstar. Keep up the fantastic work. SchfiftyThree 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... although I have to warn you I'm not really an active vandal-fighter at all – you may be better off giving it to Persian Poet Gal. – iridescent 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On huggle today

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		During some anti-vandalism work today, I kept coming across vandalism that had just been reverted by you. Leonard(Bloom) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF is going on here? Is this National Barnstar Week? – iridescent 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish! Then maybe I would get one... /tear/. ("Stay humble, stay humble, stay humble" -My little mantra) Leonard^(Bloom) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

<-Only 63 to go for you, according to your edit count...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Me or Leonard? – iridescent 21:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Leonard have 65xxx edits? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

65xxx? I feel slighted. – iridescent 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't count huggle edits *ducks* Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Mr 27%... – iridescent 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 27%, but only one was Twinkled. I do like the AFD close script though. And trust me, you don't want me riteing ardicals. I'll stick to cleaning, and party hosting apparently on my blog...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't knock Twinkle too hard. It kind of sucks at what most people use it for, which is reverting-and-warning, but it's fantastic for deleting things & issuing block notices, and Friendly (even though 90% of it is ridiculous) is very handy for automatically adding assorted cleanup templates to articles. Even Huggle has its definite upsides (as I think I may have mentioned once or twice). – iridescent 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Picolo abilities‎

Just so you know, the IP you just reverted on this page you prodded is actually the creator. They've been abusing multiple IPs, and also an account, and have recently threatened to vandalize the feature article. I thought I'd give you a heads up. Thanks. Acalamari 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Deep joy. Had already spotted it was the same account (otherwise I wouldn't have restored the prod notice). As vandals go, this is possibly the most boring I've yet seen. – iridescent 21:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough. The out-of-process police can sue me. If it reappears I'll semiprotect the redlink - it's not like there will ever be a valid reason for it to exist. – iridescent 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call: if you hadn't done it, I would have deleted it myself. I was just using the page to uncover socks, and it seems they stopped appearing. I'm off to watch the featured article now. Thanks! Acalamari 21:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Useful tip:

1. Install Huggle
2. Uncheck the "move to next diff once reverted" box in preferences
3. Type the name of the current featured article into the nav box at the top

As long as your computer has IRC enabled, this will allow you to watch changes to the article in real-time. Just hit "R" to revert or "Q" to revert-and-warn. Whatever Huggle's (many) faults, this is something it's very useful for. – iridescent 21:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't use Huggle, nor do I have any intention to use it. I find regular admin rollback good enough for what I do, and as much as I dislike "don't need" rationales, I personally don't need Huggle (no insult to Gurch or those who do use it, mind you). I don't have IRC either, and as such, my article-watching is via watchlist or history-refreshing only. :D Thanks for the suggestion, though. Acalamari 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe my opinions of Huggle are a matter of record, but it does have its uses. – iridescent 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321

Believe it or not I dont have his talk page on my watchlist so when I do go and look in a moment it will be new to me. I checked his talkpage about 5 hours ago and everything was fine then. Ive been having a bad day on wikipedia, someone from the past that I don't like has returned. I will look at this mess now. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 23:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know who you're talking about and trust me, he's being very closely watched. – iridescent 23:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Once I get an re from R2, I will decide wheter to retire or not.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

XP, please be quiet for 2 minutes, Im trying to read 4 different threads and translate it into my mother tongue, please stop editing until I can assess the situation. OK. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replied. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 00:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As have I...--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK: this is really my last post on this mess

Xp, even if you're not going to listen to me, please listen to R2. Wikipedia is not an anarchy is a non-negotiable core policy of Wikipedia, which means that there's no way around it.

You do bring plenty of positives to Wikipedia, otherwise you'd have been blocked last time. However, once someone decides that the time it takes dealing with your disruption (and that's not just the admin time you've wasted; it's the time R2's wasted talking about this with you when he could have been working on Michael Jackson, the time Metros spends explaining things to you when he could be vandal-fighting, and so on) outweighs the good you bring to the project, they will block you.

