User talk:Iridescent/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Your comment on RFA talk page re FA quality

I'd like to invite you to expand your point why FA reduces quality of articles, particularly on images, per that RFA talk page comment. I'm not sure if I should be horrified, intrigued, bored, amorous, regretful, or disheveled. Too many emotions to choose from. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with disheveled. It may not be the best choice, but at least it's interesting. Risker (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've had more time, perhaps I should be titillated. No, wait. Consumed with ennui. Might it have been the content of Iridescent's post or simply a hormonal imbalance prompting this exercise in vocabulary? --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(And this is how I can tell you're not a regular reader of either my or Giano's talkpage, since this is a subject on which we can both go on at great length…)

The FA process does, at the moment, pay very strict adherence to MOS compliance, in my opinion at the expense of usability. When it comes to images, the MOS states that image widths should not be forced, and users allowed to set the widths in their preferences. Despite the fact that WP:MOSIMAGE does contain a list of exemptions where image widths can be forced, in practice the Defenders Of The Wiki will always argue about any attempt to invoke these exceptions.

On many articles, where the images are just there to provide "background colour" to the article, this policy works fine. However, on articles like Giano's architectural articles in which images have to be large to make specific architectural details visible and where cropping to the detail would lose the context of the building, or on geographical and transportation articles like mine, where detailed maps and annotated photographs are essential to understanding the topic, this policy breaks down. As I'm always saying in many different contexts, WP:USEFUL is not an argument to avoid; on the contrary, it's our core purpose and in my opinion, "go with what is most useful" trumps every policy (even neutrality and verifiability are just corollaries of "what is most useful?").

At 180px, this just looks like a bunch of red squiggles; it contains too much detail to simply resize the captions, but enlarging the image will just make an MOS-defender resize it back down again

The most glaring example among things I've written is Broadwater Farm – despite the fact that the Wikipedia article is probably the definitive online resource on the subject (chunks of it regularly turn up in everything from charity fundraising guides to police training manuals; while Google throws up a lot of hits, virtually all are on the 1984 riot and not on the area in general) the article failed at GA, and would certainly fail at FA, because of the forced image widths. It contains two panoramic views which would look like meaningless strips of ribbon if displayed at 180px width; in addition, one of them is annotated to label the individual buildings in the complex using absolute-positioned text, which is an absolute no-no as far as the MOS-warriors are concerned, despite the fact that a "Buildings from left to right are…" caption would be less useful and ridiculously long. The article also contains a map of the complex which – despite being necessary to the understanding of the article (as the troubled history of the area is due in large part to the "wall of buildings" cutting the central area off from the police and fire services), just looks like meaningless squiggles at an MOS-compliant 180px width (see right). I appreciate the argument that anyone who needs to see the image at larger resolution can click on it to zoom it out, but that's a false argument – the general public (which is who, at the end of the day, we're supposed to be writing for) are not going to be aware of the workings of MediaWiki, and it would not occur to them to click on the image to zoom – plus, the "click to zoom" is meaningless when the article is printed.

At 180px, the captions become unreadable – but making the captions larger without resizing the image will make them overly dominate the image

This isn't just me being hypothetical; if you look at the history of the article you can see assorted well-meaning MOS compliance vigilantes resizing the images down to 180px, while the talkpage contains a lengthy diatribe from a GA reviewer lecturing me on image compliance. There are plenty of other examples of this process in action; from my articles alone, for instance, Hellingly Hospital Railway and Railway stations in Cromer contain diagrams which are virtually unreadable at 180px resolution but which I took down to that size in the knowledge that if I didn't the Reviewers would do it for me.

There are plenty of other parts of the FA style-over-usefulness process that irk me – "footnotes must come after punctuation" is one that particularly irritates me, since the relevant part of the MOS says nothing of the sort, and going by what the Chicago Manual of Style says is meaningless in the context of an article in British/Australian/Canadian etc English, on a British/Australian/Canadian etc topic – but you asked specifically about images…

While a lot of the regulars at FAC/GAN are genuinely helpful, they do – along with the other main "policy gone out of control" area, RFA – attract far more than their fair share of "per a strict reading of policy…" editwarriors who seem to sometimes lose sight of the fact that what Wikipedia is all about isn't a Camazotz-style slavish compliance to arbitrary rules. In some ways, I think a lot of these problems stem from a basic mistake on Jimbo and Larry's part when they used the word "encyclopedia". This is a holdover from Nupedia days, and while it may have been what they were aiming for it is not what today's Wikipedia really is. An encyclopedia is a collection of articles in a standardised format written in a similar style, with a low enough number of articles that a central style can be enforced (Larry's original FAQ talks about one day reaching 100,000 articles) whereas in practice todays Wikipedia (WP:NOT notwithstanding), containing 2,663,761 articles, is actually a de facto web host of loosely interlinked pages, with a somewhat heavier than usual level of moderation; however, many of our core process are still atavistic throwbacks to that idealised vision of Larry's in which all articles would be written to the same level and where there was a basic presumption that most contributors would be well-educated and well-qualified (it's only a few months since Jimbo said "admins should be college students or graduates"). In practice, we do have a lot of people here who don't understand the nuances and power of IAR, and have a "rules were made to always be followed" mentality that was never envisaged when our core policies were drawn up.

Thus endeth the rant… – iridescent 15:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And quite a rant it was. Once more, I have exhibited my provincialism by admitting just today I put your page on watch. My tiny little controlled world is so pleasant at times. I understand that societies such as Wikipedia, and even subcultures within them such as FAC, go through phases where some users are active, making several months or years the "Giano era" as such. I've only been somewhat active in FAC in the past year, and really, really active since April or May of '08, so some of what you're referring to I've missed. Consistency certainly is an issue in citation and images, and I find the inconsistency in how to read, for example WP:NFCC #8 troublesome. In light of these two of my experiences, I wonder if your and Giano's experiences in FAC or article assessment of GA or higher is attributable to an era or a few hard-line interpreters of image size issues. I've got a couple FAs through with varying image sizes such as Draining and development of the Everglades with this image in particular File:Florida Topo map with canals and designated Everglades areas.jpg larger than others. Though I do recall being told to make the rest of some kind of uniform size. I did, but protested with that one. However, I was not told to change the size of any images in Stonewall riots, and two are maps or building outlines dependent on size and text within. I even have a whopper wide image in Geography and ecology of the Everglades.

I have, somewhat foolishly I suppose, begun to take on image reviews in FACs. I guess this was my primary concern in asking for your clarification. There is, at present, no one else doing image reviews, and my experience is limited to my own trial and error, and the way I interpret image guidelines. And Elcobbola trying to explain things to me. At any rate, my point is that I don't think your issues are endemic of FAC, at least at the moment. You may certainly disagree, but my view is based on my experiences. --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that so much depends on one person, at both FA and (especially) GA level. All it takes is one strict-compliance Defender Of The Wiki to latch onto the process to derail an article's candidacy at either, and unfortunately these areas attract said editors. While I generally agree with Giano's FA essay, I think he understates the chilling effect just one person like this can have. (The exact same thing happens with the "oppose, doesn't have 500 CSD-taggings" serial-opposers at RFA. I suspect you remember those.) – iridescent 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Break 1: On nitpicking, general fixes and assessment

A slightly different take on it. Suppose I am a solid writer. I have a good article that reads well and looks good. I want to get it to FA. When I get to FA I discover that I have to redo all of the citations, add mdash, and a bunch of other trivial work. This might take me 40+ hours of work to get it to FA quality, particularly to meet the MOS expectations that most people never notice and don't really care about. Plus, there will be a few other people who spend 10+ hours doing clean up on their own. That's 50+ hours crossing t's and dotting i's. During that same time period I could have taken 2 or 3 other articles and raised the quality on them to a level that looks good. It then has a demoralizing effect. *I* don't plan to ever push an article to FA again. It isn't worth my time/energy---I'm not going to jump through those hoops. Some people have a gift for writing and a knack for this kind of perfectionism, most don't. Most people don't bother with FA's because the bar has been set so high that most won't try a second time. Thus, they stop when the article reaches GA. GA is good, but in all honesty, not good enough. Thus, because the bar is so high at FA, the project is hurt.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you (Balloonman) and I are saying the same thing in different ways. A1 road* is just as useful (or useless) an article to the general reader whether or not it has a little star in the corner, and there are more useful things I could be doing with my life than listening to variations of "zOMG you put spaces around an em-dash!" for hours on end. And I agree that the FA bar has been raised insanely high insanely quickly; it's only four years since these were considered to be our best articles (all FAs in 2004). – iridescent 15:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

*Deliberately chosen as an example, as it epitomises the "boring topic which Britannica wouldn't touch with a bargepole" field where Wikipedia excels.

I think this is where experience is helpful. I've pushed enough articles to FA (and reviewed enough) that I know the formatting intricacies, and as I write I include all of that. It doesn't take more than a second to type an mdash instead of a hyphen, and when I'm done with writing the article it doesn't need any more additional time to fix the formatting. New to FAC users generally don't know these little tricks, though, and no one has figured out a good way to help train them. I would happily support any effort to have the MOS trimmed down to a more reasonable size so we could eliminate some of the sillier rules (no date autoformatting is going to save me a lot of typing time :)). Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a salient point, Balloonman. I spent 4 hours fixing all the citations in my first FA to ensure its promotion, and was confounded by constant issues of what could be considered excessive pickiness with punctuation problems. However, I consider my entire journey starting on Wikipedia with my first edit a transformation of thought. What I thought was possible within myself is vastly different from what I do today. That is possible because of what has been asked of me from excessive pickiness. Essentially, I think that FA may be the fork in the road for many editors. I withdrew my first FA for To Kill a Mockingbird, angry, stubborn, and quite overwrought because I had already done a ton of work for it, and really - the expectations for literature articles were unclear. That's not very fair, is it? However, the ensuing addition of material and tinkering to the article makes it, in my view, an extraordinary summary of material on a very important book. I might even go so far to say it could be ranked among the most comprehensive addresses on the novel available anywhere, and it's free to boot. When I started on Wikipedia, I had no idea I would call people, places, and institutions to track down a photo, a citation, or permission to post an image. I had no idea I would ever speak to Daniel Nicoletta or Harvey Milk's nephew, or discuss issues in the articles I write with professors and experts in the field. Editors have a choice when met by this fork in the road at FA. I took both. I got angry and sullen, felt sorry for myself, then I got angrier that I might be defeated, and I got really good. My expectations changed, and I think that's possible of all editors. I wonder sometimes if expectations that this is only a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit hinders editors and admins. It could be the best source of excellent information anywhere, and it's written by the faceless masses of English-speaking people, rewarded by nothing more than their own curiosity and an occasional "attaboy". Individual editors have a choice to be challenged by FAC, to challenge it back, or choose to work on something else. When I wrote the four satellite articles about the Everglades, from scratch in a sandbox, I incorporated my previous mistakes into the writing style, emdashes and and all. Even User:Maralia was a bit adrift on not having to correct my citation foibles. --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What I really wish is that we had a better defined and recognized process for A class articles. GA is really the opinion of one reviewer and the expectations there vary vastly. A class should be the next level up, but with few exceptions (such as Milhist) there is no formalized mechanism for granting A class articles. I think a lot of people would be motivated to get A class articles if we could figure out a means to do so. Actually, this raises an interesting idea... why don't we have FAC confer A class to articles that are almost there? Keep FA with it's ridiculously high expectations, which preserves FA for our truly outstanding articles, but start emphasizing the A class level. This would have a multi fold effect. First, it would get people motivated to work beyond the GA quality. Second, it would increase the prestige of the A class article. Third, it would get people exposed to the expectations at FAC. Fourth, people would be able to go to FAC and walk away with an A class article with guidance on the things that need to be done for FA. This would in turn, affect how they right in the future because more people would have positive experiences at FAC and more people would be exposed to the expectations.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Break-in-a-break: On A-class articles, and assessment in general

I never really understood A-class or how it works. Quite aside from anything else, the C-B-GA-A progression makes no sense to me; every bit of my intuition screams out that the "lettered" steps on the pyramid should be below the "named" steps – every other hierarchy has the named set above the numbered set, from a deck of playing cards, to the Football League, to the Tarot. Plus, GA comes with the little green blobs and an application-and-validation process; you never see "this user has 5 A-class articles" on a userpage. – iridescent 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

With VERY few exceptions, A class doesn't exist in any meaningful manner. The only place where it has any weight (IMHO) is MILHIST. At MilHist it truly is the next step up from GA, but not quite FA. At MILHIST, you will nominate an article for A Class, and people will review it (unfortunately, it is insular and the people who will read it are all interested in MilHist.) In order to pass, it has to get 3 people to support it as A class. If FAC were to start awarding that class, when they deemed an article worthy, I think it would encourage people to show up there and learn the real expectations.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't have enough reviewers for FAs, and you want us to pass A-class too? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not so crazy an idea; if one thinks of A class as "almost FA", then it would inevitably be the same people reviewing both, wherever the discussion took place. Were I designing Wikipedia from scratch, I'd have a single WP:Assessed content dishing out FA/A/GA, and abolish the meaningless B/C/Start distinction. Aside from anything else, it might end the willy-waving between GA and FA which has gone on as long as I've been here. – iridescent 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As a fan of both FA and GA I'd welcome anything that put an end to the unproductive willy waving between the two, or at least reduced it to little more than friendly rivalry. I've admittedly been guilty of it myself in the past, or at least guilty of being a little over-tetchy in the face of criticisms of GA, but I still don't think unifying the two is the way to go. GA and FA have different aspirations and goals, each in their own way worthy, just different. I'd agree about abolishing the largely meaningless and arbitrary distinctions between B/C/Start though. In particular I think that whoever's bright idea the new C class was must have under the influence of narcotic substances when (s)he thought that was a good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