Just take some time to read pages without trying to edit everything you see. As someone (I forget who) told you when you tried to edit the Huggle configuration code without asking anyone first, just because you can edit things here doesn't mean you should. Please follow Ryan's advice, do something else for a few days - or even just read Wikipedia (I still regularly find things I didn't know about Wikipedia all the time, and that's quite aside from the facts you find out by clicking "Random Article"), and let the whole thing cool down. Don't let one very immature (yes, I said it) user wreck your time here.

If you're only going to take one piece of advice from me, take this: read WP:SYSOP and discover just what an admin actually does before you decide you want to be one, or take part in RFAs. It doesn't give you any special status; Giano, who's probably the best writer here of all, isn't an admin and never will be; nor is Malleus; nor is R2; nor is Giggy; nor is Gurch. It doesn't mean people respect them any less, because Wikipedia is all about the articles. – iridescent 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shucks, the guy had so much potential as well. Well done for trying to knock some sense into him ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

He wont be back anytime soon from what he has told me, its a sad turn of events, but he's very happy out of wikipedia right now. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 00:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I hope he does come back. While he caused problems (as you both know) there's a difference between someone causing problems by being too keen, and someone causing problems by being wilfully disruptive (as the editor who goaded him into this is likely to find out sooner than he expects). – iridescent 00:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

...I completely agree, the kid had such a clearcut desire to help the project and it's a shame it's come to this. Hopefully, after a few days, he'll consider coming back ——RyanLupin • (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest my wiki related problems have gone beyond just Xp in recent days. To amuse myself I have created a "People who hate me" section on my userpage, I think its the only think keeping me going/remotely happy. I feel like im fighting a small army with a feather duster. Lol, I dont need a mop, I need a cannon. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 01:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, the kid had such a clearcut desire to help the project and it's a shame it's come to this. Hopefully, after a few days, he'll consider coming back ——RyanLupin • (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have 287 on mine. – iridescent 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you only have 154. The rest are socks. Risker (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah well... at least I have User:Seeker of Truths's head to hang on the wall... – iridescent 01:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I have more than you. ;-) giggy _(:O) 01:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Socks, heads, or enemies? (While you're here, is this really what passes for culture in Queensland?) – iridescent 01:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1 sock, 1 head, lots of enemies. :) (And while I loved The Big Pineapple, you haven't lived until you've been to The Big Stubby...) giggy _(:O) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the world knows that you currently have 85 enemies... (I'm very disappointed they never built The Big Dunny.) – iridescent 01:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have 85 because of what's now known as The Big Bailout. giggy _(:O) 01:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

←And to all four of you, this is the reason the RFA process is so harsh. If you're going to snap at someone for making comments in an RFA, you're certainly going to snap when your talkpage has magically grown thirteen times in size in a week! – iridescent 14:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Need your help my friend just like last time.....

to correct this issue once and for all.....thank you so much!

I remember how you helped me before last week, which I was very thankful for, so here is the small issue I found just now when I logged into my wikipedia account......or so I think so....as I am new to this great site I might just be reading it wrong and looking at an old pre-edited version. When I logged in and looked in my talk section I noticed a "request for speedy deletion" in there. I just sent this same message to user Ukexpat who also helped me format my page properly after you were the one who insisted that the entry about me was far from deletion material. It was you who stepped up and said the entry about me is far from a speedy deletion article so it would be locked in here on wikipedia which I was very thankful for.....as noted in the email I sent both of you. It would mean the world to me to have this issue corrected as it was last week by you. I also received your email (I think it was you or user Ukexpat) about adding additional materials....references etc. Just started doing that today for the first time, since I never paid any attention to this stuff until now...wish I did. Off the top of my head I appeared in the video, "Body of Work" that was shown on MSNBC about women in wrestling featuring April Hunter who I trained with. This video can be seen all over the internet and on youtube. I didn't have any speaking parts but I was shown close up doing pushups, walking around, drills, and being around the ring. You can view this close up photo of me from MSNBC on my myspace page in the pro wrestling album....the pic with the official MSNBC logo in the bottom of it. I don't know where one would place that information on my page. Others have told me I was in a documentary featuring Tony Atlas but I have to look for the first time when I get a free moment. I appreciate all of your help before and I know this matter will be corrected my friend. When I was pro wrestling I was known as Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake's boy and was touted by many that I would be going pro with XWF with Brutus. I was even contacted by a female in the XWF inside that I was on the roster under a different wrestling persona and she even told me my salary and wrestling TV schedule. Pretty well known in the business and far from deletion material since there is a lot more info that can be added in the future to this entry. I might have had a spelling error or two that I just picked up on from the email message I sent user Ukexpat.....sorry bout that. I'll try to brainstorm and think of some other videos etc. I look forward to the correction of this small issue. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule, as you did before my friend, to correct this issue once and for all....that meant the world to me! I'll start looking for additional material etc. to add to the entry.

Thnak You So Much Again Iridescent.....You Are A Great Friend! Jaderocker (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really the best person to ask as I know nothing at all about pro wrestling. The best people to ask would be WikiProject Professional wrestling; they'll not only know where to find appropriate sources, but will be much better placed than me to judge what is (and isn't) notable in wrestling. Be aware (I think I warned you about this before) that while writing about yourself isn't forbidden, it's discouraged, both because it's hard to maintain a neutral point of view about yourself, and because you're almost never well placed to judge what other people think is important about your life. Good luck with the article! – iridescent 13:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks............

Thanks Iridescent. I can assume it is safe to say that my entry is now safe on wikipedia.....right? Especially since it was already professionally re-formatted correctly and approved by a Wikipedia editor on the site. I'll just try over time to find more articles and videos I was in to use as references. Thanks So Much!

Jaderocker (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but like I say, I don't know pro wrestling; some sports have their own specific guidelines on what gets included. (For the benefit of anyone else reading this who does know wrestling/bodybuilding and can advise Jaderocker, the article in question is John Quinlan). – iridescent 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your defending of the mainspace from deletionist hordes who "couldn't find their arse with an atlas" ;-) Serviam (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree entirely with the sentiment; IMO Wikipedia's stubs are its greatest strength – you can see my thoughts on the matter here – although I've done my share of deleting as well. Did anything in particular prompt this? – iridescent 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, Iri, Don't eat it all at once!

BG7even has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for being a great friend! BG7even 20:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... now go write some articles! – iridescent 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I'm going to work on Blackpool Tramway first - I reckon I can get some DYK's from splitting it as well, and of course getting it to GA/FA! I'm waiting for Malleus's ideas on the talk page. BG7even 20:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Another barnstar for iridiescent...

...gotcha? ;-) giggy _(:O) 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

just a note

Move along now, nothing to see here

I'm leaving wikipedia because of you and your age racist freinds. You were not nice to me and when I told my mom said there are not nice people. You are one and I hope you banned forever soon. Jerk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freind of young (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Either you're Gears, in which case your last edit was four minutes ago, or you're a clumsy SPA of someone else trying to trick me into blocking him for socking. Either way, go troll someone else. – iridescent 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I got a message too, I dont think its Gear. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC) No, especially as Gear was editing at exactly the same time. Clearly someone trying to impersonate Gear to get him in trouble (no-one else has used the phrase "ageracism" that I can recall, and that's an odd quirk); indefblocked. Now it will be interesting to see who gets caught in the autoblock; if any of the participants in that discussion suddenly vanish, you'll know why. – iridescent 19:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Cheers, I still cant decide if the mis-spelling of Friend was deliberate lol. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I'd hazard a very strong guess that I know who it is, but AGF and all that. Nobody you know AFAIK. – iridescent 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Not me, I can still post. Look! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Hmm, I think he/she was trying to impersonate someone other than gear, the message sent to me would suggest so anyway. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, but that user would have contacted you via email. As I say I have a strong idea who it is; I'd suggest dropping the subject per WP:DENY. – iridescent 20:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Agree, I would rather not find out. I have work to get back to, regards. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not commit said acts of vandalism and trolling said above. I have no idea who did this and received an email from R2 asking if I had done it. I did not and replied by email as such. (No, I am not back but my name shall not be tarnished further. Lol, where did this spa come from?;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 04:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not you, Xp (hence the "Nobody you know AFAIK" to R2 above). Don't worry about it. – iridescent 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Um....AFAIK?;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 21:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind...looked it up at Wiktionary. "As far as I know". Thanks Iri!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 21:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Good afternoon. :-) Since I've changed my sig to something more readable and have answered more questions than were there when you !voted, would you like to evaluate me again and change to one of the other categories? (I know which one I'd prefer, but you might see something in my answers that worries you...) Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly; will have a look. – iridescent 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate being wrong