After months of discussion over short articles, context, notability, et al, I'm talked out on process reform; someone should revive Mike Christie's Content Review Workshop (link escapes me at the moment) and hash away over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to name-and-shame everyone who thought C-class was a necessary change, here's your rogue's gallery. My personal opinion is that the assessment scale should be FA/GA/everything else, and that the whole assessment-scale thing was based on a need to assess articles for the CD release, which with the growth of the net is about as useful as feet on a fish. But what do I know? (FT2's "list of interests" on the assessment project page did raise a snigger in light of recent events, though.) – iridescent 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What I am proposing is that if an article fails FAC, but is close that rather than a flat out "failed RfA" that said article MIGHT be promoted to A class. As A-Class isn't really well defined, this would be a way to add meaning to A Class. It would also help soften the blow of a failed RfA. How many people would walk away from FAC in a better mood if their efforts were acknowledged by moving to A class? Eg it is "almost there"---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean FAC, not RFA… I think that's a good idea, personally; the FAC reviewers are certainly competent to judge, it wouldn't waste any time (since they're reviewing the article anyway), and it would avoid sploshing the ugly and demoralising "this article was nominated but failed…" template across quite so many talkpages. – iridescent 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Break 2: On strict compliance and sex with biscuits

A certain MfD has drawn me back sooner than I expected, so I've just seen this. A few points in no particular order. FAC has no mandate or authority to confer anything other than FA status on an article, and neither should it. With the notable exceptions of a few projects like military history, A class means rather little, and is often conferred by a single editor without any formal review whatsoever, so hardly a significant step up from the much-maligned GA. Even the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria suggest only two reviewers, something that a number of GANs routinely and increasingly get anyway. GA is certainly awarded by a single reviewer, but that doesn't mean that there's only a single reviewer involved, or that the judgment of that reviewer can't be be challenged at WP:GAR; it frequently is. And of course GA, unlike A class, has a sweeps process to check on the quality of GA articles. All in all, I think GA is, in most cases, a far more credible goal than A class.

So far as FAC is concerned, like every other review process it suffers from a lack of reviewers. It also suffers from misconceptions, that it's inordinately skewed towards nitpicking at minor MoS issues for instance. As someone else said above, I've never seen an article fail to be promoted just because there were some MoS issues unaddressed. Also, very few (that includes reviewers) have apparently taken the trouble to read what the MoS actually says on a number of recurring themes, such as setting image sizes, or whether citations should be before or after the punctuation. It is not forbidden to specify image sizes, and the citations can be either before or after the punctuation so long as they are placed consistently throughout the article. Aside from the endemic lack of reviewers, the biggest problem I see at FAC is the rudeness of some of the comments made by reviewers. I saw an example earlier, which to paraphrase went along the lines of "I'm probably wasting my time in mentioning this, as it appears that the main editors do not understand their subject well enough to address this point, but ...". Comments like that, all too frequent at FAC, are hardly designed to creat a collegial, collaborative environment.

Sorry this turned out so long ... so much to say ... so little time. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody ever asked me for a black and white statement on my position about MOS, but if I had to issue one, it would read thusly: The phrase 'MOS breach' constitutes the ugliest two words ever used on Wikipedia.

I am constantly on the lookout for writers in the *precise* situation Balloonman described: if the writing is good and the content and sourcing are there, I don't give a rat's ass if the article is a hot mess from a MOS standpoint. I'll *happily* do shitty MOS work to get an article to FA because (1) I want to push a deserving article over the line but more importantly (2) I don't ever want technicalities to discourage a good writer. To that end, I often do MOS cleanup work directly on FAC articles myself, while trying to give lucid explanations for the same, gauged to the experience and frustration level of the nominator. Often, writing said explanations causes me to reevaluate my own interpretation and application of the minefield that is MOS, and I welcome that, because it is there after all to facilitate excellent articles, not to hamstring them. Yes, it takes a fair amount of work on my part, but it works, and it may be the most important thing I do on Wikipedia, because they come back for more. Sounds like I'm gearing up for a rant at WT:FAC, methinks. Maralia (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Malleus (as usual) pretty much nails it, or at least inasmuch as I see the problem. The FAC process – like all our other allegedly broken processes was designed by and for people with an expectation that they'd have an in-depth knowledge of the policies involved. However, there are some people at FAC (and possibly even more so at GAC) who couple a strict "rules are there to be enforced" mentality with a lack of understanding of exactly what those rules say and what the legitimate reasons for disregarding them are. At the much-maligned GA, its pot luck as to who reviews the article so any given article has a good chance of avoiding these people; at FA level, so many people are involved that it's very likely that at least one "despite having a 25-1 aspect ratio there's no justification for forcing this image width" or "this book is not in my local library, therefore it is not a reliable source" opposer will latch onto any given candidate. (Not mentioning any names, but we all know them…)

Yes, Sandy will generally disregard things like this, but it's an unpleasant experience for anyone having their work ripped to shreds for no good reason – and to a newcomer who's not familiar with the personalities involved, they have no way of knowing which of the opposes are valid MOS concerns and which are petty nitpicking. As an example, take my Hellingly Hospital Railway article I referred to earlier. This would probably pass FA with very little work – although short, it covers every aspect of the topic to the extent that any non-specialist would ever want to know, and is stable, fully MOS-compliant and fully sourced/cited. Were it to go to peer review/FAC, however, I can pretty much guarantee that someone would complain about the citations not being Harvard-style, and probably also complain about the lack of images. While I know that neither of these are actually issues, a hypothetical new editor submitting this article wouldn't necessarily know this – or know the appropriate policy pages to check – and would potentially spend hours "fixing" things that don't need to be fixed. Like RFA, one well-timed "oppose" on an FAC can torpedo a candidacy by introducing doubts, whether or not the concerns are actually legitimate. – iridescent 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellingly Hospital Railway is in many ways a nice little article, and like you I've got an affection for articles on obscure topics like that. It's a way from FAC though, and not because of trivial issues like lack of images, image sizing, or MoS compliance. The lead, for instance ... but heck, you know that anyway. ;-) Where I think you are right is that the FAC process could be more supportive, or at least disallow candidates doomed to fail. The other side of the coin though is that articles shouldn't be taken to FAC to get fixed up, as that ties up the severely limited pool of reviewers ... is there any process on wikipedia that isn't broken in one way or another? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know HHR wouldn't pass at present, which is why I said "with little work" and not "with no work" – you'll notice that I've not submitted it to FAC! – but I chose it as an example as the article of mine which is most in line with the MOS. There is method in how I choose my examples; of the Lordship Lane Tryptich of The Mall Wood Green, Bruce Castle and Broadwater Farm one would be ripped to shreds by Sandy, one has too many gaps, and one is a horse that's been flogged too often already today; the road articles are in many ways just long collections of stubs stuck together in a daisy-chain; the Hammerton's Ferry, National Police Memorial etc "trivial geography of Southeast England" series are all MOS-compliant, more or less, but are too short and boring to pass FAC, even though they all IMO say anything a reasonable person would want to know and any expansion would just be padding.

Just wait until I get Biscuit pornography written, and maybe I'll visit FAC; I would love to see this image on the Main Page, or at least the tortured arguments as to why it's unsuitable. (Yes, those are Oreos, Bourbons and Rich Teas; and yes, it's genuine. You probably don't want to open it at work, though, unless you want to get some very strange looks.) – iridescent 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Biscuit pornography? I'm obviously in the presence of a master, please forgive my untutored impudence. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if I managed to get a viable stub out of Cats That Look Like Hitler I'm sure I can get a viable biscuit-sex article up. IIRC, FAC never did agree on a minimum length, so provided the references all check out and the em-dashes are all in their proper places, I trust Sandy will wave it through. – iridescent 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone could do it, my money would be on you. Jammie Dodger sex featured in an episode of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps after all, now I come to think of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done – iridescent 18:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Break 3: On unbroken processes and easing the way of newcomers

Well, I picked a fine time to be really sick; between here, WT:RFA, and Tony's thingie, that was a lot to read. I'm as struck by where the conversation is occurring as what is being said (and that I almost missed it all). But I suppose discussion at WT:FAC has become increasingly difficult in recent months. I'm always curious about this MoS notion, since most of us just dig in and fix those things ourselves when the article meets other criteria: a FAC is not going to fail on MoS issues or image sizes (although the shape that Acid association constant article was in the first time it came through might have made me eat my words). Yep, the biggest issue at FAC right now is lack of reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The original conversation is at WT:RFA and was about whether "Successful FAC nomination" should lead to an automatic sysopping (read WP:WBFAN and just look at some of the names there to see why I don't support this idea). The only reason this has spilled over onto my talkpage is because Moni was questioning a point I made in the original discussion ("the strict compliance with WP:MOSIMAGE which some FAC reviewers insist on can reduce the usefulness of an article by rendering detailed images unusable"), and this has somehow spiralled from here. This is usually a "Giano topic" – as you know, I have virtually no dealings with FAC and most of my articles are brief railway stubs that would never come onto a reviewer's radar, and this is a subject he can go on about at very…great…length – but the last thing he needs at the moment is more drama. (Administering yet another beating to a much-flogged dead horse, but if you look at Talk:Broadwater Farm or the history of the article, you'll see exactly the "MoS notion" in action, with assorted letter-of-the-law people resizing images like the one shown at the right down to unusable sizes – there's also plenty of one of my least favorite misunderstandings-of-the-way-Wikipedia-works, "clean up; removing redlinks". As I'm trying to say somewhere in the morass above, I know and you know and all the current participants in this conversation know which concerns are genuinely significant and which are petty nitpickings or misunderstandings of the MoS on the reviewer's part, but a relative newcomer unfamiliar with FAC won't know what they can disregard – and will possibly also be intimidated by some of the personalities involved – and feel they need to "fix" every issue raised, whether or not it's to the detriment of the article.) – iridescent 15:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On the notion that anyone who writes an FA should be automatically sysopped, reference Archtransit (talk · contribs) for but one example. I can't recall who put that notion forward in all the catching up I had to do yesterday, but it's misguided on many counts. The curious thing to me about the idea that FAC is a MoS-nitpicking den of evil is that I've seen so much more of that kind of silliness in other processes and from non-FAC editors, so I'm unsure why we get the bad rap. Yes, there's a danger that new nominators may be intimidated, but usually the "regulars" chime in with a voice of moderation at FAC when unreasonable demands are made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I can explain where I think the notions that FAC and RFA are full of nitpickers comes from; it's that everyone coming to them has invested a lot of work (I personally think we should get rid of the whole "triple crown", WP:WBFAN high-score table mentality, but it's not gonna happen), and they both have enough people participating that the chances of meeting at least one nitpicker is fairly high. For the sake of argument suppose User:Well Intentioned Newcomer submits at article to FAC which is broadly compliant but contains some niggling stylistic problems. Once it gets there:

• Malleus quietly cleans up the typos but reserves commenting on the FAC;
• Moni quietly checks out the images but reserves commenting on the FAC;
• Tony quietly standardises the units of measurement but reserves commenting on the FAC;
• Ealdgyth quietly checks out the references but reserves commenting on the FAC;
• User:Nitpicker posts "Oppose, I cannot support an article that uses the unicode ½ character when the MOS clearly states {{frac|1|1|2}} is the preferred format, if the author can't even be prepared to read WP:MOSNUM I don't know what they're doing here".

Which of the above is likely to stick in the nominator's mind? – iridescent 16:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but. It's a Wiki; how can we fix that? (Share your sentiments on Triple Crown, but think that WBFAN has some usefulness when it's not misapplied, although it frequently is. Triple Crown, on the other hand, encourages those problematic award-seeking types through other processes that receive less scrutiny than an article does at FAC.) (By the way, I used to try to intercede, and quickly, whenever I saw unreasonable demands being made at FAC, but of late, anything I say has been twisted, so I've stayed out more often, leaving intercession to others.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the response from Moni citing the Giano essay, telling the opposer that it probably took as long to write the oppose as it would have taken to fix that thing, and prodding him to give an opinion on the whole article. Even if I miss it, which I tend to do sometimes, there is an element in the nominator that I hope shows through, that s/he may realize some FACers are pulling for the article, and some are picky. --Moni3 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm still fever-ish and still catching up, pls toss me a cluestick if we're talking in generalities or about a specific current FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK we're just talking in generalities – I certainly don't have a particular one in mind.