I would like to formally apologize for calling you bitter and hormonal. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all. Sorry for being somewhat less than AGF with you three. – iridescent 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize as well....:(--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 21:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, is there a way to remove the "move" tab in your preferences or something. I often hit the move tab instead of the history tab and it annoys me. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 01:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But how would you move pages when you need to then? I find clicking the back button in your browser works best. :-) —Giggy 09:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He he, that is true, however this might shock you. After 19,000 edits I have never moved a page and I never intend to. Thus the button is only a frustration to me. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 10:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe... if you want me to (consider yourself warned, though!) I could try and javascript something up. But consider yourself warned; if you block Jimbo, or (God forbid!) accidentally retire, it's your fault. :-) (seriously, I can try something if you're interested). —Giggy 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I definately want to remove it, if it doesn't breach any policy I say go for it. Would it be something you can turn off and on in your preferences or would it be a lot more complicated to reverse it (not that I'm majorly bothered)? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 10:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, try adding User:Giggy/move.js to User:Realist2/monobook.js by adding importScript('User:Giggy/move.js');. No promises that it'll work though. If it doesn't, the best person to ask is Gracenotes if he's around. —Giggy 10:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing happened/changed. :-( — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you bypass your browser cache? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(out) I tried, following all the instructions available, nothing happened though. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 13:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It worked fine for me. Lets move this conversation to your talk page so we don't annoy Iridescent. I'll copy/paste what we have here, and you can reply on your talk page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Roll Back

Dude, have you notced I just got it! Im stll learnng, and most of my undos dont use rollback. And most of roll backs are rghtly used. This is wrong dude.Gears Of War 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also at the 5th lnk, I rghtly used it. This isnt fair. Come on! have heled alot with Roll Back, gve me another chance. I'm still learning how to use it!Gears Of War 19:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this conversation at the time I removed your rollback rights and have expressly told Malinaccier that if he's willing to re-grant it, to go right ahead. But I have to say, "most of my undos dont use rollback. And most of roll backs are rghtly used. This is wrong dude" is an awful argument if you want to get your rights back. In case you missed the warning that "rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism, obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content and smart-aleck editorial comments" – which I'm sure you didn't – this is clearly misuse of rollback. One blatant misuse of rollback like this could be a mistake but would still be legitimate grounds for raising concerns; I can't see any argument you can raise to defend three blatant misuses in a row. I don't mean to sound bitchy, but the main article space of the eighth most visited website in the world is not your personal tool-testing ground. If you want to test buttons, test them in your user space.

If by "the 5th link" you mean this, then no, you didn't. If you're not sure how a word is spelt, look it up. – iridescent 19:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

f you look through my contribs you would see all my good roll backs.Gears Of War 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 5

(sigh). OK, but you're not going to like it. These are all your mainspace edits from the point at which you were granted rollback to the point I removed it. As well as the three misuses of rollback I mentioned before, there's also this one; of a total of 10 mainspace rollbacks, that makes a 40% error-rate (36.4% if you include your one talkspace rollback). – iridescent 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, forget Roll Back for right now, why are you so mad at me?Gears Of War 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is "mad" at you, nobody is stalking you. When you start posting across some of the highest-profile pages on Wikipedia and arguing with some of the highest-profile editors (including, lest we forget, dramamongering on User talk:Jimbo Wales), you have to expect other editors to start looking at your history. – iridescent 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gears of War, those three diffs are misuses in rollback, and they were in a row. This was a wrong revert because it was actually helping the article, this was not vandalism because the IP was fixing a typo, and then you used rollback to revert it to the wrong misspelled version, and this was not vandalism because the IP was just adding an interwiki, which is again, helping the article. I suggest you read over a few of our policies, more specifically WP:VANDALISM and WP:ROLLBACK to make sure you know how to use rollback properly and to know what vandalism is and what it is not. Administrators would be happy to re-grant rollback when you've shown you are ready by performing accurate reverts without rollback. Sorry for the butting in Iridescent. -- RyRy (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2001 a space oddysey

the subject subheading was "Sequels and offshoots" this is a OFFSHOOT the movie is directly referenced there. Fair to post the reference...... that is what an offshoot is thanks 69.125.90.71 (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this adds anything to the article, and even more strongly disagree that a film that uses the same background music and has a similar theme qualifies as a "sequel and offshoot". To me, that's like saying Simpson and Delilah is a "sequel and offshoot" to Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? due to the former including a parody of the "keys to the executive washroom" sequence. But it's certainly not something I'll edit-war over (although, this is a heavily watched page and I've no doubt someone else will remove it). – iridescent 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Question for you

I think when I went with "rvv" as an edit summary, I considered it simple blanking. Isn't that considered vandalism? I'm not at all claiming I was right, I'm just trying to learn more. S. Dean Jameson 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. Removing inappropriate material from Wikipedia is in many ways more important than adding new content. We already have 6,914,926 articles on Wikipedia; we also have a (deserved) reputation for inaccuracy, an obsession with trivia at the expense of scholarship, and the use of highly dubious sources. Blanking an entire page is (usually) vandalism, but removing 1.7kb of content from a 15kb page, as in this case, is editing, not vandalism. It's not unusual for a perfectly valid edit to remove 90% of the content of a page.

The best definition of "vandalism" in the context of Wikipedia is, I think, the criteria for when it's acceptable to use rollback – "edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject". Because we try to assume good faith here, it's generally wise to consider anything that doesn't fall under that description as a good-faith edit.

Hope that helps. If you've any questions, feel free to ask me (or anyone else). – iridescent 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'm still learning about the ins and outs of how WP works. S. Dean Jameson 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. If anyone ever tells you they understand all of Wikipedia's ever-increasing arcane (and sometimes contradictory) policies, they're lying. The only ones you need to understand are these; every other policy is just someone's interpretation of these five policies, seen through the filter of seven years of arguments. – iridescent 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

beckham

I was trying to write it in a rush and add sources before I went out to an actual Harvester.:) It didn't sound very convincing I suppose.:) I'll put that it's suspect or something. I was just annoyed that people from another country perhaps, just because thy hadn't heard of this well-known chain and hadn't bothered googling, were claiming it wasn't notable. Sticky Parkin 22:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "a suspect source" – it's a clear joke from a "sporting comedy" column in the Telegraph. Or do you really think Man U were planning on signing Ernie Wise?

Doesn't distract from the fact that anyone who thinks Harvester is "non-notable" needs a good slap - I think there are about 200 of them now all the Brewers Fayres have been rebranded – but I guarantee Beckham wasn't "offered ownership of the chain". (The reason Harvester was singled out for the joke is that Becks took Posh to Harvester for their first date and got stick for it ever since.) – iridescent 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever:) It's just that I wrote it in a rush so I didn't really spot thhe context, sorry. Do you like the current version? Might as well include sources and info from papers rather thhan remove them. But it's no big deal, I don't particularly mind either way, I just happened to land on the article because I was going to the restaurant for the night lol. It's not like I'm a Hrvester cultist or anything.:) Although the food was nice :)Sticky Parkin 23:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as rude. Didn't mean to be; just that one of my pet hates (as per the rant in the post above) is the amount of inaccuracy that finds its way onto Wikipedia, then gets quoted worldwide as fact on "it must be true, it's on the Eighth Most Popular Website In The World™" grounds, and (because of Wikipedia's inflated Google rank), an article with a heavily-searched word like "Beckham" would spread like wildfire, and the net result would be another entry on Snopes and Kohs & Awbrey sneering at you for a week. Because Wikipedia is, for better or worse, so powerful at the moment, I think far more attention needs to be paid to accuracies, especially BLP violations (which this was). No problem at all with the current version (although don't be too surprised if someone else takes it out as "irrelevant"). – iridescent 00:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

I apologise if it seemed like I was making an attack on said user. I didn't mean it in a vicious way. However, regardless of my intentions, I realise how it looks. It just annoyed me that (in my opinion) a decent article, which had perfect integrity, was removed because it was too releated to another article. This, to me, seemed stupid. I will learn to control my emotions on wikipedia from now on, you have my word. Billynewman —Preceding comment was added at 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Billy, the problem is that (as I learned) per WP:COATRACK, articles can't be created simply as a repository for song lyrics, as the one you kept recreating was. S. Dean Jameson 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving talk