The process isn't fixable, in the sense that there's nothing really wrong with it, but I think a lot of the "nitpicky" perception of FAC/RFA could be cleared up were some of the more pedantic commentators dealt with more harshly (which is possible – witness how much saner RFA has got since Kurt and Majorly stopped using it as a wrestling ring). Also, whether or not it's true, a lot of people see you (plural) as an elite, and take criticism from FAC reviewers more seriously than they would from a passing editor; I'd very strongly support a realistic "what to expect" guide for those coming to FAC for the first time, either as nominators or reviewers, to make people realise that these are normal people, not the Wikipedia Gods casting thunderbolts from ivory tower somewhere. (That cuts both ways; remember how annoyed Tony got when people were hassling him for not cleaning their articles up fast enough?) As I say above, while I generally agree with Giano's essay, in this section I think he's writing from the perspective of someone familiar with the personalities involved, and underestimates how off-putting it can be to have something you've put a lot of work into nit-picked over for trivial reasons, especially when all the barnstars-and-crowns culture has possibly given one an exaggerated level of respect for said critic, and where people may be reluctant to argue with people perceived as "special". (A lot of people would be afraid to argue with you or Raul, for example, even were they to think you were clearly incorrect – instead, they'd just go off and sulk. This isn't unique to FAC by any means, but is a symptom of an exaggerated respect for "authority" on Wikipedia - look at the way this guy's tone suddenly changes when he notices the "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia".) Something Dereks1x/Archtransit does deserve credit for is the fact that he stood up to a particularly withering barrage of nitpicking without snapping.

The exact same thing happens at the other area with this reputation, RFA – Moni, Karanacs and Malleus all had some fine ridiculous opposes, which were they made on a talkpage would have barely drawn any attention but in the heated context can lead to grudges, long-running grievances, and a general distaste for the whole process. (I'm still full of righteous indignation over the "oppose, candidate is an advocate for newspeak" on mine, more than a year later.) Again, this is another process that will never be "fixed" because of the inertia of seven years of history and the lack of viable alternatives. – iridescent 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Break-in-a-break: On a putative FAC guide and the Wikipedia Elite

On the "realistic 'what to expect' guide", couldn't agree more, had it half composed in my head for a Dispatch until a series of things derailed my time, and issues at WT:FAC convinced me that I should consider taking more of a backseat. I 'spose I could still try to write it, after the holidays, but alternately, it may be better for me to be more hands off, as Raul was/is, and let the community sort things. If I write it, it continues your "A lot of people would be afraid to argue with you or Raul, for example, ... " problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If I had to propose someone to write it, my nominees would be Giano and Malleus; there are uncontacted tribes in the Amazon rainforest whose only knowledge of Western civilisation is that Giano is not part of the Wikipedia Elite. Some of the other long-term damned editors familiar with the process (SlimVirgin, Bishonen…) could probably contribute usefully to it; I'd envisage the end product looking like a cross between a shortened version of Giano's essay and Balloonman's How to pass an RfA walkthrough. – iridescent 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this "afraid to argue with X or Y" mindset, but p'raps that's just me. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd write that. Having no idea who is in the Wikipedia Elite, I don't think I'm in it. Rather, I consider it a shared delusion perception among people who wish they could be considered in it, and people who label themselves as such in order to further an agenda. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Elite?  :-) I went from having the power of the Oppose button (as a FAC reviewer) to the glorified bean counter, yet "they" think I'm in the "elite" :-) Did I ask for that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia Elite" is any combination of two or more people who disagree with you on whatever your pet topic happens to be. Have none of you ever read the Wikipedia Review? – iridescent 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

WR, are you kidding? I wouldn't be caught dead around the likes of that Obesity fellow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, WR loves me: "Iridescent clearly has an intelligent attitude […], so if she's posting here, I'd like to personally flag her posts with a mental note of additional respect." – Greg Kohs – iridescent 17:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead link alert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Live, but in one of the sooper-sekrit members-only fora. – iridescent 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

For the elite only? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Or "irredeemable", if you follow the WP:BADSITES line. Since I still lag well behind NYB, Cool Hand Luke and Alison on post-count, I'm not going to be too concerned. (FWIW, I think WR serves a valuable purpose in highlighting where we go wrong, and I also think a lot of the "exiles" there do have genuine grievances against WP – we do have a very unappealing habit here of treating anything we don't want to hear as "incivility" and issuing hairtrigger blocks on the flimsiest of WP:IDONTLIKEYOU pretexts.) – iridescent 17:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't either; could be that I'm still at half mast and shouldn't even be posting, or could be that I'm obtuse. But I think Iri is saying that we don't understand because we're accustomed, while it's very offputting to newcomers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

← (Outdent, re to Sandy) Yes – and I'm not singling FAC out. It's no worse or better a process than most others; it's just that we forget just how confusing Wikipedia is to a newcomer. For all that people still talk about "ease-of-use" and "all you need to know is WP:FIVE and WP:TRIFECTA", in reality not only are we a site that uses a unique markup and syntax system, but we expect strict compliance from all users with this laundry list, a reasonable expectation of compliance with this mutually contradictory mess, plus whatever arbitrary guidelines the WikiProjects decide to impose; said compliance is then imposed by a bunch of admins, many of whom don't understand the policies themselves (we have over 200 guidelines alone; can you honestly say you've read all of them?), and consequently fall back on "I'm an admin, do as I say or you're not here to build an encyclopedia", with the usual foul-tempered consequences. The problem has more of an impact at FAC because the people coming to you have generally invested more time and effort than the cut-and-paste-from-Myspace articles on bands I delete by the shedload, so you're more likely to get negative blowback. If everyone nominating to FAC received a boilerplate template on their talkpage along the lines of "People are going to say some things that seem really nasty; most of them are genuinely trying to help, and if you really feel someone's being genuinely disruptive then talk it over with someone experienced with the process: here is a list of people who will be willing to help discuss these issues" then I think it would improve the process.

I do appreciate that I'm being somewhat hypocritical, in that I'm commentating on a process in which I never take part and on an experience I've never gone through. In an ideal world, these concerns would all be raised at peer review so the nominators would be immune to criticism by the time it reached FAC (and articles likely to attract criticism would never reach FAC), but in practice peer review looks to be following Requests for feedback down the lack-of-participants slippery slope. – iridescent 18:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are not hypocritical; they are thought provoking. My replies are terse because I'm seriously still under the weather. The forum for writing something to address all of this is WP:FCDW. Someone needs to do it. (I spent my first many many months on Wiki with a note on my user page saying something to the effect of "who wrote the user manual for this thing"). Wiki needs a major simplification across many pages, including MoS, but I've been singing that tune for years and no one can or will do anything about it. On the other hand, we devoted months of energy, discussion and procedures to getting dates delinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's because it takes months of discussion to get ANYTHING done on Wikipedia. If several other organizations I was involved with weren't just as disfunctional, I'd worry more. (waves at Iri!) I used to have time to do a once a week pass through Peer Review looking at sourcing for anythign that said it was headed to FAC, but right now, time is at a premium. I like to think helping out at PR helped some over at FAC, but I just can't do it alone, it's hard enough to get the sourcing stuff done at FAC. As a rule, Wiki needs more people who pay attention to content and less to the drama of the moment. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait until Flagged Revisions goes through; then all the IPs will stop vandalising and decide to start writing articles instead. Hey, it could happen…

In all seriousness, it's possible that the resounding kicking the "old guard" got in the Arbcom elections could finally provide the nudge that sends the "Spirit of 2001 for ever!" Usenet and Nupedia Alte Kämpfers out of Wikipedia, freeing up the way for some major rewriting of policy and rethinking of the purpose of Wikipedia. (Unbundling the admin tools, anyone?) Jimmy Wales's giving way on the topic of flagged revisions, despite the wails of the "anyone can edit means anyone should edit" brigade, is a hopeful sign.

Sometimes, it's hard to avoid the drama of the moment. As Sandy can testify, once you reach a certain level of visibility, then like it or not the drama comes looking for you. – iridescent 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A whole new experience…

The phrase "U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day."… A 70kb thread with what appears to be the whole of FAC commenting on it… A torrent of abuse from someone I've never heard of before… A fairly blatant troll account trying to start an argument about religion and sexuality… I feel like the winner of a competition to be Giano for the day. – iridescent 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, aren't you lucky! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What was the second prize? Being Giano for two days? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a fairly obvious contender for second prize… At least two Certain Editors haven't decided to grace my talkpage with their wisdom yet. – iridescent 23:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no good at puzzles Iridescent. I was thoroughly confused by that recent Guido de Brueder(?) episode, and still don't understand what happened there. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, he posted the results of an "experiment" he'd been conducting on his userpage; someone removed it; he came to ANI to complain; someone took a closer look and realised the "experiment" consisted of systematically inserting misinformation into articles to see how long it would last, leading to him being blocked.

Disclaimer: I was not involved in this, didn't follow it particularly closely, and don't know if it's true or not. The DRV – with links to all the other places the debate took place – is here, if you want to try to make sense of it. – iridescent 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it changed, I don't know, or maybe I need to get new glasses, but about half-way through the AN report I started to read Giano, not Guido. It's clear what happened now, although I don't agree with it. Fault injection is a well-established practice in software engineering, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but… I think (again, with that "I don't know all the circumstances" disclaimer) that Guido did himself no favours with his "I am submitting a full report on the failings of Wikipedia to the United Nations" posturing; he also, outside the bounds of the "experiment", had a history of frankly nutty obsessiveness with policy minutiae; my sole interaction with him AFAIK was in a batshit-insane dispute over whether "2009 will be a common year starting on Thursday" needed a citation. ("Technically, it violates WP:CRYSTAL, as the world might end before then".) Anyway, I think we get more than enough faults injected already! – iridescent 23:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Set the stopwatches

How long before our much-loved friends at New Page Patrol AFD Biscuit sex? (For those wondering what this post is doing here, there is a reason.) As many barnstars as you can carry – or WikiCookies might be more appropriate – to anyone who gets this onto the main page. – iridescent 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG!!!!!!!! Lol. — Realist² 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Every single fact in there is referenced… Maybe I should submit it to FAC. – iridescent 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, let's have it on the main page by February. — Realist² 18:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's my first try at slipping it in. So to speak. – iridescent 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If that gets on the main page, I'm taking a screen grab and framing it on my wall. (not literally, but yeah) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. — Realist² 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read their criteria very carefully and I can't see any reason to exclude it from DYK; it's a BLP, but it's reliably sourced. (Well, if you count Fox News and the Daily Hate as RSs.) Besides, it's a damn sight more interesting than most of the stuff that winds up in DYK. I thought the associated image might be pushing it too far, though. – iridescent 18:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should steal away to the bathroom or the kitchen. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(b) followed by (a) appears to be the correct procedure. If you haven't already, this site is a true eye-opener – select "serie negra" from the pull-down menu. (All the other sections are fascinating in their own way, too – this site is an amazing way to ratchet up your WTF-quota.) – iridescent 18:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

← Dear god, the image is now in line for the main page. I predict epic lulz. – iridescent 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, a DOTW has spotted it and saved the world from my Sullying Wikipedia's Good Name. Can anyone think of a non-lame hook from this that the D'sOTW will let through? (And they wonder why everyone not involved in DYK doesn't take them seriously.) – iridescent 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long. – iridescent 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And for anyone still reading this thread…

Wikipedia:Peer review/Hellingly Hospital Railway/archive1. It's not going to get to FA this side of hell freezing over, but if anyone wants to administer another passing flog to this particular dead horse, now's your chance. – iridescent 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Iridescent/Archive 8! Wishing you a very Merry Christmas! Best regards from myself! -- Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC) (Merry Christmas!) Post this merry message on any other user talk page you can find.

Seems like as good a place as any to add my best wishes for Xmas and the New Year. I long ago forgave you Iridescent for offering me up as a sacrifical lamb at that unholy altar called RfA.</joke> --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To save multiple replies, merry Christmas to all from me too. When you're at home eating turkeys/watching the Queen (delete according to nation), think of me sitting in an airless box, staring at blue screens full of coloured dots and incomprehensible text all day. (I still maintain that first one would have passed…) – iridescent 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats that when its at home? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What's which?

• Spending Christmas in an airless box is because not only does Defending And Protecting Our Way Of Life not only not stop for public holidays, it pays (or more accurately, you pay) impressively high antisocial-hours bonuses (I get to do it all again on New Year's Eve, too);
• my staring at blue screens full of colored dots Defends And Protects Our Way Of Life;
• incomprehensible text is what, for no good reason, both the Enemies Of Freedom and the Defenders Of Our Way Of Life are incapable of communicating in anything but, unless you think "handling demands from operational resources via radio, telephony and electronic transmission of textual and other data"¹ is a more sensible phrasing than "answering the phone and checking your email";
• "the first one" is something that needn't concern you and is probably best not brought up again.