I'm looking to be able to archive my talk page at some point. I've noticed that some are done automatically. I'd like mine to be archived monthly. Could you help me figure out how I can go about doing this? S. Dean Jameson 01:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Add this to the very top of your talkpage:

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|algo = old(28d)

|archive = User talk:S. Dean Jameson/Archive %(counter)d

|counter = 1

|maxarchivesize = 250K

}}

This will archive any threads older than 28 days to User talk:S. Dean Jameson/Archive 1 until that archive reaches 250kb in size, at which point they'll start being archived to User talk:S. Dean Jameson/Archive 2 etc. You can read full instructions for the archiving bot here. – iridescent 01:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I added it to my page. Thanks for all your help! S. Dean Jameson 01:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. If a thread doesn't contain any timestamps (the "date and time" that usually follows a signature), it won't be archived; also, don't be surprised if it's sometimes a couple of days late archiving. The bot runs through the user list A-Z each day, and sometimes doesn't complete the list in one go. – iridescent 02:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing showed up at the top of my page. Will that not start showing up until something is actually archived? (Sorry for all the questions.) S. Dean Jameson 02:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing should show at the top of the page; it's an invisible process, so you can only see it in the edit window. (this talkpage is archived in the same way, and likewise nothing shows). Add {{archivebox|auto=yes}} to the top of your talkpage (after the code you already added) and it will add a box of links to the archives (it will be empty until the archives actually exist, so there's no real point in adding the box until the first lot of posts have been archived). If you want a customised box, you'll need to find one you like the look of on someone's talkpage and cut-and-paste the code. The autoarchive box is easier to maintain, as any other kind you need to manually create a link each time a new archive is created. Hope that helps... – iridescent 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for being so helpful. S. Dean Jameson 02:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your kind words...

Hey Iri,

Thanks for your kind words. The WB-Enf doesnt seem to work, even though I have now purged my cache countless times. I have given up on it.halfway through editing this it decided to work. Lolz.

My main reasons for leaving was due to the comment on my User page. I find this pretty unacceptable. I will be bringing it up further, but with the help from more experienced editors. As for the whole RfA/MfD thing, I found it embarrassing due to the whole Shanner191 issue.

I am going to return, but i doubt I will ever run for adminship now as I am sure many editors will look back on this and oppose because of it. This is in addition to the IRC comments.

Thankyou, yet again, for all the support you have ever given me at Wikipedia. I am most grateful. Could you possibly do me a favour, and either comment on my Editor Review, or my Blackpool tramway Peer review. Or both, if you can. Can you also unenforce my WB? I have some apologies to make...

BG7even 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

NVM i found a way around it. Thanks anyhoo. BG7even 17:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the Shanner business won't be taken into account, unless people think you're trying to hide it. Yes, socking was silly, but you owned up to it right away, and it happens all the time; the fact that you owned up will count in your favour, not against you. As long as you mention it yourself when you accept an RFA, and don't look like you're trying to cover it up, people won't hold it against you.

An RFA from you now would probably fail at this stage for the reasons people opposed in your first RFA (lack of experience in policy discussions; a high talk/article contribution ratio; lack of experience in the areas you said you wanted to work in). In addition, at this stage it would fail through a perceived maturity issue (basically, a worry that you'd block someone you didn't like). I don't know if you've been watching RFA lately, but in the last couple of days there's been a fairly heated debate about maturity, so it's more in focus than usual.

I'd suggest you, first of all, read the same advice I gave XP a couple of threads up; read WP:SYSOP and discover just what an admin actually does before you decide you want to be one, or take part in RFAs. It doesn't give you any special status; Giano, who's probably the best writer here of all, isn't an admin and never will be; nor is Malleus Fatuorum; nor is Giggy; nor is Gurch. It doesn't mean people respect them any less, because Wikipedia is all about the articles and nothing else.