Always glad to be of service. – iridescent 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

¹This is a genuine quote from a Lockheed user manual

Break: Flagged revisions vs BLP semiprotection

I guess that explains your opinion on biographies... anonymous users are Enemies of Freedom, aren't they... -- Gurch (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion – and I can see for myself on that page that I'm outvoted – is that the BLP issue, with its potential legal and bad-PR pitfalls – outweighs the "anyone can edit" ethos in this specific case. Yes, a user can register an account and get it up to autoconfirmed status, then go vandalise a BLP, but raising the bar slightly would discourage it and in my opinion the benefits would outweigh the negatives. An analogy I imagine you still remember would be that IMO the legal, technical and overall avoiding-bad-publicity-and-consequent-loss-of-donations cost of keeping Virgin Killer up outweighed the "free encyclopedia means freedom of speech" benefits. I still thing Greg's idea of semiprotecting a small batch of articles and comparing them with an unprotected control group would be an experiment well worth trying – and probably a better route to go down than the likely-unworkable Flagged Revisions – but given the source of the suggestion it would be rejected out of hand. – iridescent 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well you see the problem with that is that loads of things outweigh the "anyone can edit" ethos. The whole concept of vandalism outweighs it, which is why you won't catch me, nor anyone else with sense, relying on Wikipedia or citing it for anything, and why more or less every other work in existence is not done in this way. But the whole point of this project is to steadfastly cling to "anyone can edit" in the face of ridicule; the fact that it happened to work out better than was initially expected is not a reason to go changing the rules further down the line. The Virgin Killer issue is kind of unrelated – the fact that the image in question is non-free kind of negates any arguments about "free content", and the fact that no legal action could actually have been taken (at least successfully) negates that argument, leaving behind an "I don't see the problem" on the American side and an eerie silence on the British side because they've all been autoblocked, but anyway I digress -- Gurch (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also the 'slippery slope' problem, which has been in effect on Wikipedia for some time, gathering pace after anonymous users were prevented from creating articles. Despite very little change in the level of vandalism (and in the evel of editing, and a slight drop in account creation and article creation) over the last year, more restrictive measures are still gradually being introduced (such as the increase in autoconfirmation requirements that will probably increase again soon). I came across someone today who seriously believed all articles should be semi-protected; I guess people are supposed to register and then sit around doing nothing for four days (by which time they will have forgotten they registered), and then somehow make 10 informed edits to project space, before they can edit articles. And wrt to comparing a batch of unprotected articles with semi-protected ones, I can see how to numerically measure vandalism (roughly) but how do you numerically measure the amount an article has improved? (yes, you do have to do that in order that the conclusion isn't inherently fixed, though I daresay any such survey that is conducted will neglect to do so) -- Gurch (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat a comment made by an extremely blocked former editor of ours once to me on another site when I made a similar point: we have to look at Wikipedia from the point of view of our readers, not from the point of view of our editors. You know and I know that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source in itself; those users who consistently see us as the first hit on every Google search don't necessarily know that, are unlikely to read the small-print disclaimer, and have no obvious reason to doubt us. Only one in eight of our articles are BLPs; I don't think the cost of changing "anyone can edit anything" to "anyone can edit 89% of our articles and can edit the remaining 11% once they've made 10 valid edits and waited a couple of days" outweighs the potential cost of another Seigenthaler or Alan Mcilwraith. As I say, I recognise that I'm in the minority here; I also recognise that while flagged revisions are a good idea in theory, they're likely to lead to an unworkable backlog and a false sense of security in practice.

WRT the "vandalism comparison" trial, I agree there needs to be some way to calculate how much useful material is added by IPs (my gut reaction would be that most IPs who genuinely want to help will create accounts if necessary whereas not as many vandals will bother, but that's just a guess). It would probably come down to dip-sample checking random articles, although "improvement" is hard to measure. I totally agree about the autoconfirmation limit – I don't understand the logic behind raising it (JarlaxleArtemis may be a disruptive asshole who's about one one-millionth as interesting as he thinks he is, but he certainly wins the award for "user who has provoked the most pointless knee-jerk reactions to try to stop him".)

It might be worth talking to Rootology directly; he seems to have done most of the leg-work in discussion how any proposed change will work, and he's also (to his credit IMO) gone direct to most of the saner critics of Wikipedia to get their opinions on how this will impact us, instead of only parroting the party line. If you speak German (I don't) I'd love to know how well this is really working in practice on .de.wikipedia – Jimbo Wales says it's great, but Jimbo Wales says a lot of things. – iridescent 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Grawp

Actually I think JarlaxleArtemis is beaten to that title by Grawp and Willy on Wheels, who between them have brought about the page move throttle, autoconfirmation to move pages, widespread move-protection, the title blacklist, several bots, Werdna's abuse filter and abandonment of most of Wikipedia:Deny recognition, among other things. Flagged revisions on .de.wikipedia isn't exactly making things any worse, but it has essentially created a whole new maintenance task that occupies a huge amount of time that could surely be better spent elsewhere. Without it, good revisions can simply be ignored and they will stay, only the bad revisions have to be dealt with. With it, bad revisions still have to be dealt with but good revisions have to be too otherwise they will never show up to readers. Think about it in Huggle terms -- if flagged revisions was deployed for all articles, Huggle's queue would have to show all edits (minus those by administrators) so that good ones could be flagged as well as bad ones dealt with; see for yourself how much faster the "all edits" queue moves than the "filtered edits" one. At least I finally managed to get the flagged revisions extension exposed through the API (or at least will be in a few days), else sighting would be sloooooow, too -- Gurch (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis is Grawp. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait... so you raised the edit count required for autoconfirmation to deal with Grawp? Man, that is dumb... :/ -- Gurch (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, less of the "you" – I had nothing do with it! While I can see the logic (an account has to be autoconfirmed to move pages, so make it harder to autoconfirm large numbers of accounts) I think it's a ridiculous overreaction – since we know JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp's IRL name and address, the problem would have been fully solved by one well-aimed cease-and-desist order.

If you want a fairly confident Psychic Prediction, the next step once Flagged Revisions goes through will be to start lobbying for full protection of Category:Living people and a newly created Userright:EditBLP. Now Jimbo has lined up behind the Forces For Change, something is going to happen – the way Consensus is thinking runs along the lines of:

1. Something needs to be done
2. Flagged revisions are something
3. Therefore flagged revisions need to be done

I know you don't agree, but IMO semiprotection is a lot neater and causes less collateral damage than implementing a confusing policy which I doubt people will understand. Part of the beauty of Wikipedia is the simplicity and ease with which newcomers can get involved; "anyone can edit most pages, the remainder they can edit after a couple of days" is a lot easier to understand than "anyone can edit anything, but if we've not heard of you you'll be treated with suspicion and put into a quarantine zone whilst a self-appointed elite vets everything you do". To those questioning why I voted "support" to FRs on Rootology's strawpoll, I'm not opposed to bringing them in for a couple of months as an experiment – but I do expect the experiment to fail. – iridescent 15:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant "you" as in the project's community, a group with whom I feel more and more dissociated as time passes -- Gurch (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, "something needs to be done" is indeed the case, and I'm doing my best to get it done myself, but it's not easy. I would have made Huggle treat biographies differently by now, but there doesn't seem to be any easy way to do it. There's no way to tell from an article's title whether it's a biography or not, a complete listing of the contents of Category:Living people would take up about 5 megabytes and quickly go out of date, generating such a list at startup would take hours, and thus the only way to do it is to ask the API which category each article is in, something that cannot viably be done for every article in Huggle's filtered edits queue -- Gurch (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want an even more impressive entry in Wikipedia's overreaction hall of shame, the fact that this conversation exists sums up everything that's wrong with Wikipedia today. I wonder how many other newcomers have gone to make their first edit to find a nice shiny "you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia because I don't like you" blocknotice, despite the fact that these "virgin killer" IP addresses are not only listed in big red letters on the blocking form, but all (obviously) locate to the UK whilst Grawp is in California? – iridescent 21:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

← Just out of interest, what would make it easier from a technical point of view to prioritise BLP issues, assuming semi-protection is rejected and flagged revisions are trialled but fail? I appreciate Huggle can't look at the category each time, but is there any quick technical fix that would enable Huggle (or even vanilla RC) to bump BLPs to the top of the queue, or allow Huggle to monitor only BLPs? Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living people is hopelessly slow at the moment, but it seems there ought to be some technical means to speed it up. I certainly don't have the technical ability to make any change like this, but it would be useful to know if it's possible; given the something-must-be-done agitation, something will happen, and if there's a better alternative now's the time to get people thinking about it. – iridescent 11:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really, short of adding a boolean "is BLP" field to the page table and returning it in IRC RC, API revision and recentchanges queries. And somehow I don't think the devs would consider the issue serious enough to warrant a schema change. The system I'm working on at the moment, which is rather complex and may or may not ever work, involves queueing up pages/users/revisions when "extended information" is required (information not derivable from that given in recentchanges, and thus requiring extra API queries, such as editcount and "BLP or not"), and then making a single API query for a batch of pages/users/revisions, which brings the number of queries needed on en.wikipedia down to an acceptable level, at the cost of introducing a delay between an edit being made an Huggle knowing this "extended information" in order to process it. This requires code that can take details of the information required and work out the optimum set of API queries to retrieve that information, calculate the tradeoff between waiting for more edits to conserve bandwidth and request rate and getting the information as quickly as possible, while also ensuring it doesn't make any queries so big they timeout or otherwise clobber MediaWiki into submission. Which is somewhat beyond my coding skill but I'm giving it a go anyway -- Gurch (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an addition to my last comment, what tends to happen is that small steps towards making things like this easier are taken, very gradually, and over time things get better. And I mean very gradually, waiting 3 or 4 years for something is to be expected, as is it never happening. But the steps continue, e.g. someone filed bugzilla:16844 today, which if implemented might speed up the "which of these pages are BLPs" queries a little (I've filed over 50 feature requests myself, but these days I tend to hold back and wait for someone else to file them, I don't think the devs like me very much :( -- Gurch (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the devs like anyone very much. I always picture them as something akin to the Accounting Trolls in Dilbert, sitting in a pit somewhere thinking of reasons to decline every request. (I suppose they need to be cautious given the number of people every change requests, but…) – iridescent 00:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a bit unfair; they're a very hard-working bunch of people. For example the Danish Wikipedia got completely fucked up earlier today and they had it fixed within a couple of hours. Admittedly because someone typo'd "utf-8" as "utf8" in a recent change to MediaWiki, but give them some credit. (==/=== confusion is a favourite, I can recall at least 3 MediaWiki bug reports that turned out to be caused by that, proof that PHP is pure evil) -- Gurch (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know, they do a thankless job for no credit and keep it remarkably stable under the circumstances – but grumbling is so much easier. Think of them like the government or the police; everyone complains about them until they stop to think about what things would be like without them. It has to be said that the only dev I know is Krimpet, who always seems perfectly nice, even though I never agree with her on anything. – iridescent 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't exactly "know" any of them, guess I have just been poking around the technical side of things (though never contributing anything to MediaWiki myself, alas) for long enough that I know what goes on. One valuable thing the devs do have is the final word on technical issues, which given that they actually know what they are doing makes a much welcomed break from "consensus", which for technical issues is mostly people completely clueless about the issue at hand bitching to one another. (Have you been around long enough to remember the first time someone tried to put a bot through RfA, and recieved pile-on opposition from people who didn't understand the difference between a simple computer program and strong AI? If not, lucky you.) Anyway, it is late and I seem to have expanded your talk page to a stupid size again, so I won't say more. (It's a shame you hate IRC so much, we could have got through this conversation in 5 minutes and not had to fuss about archiving it afterwards :D) -- Gurch (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was there (RedirectCleanUpBot IIRC but I may be wrong). The whole save-us-from-the-killer-machines thing still happens each time.

I'm not an anti-IRC fanatic, just anti wikipedia-en-admins. I'm rarely on, but freenode nick=iridescent (amazingly enough) if you see it about. Generally the only even tangentially Wikipedia-related place you'll ever see me in is very occasionally in Lara's chatroom; as said many times, I think deciding things on IRC always causes more problems than it solves. Just ask Giano. – iridescent 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see... yes, I disagree with deciding things that way also. Though in the 6 months I had access to #wikipedia-en-admins I don't think I ever saw anything important decided. That was a while ago now though -- Gurch (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Biscuits and human sexuality

I have nominated Biscuits and human sexuality, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biscuits and human sexuality. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Graymornings_(talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love Wikipedia. I can't imagine Britannica's days ever include multiple high-level contributors debating an article containing the sentence "[Madonna] blamed then-husband Guy Ritchie's lack of interest in sex on overconsumption of biscuits". – iridescent 00:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's Britannica's problem, :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just the way the cookie crumbles… – iridescent 01:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Awww. :( Some people are no fun -- Gurch (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It really takes the biscuit. – iridescent 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I've found a real case of WP:SYNTH on a recent Britney Spears related AfD I just started. — Realist² 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanizer Promo Tour, I tentatively agree – this looks more like a bunch of TV appearances than a "tour" as such. "Tentatively" as I know nothing about this other than seeing her on The X Factor and wondering who on earth could think this was a good performance – for all I know "Womanizer Promo Tour" was the term her management used to describe this. Not sure I'd go so far as calling it OR (which is implied by WP:SYNTH) – more just a misnamed article. For obvious reasons, the overuse of WP:NOR is a sore topic right now with me – how about renaming it to Britney Spears live performances in 2008?