Assuming you're planning to stay, then stay away from the controversial areas for a while. Concentrate on getting WP:TUK back up to speed and writing articles. From experience, a fairly easy way to do good article work is expanding station articles, some of which are in a wretchedly bad state; either get hold of a Middleton Press book (there's one for almost every line) or just rely on Google, and edits like this are fairly easy to do and give you a solid background of article work that you can then point to. Go through Railway stations in Derbyshire, Disused railway stations in Derbyshire and Tram transport in the United Kingdom and pick out a few that look like they need expanding (Hull Street Tramways and Hathersage railway station are jumping out at me right now). Once you've done that, don't be afraid to ask other editors what they think – this is a collaborative work – as if you've written something yourself, it's sometimes hard to see the problems in it. If you're writing about anything in or near Manchester, I'd strongly advise asking Malleus to take a look at it when you've finished, as he knows everything there is to know about both Manchester and Wikipedia. (Don't be offended if he points out mistakes or rewrites what you've said, though!)

There are no doubt plenty of other people watching this, some of whom may also chip in with advice (cue Giggy). If they do and you don't agree with it, feel free to explain why you don't agree, but don't get into full-blown arguments. You're not under any obligation to take any advice (I regularly ignore large chunks of the Manual of Style, for instance), but anyone advising you is generally trying to help, even if they seem annoying.

Good luck, and welcome back! – iridescent 18:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Blackpool tramway Peer review (sorry, only just noticed that), I'd very very very strongly suggest asking Malleus to have a read of it. There's enough material there to get it to FA, let alone GA status, but it needs a lot of cleaning up. In particular, there are a lot of books referenced, but none of them are actually cited in the article; see Anglesey Central Railway or Hellingly Hospital Railway for the two different possible ways (split-section and single-section) to cite books in this sort of article. While it shouldn't matter at GA (depending on which reviewer you get), at FA level every fact has to be cited to a page number in a book, so people can check you haven't made them up. (Yes, they do check.) – iridescent 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If I may just add to that, many of wikipedia's finest are not administrators, and some of them are never likely to be. I think iridescent is quite right in advising you to wait, given the present climate at RfA. Spend some time thinking about why you want to be an administator, and if in the future you decide that it's still something you'd like to do, so long as you're open and honest and deal with any questions arising calmly I wouldn't have thought you'd have any problems a little while down the line. But for goodness sake don't give up wikipedia just because you think you may have damaged your chances at RfA. There are far more important things than that; in fact I'm hard-pressed to think of anything less important. Go write some articles, that's what we're here for. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. If I gave up wikipedia every time I damaged my chances at RfA I'd be resigning thre or four times a day. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words. I will reply in more depth presently... it's just youre answers are so long! With so much great help! I'll be back shortly... BG7even 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the reference to the Blackpool tramway article. GA has got a lot tougher about referencing over recent months, so that would be a problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, which are you refferring to? BTW, i'm working on it at User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox5. Also, i think the fleetlist and possibly depots should be split? Ideas? BG7even 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just making a general comment in response to the point that iridescent raised about there being lots of books referenced, but none cited in the article. The pendulum is definitely swinging towards printed sources for both GA and FA. So far as the fleet and depot lists are concerned, I definitely think they need to be restructured. The comment was made at the peer review that they overbalance the TOC. But as this is iridescent's talk page, and not Blackpool tramway's, we probably ought to continue the discussion there. I'll try and make a suggestion there shortly (in the next hour or so) as to what I'd do if I were you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. My very long reply will wait until tomorrow now (sorry!), I am busy attempting to fix my own wiki, and also to do some BT stuff! BG7even 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're doing OK with the rewrite; when you're done, let me know and I'll have a look. Go with Malleus's opinions ahead of mine, though, as he almost certainly knows more than me about a) FAC, b) Blackpool and c) tramways. – iridescent 23:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Disused railway stations in the Tees Valley