Personally, I think WP:NOR is an unworkable policy that in its current form was rushed through largely to shut up Jon Awbrey, and has long outlived any useful purpose; like its sister policy WP:COI (forced through by Jimmy Wales at about the same time to stifle Awbrey's spiritual brother, Greg Kohs) it's completely unworkable in a system which runs on anonymous editing. (Write a press article, admit that you're the author, and cite it as a source and you're blocked for OR and COI – write the same article, don't admit that you're the author, and cite it as a source, and you get congratulations for finding this obscure press cutting. Likewise, take payment for writing a WP article and admit it and you get banned from every Wikimedia project; take payment for writing a WP article, don't admit it, and nobody ever knows. I could go on at some length on this particular topic.) – iridescent 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Break: Britney Spears

Yep, that's the article I'm on about. But say it was renamed to a title like you just suggested. What would be the point, when the information (could/should/is) covered in "Womanizer (song)", "Circus (song)" and Circus (Britney Spears album) and Britney Spears.

I do agree OR and COI policies are rather ambiguous and often need deciding on a case by case bases. I could say a lot more, but likewise, my views aren't always popular. — Realist² 17:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd merge it into the Promotion subsection of Circus (Britney Spears album); that way no content is lost so nobody goes home without prizes, and it avoids the unpleasantness of an AFD (as merging falls under WP:BRD rather than WP:CONSENSUS). Once it's in the "parent" article, any unnecessary dross can be gradually trimmed away; deleting 3kb of material from a 48kb article causes less grief than deleting 3kb of material from a 5kb article. Or am I being too cynical? – iridescent 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've come to realize WP:BOLD never applies and only makes you unpopular with...someone. Seeming as my approval rating makes this guy seem like a saint, I would rather act like a puppet to the masses. — Realist² 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a GBS quote for you then Realist2: "The secret to success is to offend the greatest number of people." Who cares if it makes you unpopular? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"I have acheived all that I could achieve in life – the love of those who have no power and the hatred of those who have all of it" (Eva Peron, an endless source for pithy quotes) – iridescent 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd include WP:CONSENSUS in that list of half-baked policies. I'm firmly of the view expressed by George Bernard Shaw: "The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong." --Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"The problem isn't that there are too many of us; the problem is that there are too many of them". Sometimes one finds oneself looking at Citizendium and thinking "maybe that isn't such a stupid idea". (Of course, one then clicks on "Random article" a few times¹ or sees insanity like "Citizens, consider Recent Changes your home page!", and swiftly realises that anyone spouting the "Larry good, Jimbo bad" dogma still has some explaining to do.) – iridescent 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

¹These three really were the first three articles to come up on clicking Citizendium's "random page" button.

Break: Wikipedia vs Citizendium, and {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}

Clicking random article here is no good either. I've abandoned that button... it's horrible. I've decided I'd rather not know just how many shitty articles we have... and I think if I even design another main page, which is doubtful, I'll remove the random page link, unless we can customize it to skip shit. It's embarrassing for the project. لennavecia 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, we have the coding to tell us exactly how many shitty articles we have:

{{#expr: {{FA number}}+{{FL number}}+{{GA number}}}} articles ({{#expr: ((100*({{FA number}}+{{FL number}}+{{GA number}}))/{{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}) round 3}}%) are [[WP:FA|featured]] or [[WP:GA|good]].

and
We currently have {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles of which {{formatnum: {{#expr: {{Template:FA number}} + {{GA number}}}} }} don't need substantial improvement, a ratio of {{formatnum: {{round|{{#expr: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}} / {{#expr: {{Template:FA number}} + {{GA number}}}} }}}} }} to one.

They produce 51669 articles (0.748%) are featured or good and We currently have 6,912,158 articles of which 47,166 don't need substantial improvement, a ratio of 146.550 to one respectively. (The differing figures are due to the first including FLs as "quality articles"). – iridescent 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but based on your opinion of FAC I'm sure you'll be the first to agree that "not an FA or GA" is not synonymous with "shitty" -- Gurch (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes – and also, with the introduction of the Geobots there are a disproportionate number of articles that by definition are just one line ("Xville is a town in Yburg province, Zland"); there are also a lot of articles that will never be long enough to be GA/FA but say all that could possibly be said on the subject (most of my roads and rail stations fall squarely into this group). Plus, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} includes all the redirects and disambig pages. But there are plenty of GAs (and even FA) that sure-as-hell aren't good by any definition I'd use. ("Grassy expanse recreational area", anyone?) It evens out. Besides, that 0.748% figure makes for a good scare headline. Something worth bearing in mind is that that 51669 FA+FL+GA figure is about the same as the total number of articles on Citizendium (9001 at the time of writing) – iridescent 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} doesn't include redirect pages – it would be twice its size if it did. The exact definition of the value is "number of non-redirect pages that contain at least one internal link". This still includes disambiguation pages and Main Page, of course. You can use {{Number of actual articles}} to exclude these, which gives a total of 6,435,621 instead of 6,912,158 -- Gurch (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you learn something every day. Do we really have 2½ million actual articles? No wonder the vandalism slips through. – iridescent 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That figure still includes things that aren't really articles, for example nonsense pages that are about to be deleted, but since Category:Candidates for speedy deletion contains non-article pages as well, they can't be automatically excluded by category counts alone. Of course, there are usually only a couple of hundred of those at most. Then I daresay there are a few disambiguation pages without the right template on them, and probably quite a lot of genuine attempts at articles that haven't been wikilinked yet, and so won't be counted (wikilinks from transclusions such as cleanup tags don't count). But yeah, we have 2.5 million articles. And 61,856,891 pages in total, including redirects, which means even assuming there's about the same number of article redirects as articles (which I think is about right, but I haven't checked since 2006) still means there are more than two project/user/talk pages for every article... never mind the articles, I wonder what percentage of that is junk :) -- Gurch (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect a hell of a lot of dross could be cleared out by auto-deleting every user page of an account/IP with less than 50 edits that hasn't edited for a year and isn't currently blocked. I'm sure there's a good reason to keep these pages, but I sure as hell can't see what it is. – iridescent 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They are, MZMcBride is doing that all the time. --Amalthea 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Only anonymous user talk pages, not logged-in user pages; I think there would be a bit of a fuss if he tried that -- Gurch (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous users can't create non-talk pages so there are very few anonymous user pages; deletion of old anonymous user talk pages was done for a while but it was decided that it was better just to blank them. I imagine the vast majority of pages in user space belong to either abandoned accounts or indefinitely blocked users; some of the latter are periodically cleared out (something I started with a bot-deletion of 30,000 of them back in 2006), but there was objection to deleting those with sockpuppet tags so they stay, and probably make up a sizable proportion by now. It would be interesting to know the ratio of root user pages to user subpages; even some very active users have a sizable library of forgotten subpages. But there's no compelling reason to delete them (unless they're guestbooks, of course, in which case KILL WITH FIRE) -- Gurch (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Break: Biographies of Dead People & pantheistic solipsism

Back to BLPs for a moment – I have now seen the all time stupidest comment I've ever seen on Wikipedia (and there's some stiff competition there): "When do BLPs stop being about living people?". – iridescent 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many who would classify Jesus as a living person. Admittedly, most of them live in the USA. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in the archives you will find an edit war over exactly that. My general feeling is that the if Jesus was human he's long dead, and if Jesus is a divine being he has more to worry about than the accuracy of a website. And being all-knowing and all-powerful, could always fix it if he was really concerned. – iridescent 20:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of dead people are less exciting because you can't use the "BLP" scare word to describe them. Perhaps we need a biographies of dead people policy. And a committee to hand out special enforcement powers for the policy to administrators... Nah, that would be stupid -- Gurch (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you don't take WP:BDP seriously, you only have yourself to blame when you get haunted. I think we need WP:Biographies of fictional characters too, just to be on the safe side – under pantheistic solipsism (I cannot believe that's a bluelink!), fictional characters are just as real as BLPs… – iridescent 23:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles about everything, of course it's a blue link. Well, everything except biscuit sex of course, which is a stupid subject for an article. Whereas loose wheel nut indicator is perfectly OK -- Gurch (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlike a Certain Rival Project, which has articles on weighty subjects like Donegal fiddle tradition¹ and Markov chain but wisely avoids such trivial articles as Moscow or Vice President of the United States. – iridescent 23:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

¹Donegal fiddle tradition was one of our first articles, as well as one of the original Nupedia articles. Apparently, a really bad article on this topic is a requirement of any new project. – iridescent 23:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A Cookie

Marek.69 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!

Hi Iridescent, I just wanted to say sorry if I caused you any hassle or problems etc. Please accept this cookie as a sign of ‘no hard feelings’. Cheers Marek.69 ^talk 23:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

? No. you certainly haven't cause me any hassle or problems! Don't take the thread above as serious… – iridescent 23:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

... so Marek69 is a sock of Jimbo? :O -- Gurch (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Marek reported me to Jimbo and got me told off by him. See the thread above for my opinions on Jimbo's sudden new-found discovery of "basic human dignity" after having spent a week vigorously defending hosting child porn. – iridescent 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's new-found, he discovered this guy's back in 2005, and has been intermittently dropping by to erase stuff from biographies ever since :) -- Gurch (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not exactly sure Jimbo discovered it, however we rewrite history – IIRC a certain Mr Brandt and the Freedom Forum had more than a little to do with it… – iridescent 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, he only discovered the error. Jimbo discovered every living human's inalienable right not to have anything bad said about them unless at least eleventy reliable sources report it. Possibly with the assistance of some legal advice. -- Gurch (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Iridescent, I'm glad to hear that there are no probs. I didn't actually report you to Jimbo. I just posted a message regarding the situation at 23:37 (UTC) and you then reverted me at 23.44. But hey.. :) Marek.69 ^talk 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

M.A. Qazi

• Just take a look at the edit history of this new article, talk about bitey! The IP was clearly the article creator and was just trying to remove the incorrect Buddhism infobox as the subject is a muslim. IP blocked for 'vandalism' so they then log in and try again to remove the infobox, they get warned for 'vandalism' multiple times and almost blocked. Really how hard is it to exercise common sense and actually look at what was being removed. All the reverters were Hugglers, why am I not surprised. RMHED (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Tagged for deletion within two minutes of creation and then the subject of a misplaced revert war. As regular readers of this page may be aware, while I think Huggle's a fantastic benefit to the project the same can't be said of all it's users. (Blaming Huggle for the faults of some of its users is like blaming Kitchen Devil for a stabbing, though; any tool can be misused, and the only reason Huggle screwups are so spectacular is that it's so much more efficient than the alternative edit interfaces. The analogy I usually use is machine-gun vs rifle.) – iridescent 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

you're always welcome to do this :) -- Gurch (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If that was in response to this, please don't! 99% of your users are using it correctly. It's no easier to mis-tag something with Huggle than it is with Twinkle or even MediaWiki – the only difference is that Huggle does it faster. (I personally don't think A7 and A9 should exist as speedy-delete reasons at all, but as long as they do there's no point making it unnecessarily hard.) – iridescent 20:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee new DRV

This is a courtesy notice as you were involved in AFD, DRV or CSD's regarding various Matt Lee articles you may want to comment on the new DRV. Also, if you haven't already, you may also want to check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirect question and "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I deleted an attack page on a totally different Matt Lee. No opinion on this one. – iridescent 20:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Dear Iridescent,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2008 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2009 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2009 :-),

 Ashbey  Ӝ  00:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

timestamp 00:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA/DHMO and the whole Kurt saga

Re: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Arbitrary section break "Serious answer: because RFA/DHMO and the whole Kurt saga are now receding into the past, and there's a whole new generation coming through who never learnt the 'this has gone too far' lesson." I'm not familiar with that saga, and I'm not sure what you mean by "the 'this has gone to far' lesson." What should I know? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I fucked DHMO in a way that will possibly bar me from ever considering a run at 'crat status... you could find his morbid details by looking at my talk archives around May/June... and at DHMO's RfA in my past nominations section of my talk page. Kurt was an overzealous opposer who opposed 95% of people whose RfA's he !voted on---for whatever obscure reason he could find--but usually "Oppose, I find self nominations to be prima facia evidence of power hunger".---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And when B-man says "fuck", you know he's serious. Seriously. Tan | 39 17:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm once again reminded of my favourite Arabian Nights story, The Historic Fart: "A man flees his country from the sheer embarrassment of farting at his wedding, only to return ten years later to discover that his fart had become so famous, that people used the anniversary of its occurrence to date other events. Upon learning this he exclaimed, "Verily, my fart has become a date! I shall be remembered forever!" I don't think the memory of the average wikipedian is much more than ten minutes though, so I'm sure you'd be safe at a future RfB. Heck, I'd even consider breaking the habit of a lifetime and supporting Balloonman. Happy New Year to everyone! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MF... your Arabian Nights story brought an audible chuckle to my lips... as I do think that RfA will live in infamy.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that there's a wikipedia article on Flatulence humor (an obvious mis-spelling, but I'll let that pass), when Iridescent's masterly Biscuits and human sexuality is threatened with deletion.