Hi. I see that some time ago you (I think!) set up a category called that, and added Pinchinthorpe, Hutton Gate and Guisborough stations. I am really, really confused by their presence there. I know there's this thing they are calling Tees Valley but I am finding it incredibly hard to make the leap from that to in effect endorsing the statement "Guisborough is in the Tees Valley", because it just isn't. I wonder if you see what I mean and if any workaround presents itself? Thanks and best wishes Nomorenonotnever (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Disused railway stations in..." categories were deliberately set up to mirror the sub-categories of Railway stations in England, which in turn are derived from the ONS English sub-regions, so Tees Valley includes everything whose local authority is Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland, and Stockton-On-Tees. Because Guisborough is (just) officially inside the boundaries of Redcar (it stopped officially being part of North Yorkshire in 1974), it goes into "Tees Valley" rather than "North Yorkshire", even though everyone there still thinks of themselves as Yorkshire. I agree it looks silly if you know the area and are well aware that it's part of Yorkshire — there are these kinds of problems everywhere that the official boundaries don't follow what people think of themselves as — but going by the official boundaries is the only practical way to do it, otherwise we get endless "Romford should be listed in Essex instead of London", "Pontypridd is in Glamorgan not Rhondda" etc editwars. – iridescent 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. And bother. And thanks. And argh! I see your point exactly, and I see why it's unavoidable. It's still giving me a red mist before the eyes and an attack of Retired Colonel-style harrumphing, because these silly place-name footlings seem to make one say "Guisborough is in the Tees Valley" (GAH!!) when in fact what one wants to say is more like "Well yes if you insist, Guisborough is in some odd conglomerate thingy called Tees Valley, but if it is in the Tees Valley then I am the Mayor of Maastricht" or words to that effect. So, I shall shut up now, and go and look for a nice drink, but it did, as you have kindly observed, have a disconcerting effect on me. Oh well, and ho hum. Cheers. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC) PS I used to walk to school over the level crossing at Hutton Gate station both before and after the withdrawal of service. I remember travelling into Middlesbrough by train from there too. Eeee them were t'days (takes out pipe, border collie, cap, cardie etc) :)

If it's any consolation, there are even worse problems in the south. (You try explaining that whatever your map might say, Southampton and Oxfordshire are in South East England.) Just be glad we no longer have Humberside with us; I think 50% of edits would end up being either additions or reversions of "Yorkshire" and "Lincolnshire". – iridescent 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Arf! Marvellous stuff! I am duly consoled. Cheers Nomorenonotnever (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "Disused railway stations in the sub-region of Tees Valley in North East England. All stations are within the ceremonial counties of either County Durham or North Yorkshire." explanation to the category. Hopefully that will make it clear(ish) that they're in the administrative area called "Tees Valley" despite not all necessarily all being in the valley. Remind me what was so bad with "Cleveland"? – iridescent 15:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, that's very decent of you, thanks. Oh, nothing is so bad about Cleveland per se. Being brought up in Guisborough (eee etc, please see above) I was perfectly clear about the fact that I lived in the North Riding of Yorkshire BUT that our bit of it was called Cleveland just as a historic and regional name, thank you Vikings or whoever. So when Guisborough ended up in something called Cleveland as a county or countylet or whatever it didn't really bug me too badly at all - it seemed slightly odd but OK and historically defensible. It's just this Tees Valley nomenclature that's trashing my blood pressure, because - like the other examples you cite - it seems fairly bonkers. Specifically, if you say "Tees Valley" then I guess the image that flashes up for me is Barnard Castle or High Force or something, and even though I know this whole question is somewhat fraught and undoubtedly difficult for administrators to get right, I do have the screaming abdabs over it seeming to claim to include Guisborough because it really does make me want to grip someone by the throat and say right smartarse, here we are in the middle of Guis, pray do show me (a) the Tees and (b) its valley! But hey, I should probably get out more - and I do hate it when other people have attacks of PNF (Place Name Fanaticism) so I think I'd better learn to cope a bit! Thanks again, it has been all most interesting and highly civilized of you to take the time and trouble. Cheers Nomorenonotnever (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My personal bugbear on this topic is North Ockendon. Why what is clearly an isolated farming village is a part of "Greater London" is beyond me. – iridescent 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! that's ... unusual ... if it was much further east it would be in Southend! :) Nomorenonotnever (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Or if you really want to start an argument, ask someone to explain how Saddleworth is simultaneously in Yorkshire and Manchester since the 1972 LGA. Provides hours of fun. – iridescent 23:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Cub

Wow. The Buffalo Zoo. A tiger from my home town zoo. Thanks--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not as impressive as the big roaring ones, but it's one of my favorite Commons pictures. – iridescent 03:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)