PS. Before I lapse into the drunken idiocy that is customary on New Years Eve, the point that many overlook about the story is that the fart became famous chiefly because the man ran away in shame. You didn't do that, you're still at RfA. That's why I can't see the incident affecting a future crack at 'cratship, if that's on your radar screen. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Go get drunk and come back here and tell us what you really think ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's only just gone 18:00 here, still a little early to get bladdered. I will admit to having enjoyed the company of a certain Mr Daniels a few minutes ago though. What a relaxing manner he has! But I'm going to be very careful not to come back later and tell anyone what I really think about anything. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul? – iridescent 20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

←Good god, it's genuine (and is sandwiched immediately between those two less-significant stories, Sinbad the Sailor and Aladdin). They really don't write books like they used to. – iridescent 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Galib is wishing you a Happy New Year. This card promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day much better. Best Wishes and Happy Editing!

Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.

Just Stopping by. Yours Truly, M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 15:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC) .

Happy New Year!

Dear Iridescent,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all four of the above… – iridescent 22:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

About the Manual of Style for images

I was reading the discussion currently at the top of this page, where you complained about strict enforcement of image size restrictions to the detriment of readers' facility to see and understand those images. I was ready to suggest that you ask for the policy to be changed, but then I checked the policy and it actually says what you want it to say. Quoting from WP:MOS#Images:

Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. This results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences. As a rule, images should not be forced to a fixed size (i.e., one that overrides the default). Where it is appropriate to force size, images should generally be no more than 550 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors. Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:

• Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image
• Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts
• Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article
• Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
• Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels.

You've described the first three of those five cases, where you say someone cited MOS as a reason to reject expanding the image. I suppose you could have asked them if they actually read the MOS. I normally don't, and I'm starting out as a Good Article reviewer. I don't know if it's good or bad, but I'm not going to read the whole MOS. I do have a college education, and if the writing I see is significantly at variance with what I've learned (leaving aside national variations of color vs. colour, cesium vs. caesium and similar) I'll change it, or if that's not practical, I'll leave it as a problem for someone else to fix. So I'm not sure where this leaves you, but if you were to submit an article my way with an image that's larger than 180 pixels, and you gave a valid reason for having that larger image, I'd have no problem passing it on that basis. I wonder if knowing that the MOS is on your side provides any comfort. Crystal whacker (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware – there's no reason you should know the names – but the participants on that thread are a fairly high-level cross section of FAC reviewers and "long article" authors; you can safely assume that everyone in it knows perfectly well what the MOS says (and more significantly, doesn't say) on images, footnote placement, reference formatting, lead lengths and all the other things that people who haven't read it are "quite sure it specifies somewhere" – re-read (if you can bear to) the first paragraph of my initial reply to Moni (the part starting "The FA process does, at the moment, pay very strict adherence to MOS compliance"). You appear to have missed the entire point of the thread, which is a discussion of the fact that too many people – at all levels – don't understand the MOS or (worse) assume they already know what it says and don't bother to read it before throwing themselves into reviews or formatting discussions where a knowledge of what it says is important – or, they treat the MOS as some kind of official policy and not just a loosely linked collection of essays and vague guidelines. If you seriously think this isn't an issue, just head over to FAC and read discussions at random, or click on random GAC pages. In particular, make sure you read Giano's essay, and in particular this section, which neatly summarises the current issue. – iridescent 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot that you had said (paraphrasing) "The MOS says large images are okay, but in practice people don't actually allow large images." There is a disconnect between written policy and practice. I am not surprised by this. I just enlarged an image on HD 40307 because I couldn't see the star at the smaller resolution. I thought that was a good example; maybe I made it too large.

That essay by Giano is an interesting read. Crystal whacker (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to read the whole of that thread (or for glazing over should they attempt to); that thread alone is currently longer than France and twice the length of Food. I don't want to archive it while The Biscuit War is still ongoing as it inter alia provides the background to how that article came into being, but as soon as that AFD closes normal service should be resumed here. Re the first point in your reply, I can't reiterate enough that it's not a case of there being a disconnect between image policy and practice; Wikipedia has no written policy on images other than WP:NFCC. WP:MOSIMAGE is – like all the MOS – purely an arbitrary style guideline; see the disclaimer at the top of every MOS page. If you really want to get into the true Wikilawyer side of things, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Principles, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2#Principles, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan#Principles which set the background for Stability of articles, one of the few (albeit much-ignored) pieces of the MOS which is policy. – iridescent 21:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again for the reply. In order not to become an "obsessive user", I'll leave the conversation here, but I may stop by again sometime. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. The threads aren't usually as long as they are today. – iridescent 15:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR

:O *hugs* as if this page didn't have enough stupid comments on it already -- Gurch (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A post that isn't the size of a talk archive? I think you're on the wrong page… – iridescent 19:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my posts are so long :( it's not just me though -- Gurch (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's still less than half the size of User talk:FT2. Admittedly, I've managed to do it with 10% of the number of threads. (80% of it is the three insanely long threads; the page can then go back to its usual role as the decaffeinated version of Wikipedia Review.) – iridescent 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not much like Wikipedia Review... not nearly enough irrational bitching about contributors. And FT2 hasn't archived since August -- Gurch (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I like to think this page consists mostly of rational bitching about contributors. – iridescent 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the "post the size of a talk archive" wasn't a dig at you, but at me; one post in particular (my original reply to Moni) is longer than some featured articles. – iridescent 22:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured talk pages? :) -- Gurch (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My talk page: 4766 hits in December. Today's Featured Article: 427 hits in December. Just saying. – iridescent 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sex: 838650 hits in December. And it's not even a GA, let alone FA. We don't much cater to our readers, do we? :) (mind you, if we did, list of big-bust models and performers would never have been deleted) -- Gurch (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Masturbation: 486038 hits in December. I think we cater to our readers just fine. The top 1000 articles are always good for a laugh (albeit total bullshit, unless you really think Bernie Mac is our sixth most read article). – iridescent 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It was the sixth most read article in August 2008. For some reason, the "top 1000" hasn't been updated since then -- Gurch (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense in that case, if a lot of obituaries were linking to this page. – iridescent 15:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the heck would I want to work on an article about Sex? (Besides the obvious purient interest...) I can think of very few articles that would be less contentious, honestly. Only political and nationalistic topics would be worse, honestly. There isn't a lot of motivation for your usual run of the mill editor to work on something that is only going to cause heartburn... (Besides, if I wanna study sex, I think practical studies would be more fun...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Practical studies? Help yourself… – iridescent 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good things come to those who wait...

You were so right. — Realist² 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A1 road (London)

You mention on the talk page of this article that it was originally formed by merging together several stubs. If content was added into the article from these stubs shouldn't the former page titles or histories be linked somewhere to afford the attribution required by the GFDL under which it was released? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no obligation to add – or in the case of articles with no contentious history, any point in adding – links to the histories of the previous merged stubs, especially in a case like this where it's extremely obvious what the merged content was given that the first edit to the page consisted of the "unadulterated" merged sections and is labelled as such in the edit summary, and the section headers are the names of the former independent articles. (In any event, if you compare the current article with the merged stubs, virtually none of the pre-merge content still exists.) In cases where the merged articles have substantial conversations on the talk pages, it's good practice for the merged article to contain links to the old talkpages. However, in this case, all but two of the previous talkpages were redlinks; the other two consisted of this and this respectively at the time of the merge. See Merging and moving pages for more on the dos-&-don'ts of merging. – iridescent 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Help:Merging and moving pages says that when merging the full content of a page "Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting "merge content from [[article name]]" (This step is required in order to conform with §4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)" (bold included in original) As it is the page does not make it clear how to find the identities of the original authors of the article for anyone who doesn't know the intricacies of working their way to the history of redirects and even then it is unclear who contributed the content (Aldersgate Street was in the first version of the article but has no edit history before your redirect [1], is this because you wrote the section from scratch or is the history located elsewhere, your initial edit summary does not make it clear.). I do not think it matters that none of the original content remains as the article - or previous versions of it - were still derived from that copyrighted work. I am by no means an expert regarding these things and could easily be mistaken on the technicalities of copyrighting and the GFDL but isn't crediting the original authors just good practise in general anyway? Guest9999 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As is made clear in the very first item on the article talkpage (which you apparently haven't bothered to read before coming here to complain, as it explains the full situation, the provenance of the merged stubs and the fact that Aldersgate Street was a new section) Aldersgate Street was written directly by me in a user sandbox (here, if you need the full history of that as well) and merged into mainspace from userspace at the time of the initial merge and consequently no GFDL attribution is needed. It would not have been possible to list the individual sections by name in the initial merge edit summary; the edit summary "merged in existing articles on individual sections" should make it clear that the individual sections were the "origin" articles, while the redirects created by the merge are obvious via WhatLinksHere. If you disagree with this, this is a wiki: feel free to fix whatever you think needs fixing. I don't know who you are or why you've suddenly developed such an interest in an almost-two-year-old article merge which took place under the full view of WP:LT and WP:ROADS, but if you really feel the urge to complain about it there are plenty of places to do so. – iridescent 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for not noticing your note on the Aldersgate Street section. I can't see the deleted version of your userspace page but if you were the only contributor I don't think it's an issue. I'm not complaining - I have nothing to complain about - I'm just trying to inform you that when merging content the original authors should be credited; when the article was created is immaterial. I do not think that the original note was sufficient for this purpose, for example to find the original contributors to the original St. John Street section users would have to find the history of the page St John Street, London, this is not immediately obvious from the note or the edit summary. I have added a note to the top of the article's talk page with links to the history's of the four articles involved. Feel free to change it if you think it is not accurate. Guest9999 (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New account blocks

I haven't done these in a while, but when I was doing them in August 2008, I was identifying groups of accounts created at the same time, following known username patterns. I had two checkusers (Thatcher and Alison) reviewing my work. I haven't gone back and reviewed the two you cited, but I will point out that there's a fairly well-known Grawp wannabe in the UK (usually referred to as ByAppointmentTo), and many of the blocked accounts were actually his. I wouldn't be surprised if that was BAT complaining to you -- he's well known for "good cop/bad cop" behavior. For more info on BAT, you can ask User:Alison. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, and sorry for being snappy (although I don't know why the checkuser wouldn't have then flagged me up as a potential sockpuppeteer and prompted whoever did the checkuser to ask questions at the time). – iridescent 17:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A more nuanced BLP question

Iridescent,

Got a non-trivial BLP question I'd like your (heretofore uninvolved) opinion on. I declined speedy G10 on some redirects to Robert Eric Wone because they were reliably sourced to the Washington Post, and then started to poke into the article a bit more, expanding it a good bit in the process. (before and now) AfD arguers seem to have two objections: Notability, which I completely understand, and BLP, which I think I understand but about which a lot of people seem to me to be saying very unsupported things. That is, three individuals have been charged with crimes in relation to the event, which are abundantly and impeccably reliably sourced, and have been widely reported in the media over the course of two years. Several other editors have stated that including their names is a BLP violation against them. I've read WP:BLP entirely through again, and I can't find anything, even WP:NPF or WP:BLP1E which supports this interpretation. Is there something here that I'm missing? No one arguing the other side has cited anything specific in response to my queries. What do you think about the BLP impact of naming indicted persons that have been extensively covered in the media? Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't have time to go into this today – if a TPS hasn't answered by tomorrow will do so then. – iridescent 17:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be noted that the three men have been charged with obstruction of justice, but aren't (as far as I know) official suspects in the murder. Even so, they are being treated that way in the media and our article reflects that - the inference is inescapable, in fact, given that the victims wife has sued the men for wrongful death (and is being represented by our soon-to-be federal attorney general here in the US). Avruch ^T 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call the media's treatment of them inappropriate. There are some bloggers out there who have already convicted the housemates in their own minds and posts, but I've been scrupulously careful to avoid those fora and those wordings. My contention would be, as I hinted at in the AfD, that the circumstances are inherently suspicious, and there's simply no way accurately to report on the RS'ed facts while giving the impression that the three housemates are innocent. Rather, the best we can shoot for is NPOV--that neither accuses them, nor exonerates them. But the feedback I seem to keep getting is that's insufficient, that coverage of the event prior to any convictions is somehow a BLP issue, despite the strenuous effort at NPOV and exclusive use of high quality sources. I understand the sentiment, but am head-scratching because I don't see it supported by policy, anywhere. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You've mentioned that an answer to this question isn't found in policy many times. I understand, but I'm not sure that is its own answer - rather, it leaves us to decide the question on our own. I usually try to make my arguments without quoting policy anyway, because a reasoned argument stands on its own. Whether the media treatment of the roommates is appropriate or not is an irrelevant question, and I agree with you that we can't imply the roommates are innocent or write the article without mentioning them at all. All I believe we should do is not mention their names, so that if you Google "X Roommate Of Murdered Guy" you don't get a Wikipedia article that carries the same implications you might expect to see in a news story. Avruch ^T 20:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My zen response: if the answer to the question isn't found in policy, then it is found in policy. That is, there are two aspects of BLP: the first, which isn't particularly relevant to this situation, is that contentious BLP facts don't get a {{fact}}; they get deleted unless well-sourced. The second issue modifies the pillars: That is, there are some things a la Star Wars kid where there's been a decision to withhold information on non-public figures from Wikipedia. But The Washington Post is an entirely different kettle of fish, and these guys have been in the press and had attorneys retained for over two years. Absent any of those considerations, it's clear to me that the pillars apply--multiple reliable sources verify their names and the fact they've been charged with a crime. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We have the WP:BLP#Privacy of names section which might apply here, although probably not if they have been "extensively covered", like you say.
It certainly doesn't with the Star Wars kid, where every reference we list mentions the name of the kid. I think it does with e.g. Jenny Hendrix, where the subject doesn't want the name to be known and we only have one shaky reference for it anyway. --Amalthea 11:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing I can think of to a recent "policy precedent" is the case of Peter Tobin, discussed here. The issue isn't quite the same – in Tobin's case the police force dealing with the case themselves requested the article be temporarily blanked to avoid prejudicing a trial – but since even in these circumstances, the consensus seemed to be "contentious BLP material doesn't get deleted providing it's sourced", I suspect any policy discussion in this case would have the same result. (FWIW, I disagree with the "information has a right to be free" argument in Tobin's case – I think "potentially prejudicing a murder trial" pretty clearly falls under our core "do no harm" policy – but I recognise that the community doesn't agree with me.) – iridescent 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

As a regular patroller of recent changes on Wikipedia, please could you add Dnepropetrovsk maniacs to your watchlist. A serious issue arose over this article during the last few days, see Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. The link involved here is currently the subject of a XLinkBot revert, see User:XLinkBot/RevertList. Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. – iridescent 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Iridescent. I am well aware that Jimbo reverted one of your edits. As the talk page of Dnepropetrovsk maniacs makes clear, I watched this video in full and was stunned and sickened by the content. Under no circumstances can this be included in a Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See my replies in the thread linked above. I personally agree that this link is inappropriate and would happily see all shock-site and similar links removed, but I don't see how this is inappropriate in terms of current Wikipedia practice. Multiple similar links (I've referenced a sample in the thread above but there are many, many more) are not removed, and are actively re-added by the WP:NOTCENSORED brigade. In what way was this link inappropriate whilst these for example aren't? – iridescent 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to get drawn into a long debate over this issue. I am as much in favour of freedom of expression on the Internet as the next person, and would not normally advise the removal of material from Wikipedia unless it was required by state of Florida law, where Wikipedia's server computers are based. However, all Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:NOTCENSORED, are intended to be interpreted with common sense and the occasional exception. Even if Jimbo had not issued a direct instruction on this, it would have been one of my strongest concerns to remove this link from Wikipedia. WP:EL is clearly incompatible with this link, and the website also contains links to hardcore porn websites that are incompatible with WP:EL. Also, I am not an expert on Ukrainian law, but this matter relates to an ongoing criminal trial in Ukraine. Wikipedia should not be exposed to charges that it has screwed up a criminal trial by publishing material prejudicial to the proceedings. That is all that I can say on this matter. (Btw, I have seen the other links before, but they do not raise identical concerns).

PS: a) Have you watched the video in full?

b) are you seriously saying that people in schools and public libraries should be able to access this material easily?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only a couple of weeks since we had a very lengthy and heated discussion in which it was fairly clearly established that "might prejudice a criminal trial" even at the request of the legal authorities in question is not a reason to remove material from Wikipedia. And, to reiterate what I said above, I don't see how the multiple links we have to Liveleak (aka ogrish.com), for example – which exists pretty much for the sole purpose of hosting snuff films and hardcore porn – are any different to this. I personally think all these links should go, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus for this as a general principle, and looking at the talkpage of the article doesn't appear to be any clear consensus in the case of this article either. Jimmy Wales is not the God Of The Internet; unless he's acting in an official role on behalf of the WMF I treat his opinions as no more or less valid than I'd treat any other editor's. The "zOMG think of the children" argument is a complete red herring; schools and libraries are perfectly capable of fitting link filters if they're concerned, and quite frankly no child is going to use Wikipedia as a source of pornography. – iridescent 19:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LiveLeak is often compared to Ogrish, but it contains much less deliberate shock material. Also, I re-iterate the point about screwing up criminal trials. This issue seems to be causing a few ego problems for you. Please look at WP:CONSENSUS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Liveleak is Ogrish. The latter is a redirect to the former. And for the third time today, it was established only last month that we do not remove material because it might prejudice criminal trials even at the request of the authorities (who in this case have made no such request). – iridescent 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

wikimedia commons semingly hosts more explicit pics than wikiporn.org, so I find it entirely feasible that "youngsters of today" might well use wikipedia to find pornography. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vulva (NSFW, in case you couldn't guess) for example, is amusingly headed with a "A Thank You from Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales", so obviously someone finds it useful :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.197.43.26 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've run out of things to say about this. However, a direct link to the video concerned is likely to be banned for the foreseeable future.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Iamawesome800 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. I don't know what was going on there. – iridescent 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypervitaminosis D

I'm curious as to why you felt my edit was unconstructive. The Wikipedia article claimed vitamin D deficiency as a cause of depression, and cited the JNT article for this; the abstract for that same JNT article states that "These findings do not support the idea that vitamin D is specifically involved in the pathophysiology of depression".

I felt that "Depression link not supported by cited article" was a reasonably informative edit summary; what would you have suggested as a better one?

(Responding here since I'm not guaranteed to be on the same IP next time I check.) --144.53.226.17 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Grovelling apologies - entirely my mistake and I've reverted myself. – iridescent 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings :-) And now I check the diff view, I can see why it looked like I'd deleted a great big wodge of content and added a whole lot more, rather than just adding a tag. --144.53.226.17 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I still should have checked more closely - I've fallen into the "any significant change is suspicious" trap I'm always criticizing others for. Again, sorry... – iridescent 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lara's talk page stalker shall provide:

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		For taking the principles of Free Speech and WP:NOTCENSORED beyond to such extremes that even Jimbo Himself finds them beyond the scope of human dignity, I hearby award you this Barnstar of Liberty. Here's to keeping Wikipedia free for all graphic snuff films for all time!

This is in good humor, as you asked. Feel free to delete it and whack me with a WP:TROUT should this not be taken as intended. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that "Himself" has been capitalized. لennavecia 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, this was an article about a graphic snuff film, so I still don't see how it was "inappropriate". We have external links to Stile Project, Liveleak, Rotten.com etc and Jimbo doesn't feel the urge to complain; likewise, he didn't complain when we featured a screen capture from 2 Girls 1 Cup, and only a couple of weeks ago was resoundingly defending our Inalienable Right To Host Kiddy Porn. And is perfectly happy to employ as a media spokesman and director of Wikimedia UK the host of k-k-k.com, lemonparty.org, thewillpower.org, yourmom.org… Or am I getting too old and cynical? – iridescent 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. What? - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that the DG equivalent of the fact tag? I think Iri can get rs for all her claims. لennavecia 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As of 2 December at any rate a David Gerard was the operator of wefixtech.co.uk, according to this blog post by "David Gerard"; I have no reason to think this is any other David Gerard given that as of February 08 you were referring to yourself as the operator in your own blog and it seems vanishingly unlikely you transferred it to another person of the same name. Whois result for k-k-k.com. Whois result for lemonparty.org. Whois result for thewillpower.org. Whois result for yourmom.org. What part of this are you disputing? – iridescent 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't my box (though I have root on it), but my own sites do live on it. I wasn't aware such respected portions of the internet dwelled thereon. Good to know I'm in such illustrious company - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough – although since you do refer to wefixtech as "we" in the LiveJournal post cited above ("it's now strictly our toy", you can see why one would think there's a connection. – iridescent 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The I got reverted by Jimbo Barnstar of Infamy

		The I got reverted by Jimbo Barnstar of Infamy
		You have violated human dignity and Jimbo ain't happy. What's even worse is that you haven't apologized to Jimbo, this makes Jimbo mad. Never stare a mad Jimbo in the eyes as it usually results in a desysopping. The Jimbo can now only be placated with a WikiLove template on his talkpage, accompanied by decorous praise.

I hope you've learned your lesson you errant rapscallion. RMHED (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to kiss and make up, there's a plate of WikiCookies waiting. – iridescent 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone ate the biscuits. :/ لennavecia 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking care of the AC thing on Risker's talkpage. It's really going to help with the project I'm starting. SDJ 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I can't be any help in explaining how the thing actually works; I'm asked infrequently enough that there didn't seem any point learning how the tool works, and just run through the log off → create account → log back in to my own account cycle on the rare occasions I need to. – iridescent 15:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem with not knowing how it all works. I've just figured out that using Special:Userlogin while already logged in to create the new accounts for my students really works quite well. SDJ 14:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's how I do it on the occasions I need to. The disadvantage of doing it this way is that the accounts don't have the "created by" flag in the log, and instead look like one IP creating a bunch of sock accounts, with unfortunate consequences like this. – iridescent 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I ran into that the first day I was creating the new accounts. An overaggressive new account patroller started an SSP case against me. It quickly went away though, as I've been completely above-board all along. There are still five or six of the accounts I created that are tagged as SSPs, though. I'll have to request deletion of those userpages when I get the chance. SDJ 15:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

why?

why are you being mean? i love pussandra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejonay (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Life's unfair sometimes, isn't it? – iridescent 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

external links

"One or more of the external links you added in this edit to Deer do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. You may wish to read the introduction to editing."

I may wish to ask you, what is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.78.251 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See Links normally to be avoided, particularly #5 ("Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services"). This is a commercial art gallery selling pictures of extinct species, not an academic site on extinct species. If you really think this is necessary, re-add it and I won't revert it - but don't be surprised if someone else re-removes it. – iridescent 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to sell or to buy anything of that. And I don't see any visible difference between this online gallery and almost any other. This link does not violate the rule indisputably. Compare with youtube. So I revert, and let somebody third decide to do or not to do something else.92.124.78.251 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

While images of extinct deer are interesting, in this case they are simply pretty pictures on a commercial web site which may or may not be realistic. I entirely agree with Iridiscent, and if the EL is restored then I will remove it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New Year Met

. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

*hugs*

*hugs* -- Gurch (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

oh BTW, once-in-a-lifetime chance to desysop Jimbo here -- Gurch (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Another once-in-a-lifetime chance, to see me type this sentence: I agree with every word Majorly says and think he's absolutely right. Too many of this project's problems (the WMF as a whole, not just en-wiki) stem from the whole "all hail the great prophet Jimbo" mentality, which might have been appropriate in the wild west days of 2001-02 but are totally inappropriate now (and while I know nothing about Florida law, would almost certainly be illegal under English law – google "shadow director" some time). Since I have precisely 3 edits on Meta, two of which are to my talkpage and the other to encourage a now-banned user, I don't think it's appropriate for me to weigh in there – but I totally support what Majorly's trying to do. The project should be run by (a) the trustees and (b) the editors. Since Jimbo has resigned his position on the former and shows no particular interest in the latter, it's long past the time we cut the last umbilical cord to Nupedia and Bomis. This won't "hurt" Jimbo – he'll still have the power to resysop himself if he needs to – but it would send out a powerful signal that he's not the God-King of Wikipedia he sometimes seems to think he is. – iridescent 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't really do that, either; nobody is proposing (nor able) to take the founder group away from him. But I thought you'd find it mildly amusing regardless :) -- Gurch (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't do anything, but it at least sends a "look, we can stnd on our own two feet and don't need you constantly interfering" signal. You only need to look at this mess to see what happens when he starts jumping into debates without fully understanding the issues. Think of it as the difference between Henry VIII and Elizabeth II. – iridescent 14:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can think of some other examples. (Though I will never state my actual opinion on Jimbo's special position here as I believe people have been blocked for less) -- Gurch (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If Jimbo wants a concrete example of what I personally think his role should be, I think Bill Gates does a great job of keeping the "founding father" and "public face" status whilst making it clear he's no longer in control and isn't going to keep interfering whenever the whim takes him. – iridescent 15:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for catching my mistake! —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 22:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More than welcome… Charlottetown Rural High School looks like it could do with as many eyes as possible on it; every vandal in Canada seems to have decided to pay a visit lately. – iridescent 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page

Thanks for reverting the IP user's edit off my talk page. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem - if it carries on I'll block it, but it seems to have got bored and wandered off. – iridescent 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit?

I've expanded this a little more, some interesting stuff on the music video. Fancy giving it a quick read over before the reviewer comes? You might spot more silly errors like before. I started a new section at the bottom of your talk page, I'm sure you want all that stuff at the top to archive eventually lol. — Realist² 00:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A very few things:

1. Is "while shacking a piece of percussion" a mis-spelling of "shaking", or is shacking a technical term for something?

   Spelling error, will fix

2. The "charts" section has some gaping holes – Austria but no Germany, and no Japan, are the most obvious;

   I should be able to get chart positions for Austria and Germany. There are no reliable sources that archive Japanese positions. We've had that problem at WP:CHARTS

3. The "criticism" section seems to have too many variations of "the track was…";

   Will try to spice it up a little bit.

4. I'm not sure the credits are really necessary – as with the Very Long Thread, I'm not convinced anyone will really care who the drum programmer, for example, was – and those who do will presumably own the record;

   I hate them myself, but I assure you, If they are removed, someone will only keep adding it back.

5. Why is there a succession box for "UK number one single" but not for any of the other charts in which it reached #1? (There may be a good reason for this due to WP:MUSIC style guides, but it looks odd

   Hmm, dunno.

6. The comparative failure in the US compared to elsewhere is very noticeable; if an explanation exists, the article would benefit from it.

   Lack of promotion & media interest in personal life (as covered in the article for the album), I can copy and paste some info over

Aside from that, can't see anything obvious. – iridescent 00:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Irid, will get to it. — Realist² 01:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to put this one through peer review before you send it off to GA/FA for assessment. That way, any issues will be addressed and resolved in the relatively good-natured arena of PR rather than the flamepits of GAN/FAC. I personally think it would improve things quite a bit if at least 1 week at PR were made a compulsory step in the FA process, to weed out obvious problem candidates and resolve the obvious quirks and queries. – iridescent 15:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

hi there

i'm kinda new to this whole thing. so hi :) Tomandhismathcore (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi – are you on the right talkpage? We've never spoken, or edited the same page before, AFAIK. – iridescent 11:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks like he's new and looking for advice or something. Maybe you should adopt him, or at least watchlist his talk page. I'll watchlist anyway...--Patton^t/c 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a rasist!

News to me. — Realist² 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

sv:Rasism -- Gurch (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting assistance needed

Do you think you could do something about the personnel section on Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix. It's very long, and it's difficult to scroll down the page. I was thinking it could do with a hide and show switch of some sort. — Realist² 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not in the least sure it's even necessary – it looks like it's skirting the edge of a directory to me. If you just want a "standard" collapse box, take the source code of {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} and fiddle with the settings until you get something you like the look of; for anything more complicated you'd need to ask someone who understands these things better than me. Collapse boxes almost certainly violate some part of the MOS, but unless you're planning on taking it to FA there shouldn't be an issue. – iridescent 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm planning to take it to FA (it will probably be my next FA attempt). I'll just let the FAC bandits mess with it later lol. — Realist² 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain that's an attitude likely to endear you or your article to those "FAC bandits". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Calm… R2's clearly a fan of FAC or he wouldn't be coming back for more after pushing this and this through. Besides, having seen enough of his insults I'm sure if he wanted to criticise you, he'd be far more inventive. – iridescent 21:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We all know Realist well... he's survived so far (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And if I'd wanted to be critical then I'd have been far more brutal. I guess maybe I'm still smarting from Realist calling me one of those editors that hates him. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How many of those people have articles, or would merit them? If it's sufficiently few that a standalone List of performers on Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix would be deleted for it, then probably best not to have it in the article either (I'm assuming it's not many as none of them are wikilinked) --Gurch (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I tend to agree with Gurch on this one. I know Thriller has a similar section, but I'd argue that because so much of that particular album has "iconic" status, performing on it makes one at least arguably notable in a way that isn't the case for Jackson's later albums. Take all this with a big disclaimer that I don't have any experience with music articles and don't know what the accepted custom and practice is. (P.S. LaToya Jackson on Big Brother? Who the hell thought that would be a good idea?) – iridescent 21:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I never added the personnel list to that article, someone else did. I was half tempted to delete it, but the guy obviously spent quite some time writing it.

I don't dislike the FAC process or it's followers. The thing is, I've got 16 articles to GA (Thriller (album) is now FA and someone else got Janet Jackson to FA). Thus there are 14 GA's that I could potentially take to FA and for the most part, it's not worth it. Most of them are singles relating to M. Jackson and there is no more information available on them, they are too small for FA. Jackson is reclusive, rarely talks about his artistic process and the press rarely discuss Jackson as a musician. This makes getting any of his singles to FA rather difficult. Then we have articles like 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson's health and appearance which are too controversial for FAC. Getting Michael Jackson to FA was not easy or remotely fun. I didn't sleep for three days, everyone wanted more and more information added, even though the article was already huge and there was infighting between established FAC reviewers.

I'll continue to take articles to FAC (mostly articles on albums) but don't see myself ever becoming an FAC reviewer. I'm quite content doing the occasion GA review or peer review. Ultimately FAC is only applicable to certain articles, for most, it can't or won't happen. — Realist² 22:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK there's no size limit for FAs provided the article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Theoretically Hypnodog could meet the Featured article criteria with the addition of a photo and the creation of a lead section. Incidentally, if you want a Jackson BLP that needs cleaning up, Jermaine Jackson could do with a major spring clean (the EL section and supposed "references" make me wince). – iridescent 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

However FAC doesn't cover, "look, yes, I would like to make the article longer, I would like to mention all the thinks you suggested, but neither Jackson or the press have discussed it and likely never will". Take Blood on the Dance Floor (song), current GA candidate. I've looked high and low for documented information. It might get through the GA process, but would bomb at FAC. Nothing I can do about it though. — Realist² 22:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want another one that falls into your remit, needs cleaning up, and ought to be reasonably easily sourced, Living with Michael Jackson desperately needs something done about it. At the moment it's like an {{articleissues}} checklist. (Unsourced controversial blp? ✓ Overreliance on a single source? ✓ Inappropriate & misleading links? ✓ Tagged as biased for over a year? ✓) The AFD makes entertaining reading, though.

If you want a quick-and-dirty way to get some pretty yellow stars for your userpage, Records and achievements of Michael Jackson could probably be pumped up to FL standard with a minimum of effort. If Mark Lanegan discography can pass it, I don't see why this shouldn't. If you really want a cynical dash to the top of WBFLN, a similar list could probably be compiled for all the rest of the siblings with the possible exception of Rebbie. – iridescent 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson

Yeah, I've had my eye on Living with Michael Jackson as a possible GA. La Toya is on my watchlist because of this Big Brother thing. Will make for interesting tv... — Realist² 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised how little vandalism it's getting. People must not watch Big Brother any more. – iridescent 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the vandals just like La toya? Maybe not... — Realist² 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick dip-sample on this year's BB contestants shows all the vandalism levels down at insultingly low levels (number of edits to Verne Troyer in the past 48 hours: 0; number of edits to Lucy Pinder in the past 3 days: 1 and that was by you). If Wikipedia vandalism is a measure of a celebrity's profile, BB is getting an audience share lower than the Shipping Forecast (2 edits in the last 48 hours). – iridescent 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

EEk!! I'm the only person on the face of the planet watching big brother, oh lord... — Realist² 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

After the unfortunate events of last time, I think they've chosen a deliberately dull bunch this year. I find it hard to imagine anyone outside their immediate families having an opinion on Terry Christian, Lucy Pinder et al – while the "eccentric characters" who were presumably supposed to liven things up, are all on best behaviour. You'd think they'd have learned from the last series that the Jacksons are a lot less eccentric than Michael's publicists would have us believe. – iridescent 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, so true. Jermaine and La Toya have been some of the most calm, and polite contestants I've ever seen on the show (that includes both the normal and celebrity version). Still, it's easily days. There is still time for La Toya to claim she's a cannibal. — Realist² 02:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already seen one "is she actually Michael in disguise?" story. Barrels are being scraped. – iridescent 15:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How can it be MJ? I thought he had a lung disease *rolls eyes*, the media talk some shit. He hasn't done anything controversial since his trial (that's 3.5 years, a long time by his standards), so the press need to make crap up instead. I believe the public are finally beginning to question some of these stories. — Realist² 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In some ways he brings it on himself – back in the 80s he and his publicists very enthusiastically planted "eccentric genius" stories in the press to raise his profile. (Remember the pyramid? The oxygen tent? The team of trained monkey personal servants? The attempt to buy the Elephant Man? The pet giraffe?) Now with eight years gone since the last album, the "genius" part has been forgotten while the "eccentric" part sticks. – iridescent 15:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh certainly, the stories he was spreading though the press between 1986-1988 were his own fault. However, if you want to get into the real physiology behind it, you could safely put forward the argument that he wasn't in the best state of mind and not 100% responsible for his own actions. Regardless, I think he's paid enough for that mistake. ;-/ — Realist² 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Come watch La Toya get tasered (no seriously, I'm not joking...)

Epic, on so many levels. — Realist² 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And who says they don't make entertainment like they used to? (It all begs the question of why she wants a taser license given that she's surely surrounded by bodyguards 24/7.) – iridescent 15:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've caught your sockpuppet account! – iridescent 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Shit. Irid how could you expose me like that? Looks like this will never happen. — Realist² 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Realist 2 2" is too confusing, anyway. (Whatever did happen to Realist 1?) – iridescent 01:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, I've only ever created this account (Serious, I'm not joking), I have no idea why I added a "2" on the end, but I like it. I suppose someone could create Realist1 if they wanted, I'm still the real deal though. :D — Realist² 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't really argue – way back in the old days I was User:Heavenly41, despite users Heavenly 1 through 40 not existing (with the odd exception of Heavenly28 and Heavenly37). – iridescent 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, how many years have you been here? Hopefully I will never feel the need to change accounts. I reckon User:Essjay probably still edits Wikipedia on a new account. — Realist² 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Essjay probably doesn't; too many people will be watching out for him. If you want to go into guessing-game mode, you can work through this lot playing "who are they now?". Regarding my history it's complicated: I joined in early 2006 as User:Iridescenti, but edited as an IP (it didn't have the stigma back then), only using the account when I needed to edit something semiprotected (generally my futile attempt to clean up Hot or Not). User:Heavenly41 was created as an alt-account for editing music articles as I wanted to keep the "websites and emergency service infrastructure" (which were my main areas at the time) separated from the "dubious indie bands". When I started my (still in the pipeline) stab at rewriting Amelia Fletcher – which has been on my to-do list for as long as the list has existed – I deliberately stopped using the Heavenly41 account, as she was (among other things) in a band called Heavenly and I thought it might set the COI-spotters' nostrils twitching. Remember, this was the height of the MyWikiBiz hysteria and "potential COI" had the status that "potential Grawp sock" has now. Iridescenti lost the last "i" to become Iridescent in early 2007, and in 2008 Heavenly41 (which had always been tagged as an alt-account) became User:Iridescent 2 for convenience's sake. User:Eva Destruction completes the set; that's an empty shell account which exists purely as a redirect as it's the name I'm usually known by elsewhere.

Aren't you glad you asked? – iridescent 01:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

0.o, BTW, I did plan to do some work on Big Boy, but my watchlist was too busy. I'll get it done though. — Realist² 02:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No rush. Sorry I can't be more help but while I can find lots of passing mentions, I can find virtually no coverage of the song itself aside from fansites. – iridescent 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

wow, that's quite a lot of accounts. I only have two. one of which is banned :( -- Gurch (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Still? It's been what, two years? (I hardly ever use the two alt-accounts – they're kept just for convenience and occasional public-access use now). – iridescent 14:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just realised it's nearly four years since I registered. And that not only have most of the regulars at that time left, but also most of the regulars when I was an administrator have left. And that in those four years the project hasn't really gone anywhere much. Meh. -- Gurch (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for cut-and-pasting this much-overused set of links again but it warrants it; it's only four years since these were considered to be our best articles (all FAs in 2004). Spending time at the spam-and-attack-page RecentChanges/NewPages coalface, it's easy to lose sight of just how much better our non-cruft articles are – think of the torrent of crap as the sewage that feeds the flowers. It's always a useful exercise to look at a random Citizendium article, and then look at the comparable Wikipedia article; I've yet to find a case where the Academic Elite have produced a higher quality article than the Squabbling Horde Of Kids And Vandals have managed. We are a hell of a lot further on than we used to be; if anything we've advanced too far (see my previous comments about how insanely high the FA/GA criteria have risen). – iridescent 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium

Speaking of Citizendium, do you by any chance happen to know if they take copyright violations seriously or not? E.g. this is a straight copy-paste of my work, yet I don't see my name or a link back to its source :) -- Gurch (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Their copyright policy says they should be at the very least crediting Wikipedia for anything they lift from us; their edit window includes a "copied from Wikipedia" flag for just this kind of case. They did import a database dump from Wikipedia back when they were setting it up, which they say they deleted but this may have slipped the net. If you leave a message on User talk:Larry Sanger here, Larry or one of his disciples will presumably fix the problem. I don't know of anyone here who's willing to go through their insane registration process which meets no definition of "quick and easy" I ever heard of ("If you have a non-free email address that bears your name, please use it; e.g., university or work address. (You can change it to your personal email address later). Your email address will be sent a confirmation message once this request is submitted. You must respond by clicking on the confirmation link provided by the the email. Also, your password will be emailed to you when your account is created, along with login information. If you use a free e-mail address (e.g., gmail or yahoo), you must include some other information that helps us to confirm your identity. This could include a link to your (optional) BeenVerified™ page; credible webpages listing your (free) e-mail address, names of persons that we can look up online to aid in confirming your identity, current members you know, etc. You could even scan and upload a copy of an ID card (but we might still need to connect your ID to your e-mail address). Authors are required to provide only a statement about their personal interests and education, preferably a few hundred words, and not fewer than 50. Rough clues as to age and location might be helpful to other users but are optional. Please note: your biography must demonstrate that you possess high proficiency in English. Provide the name on your driver's license or other identification card. First name (given name) and last name (family name). Use normal capitalization, punctuation, and spaces, e.g., John A. Doe. You may use middle names and initials if you wish. No pseudonyms.)" but there must be someone here who's a member of both and can sort it out. – iridescent 16:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurgh. And I thought "the encyclopedia anyone can edit if the page isn't protected, and you're not blocked, and your IP address isn't blocked, and someone else who once used your IP address isn't blocked, and you're not behind a proxy, and your username meets policy, and you're not banned, and you're not banned from the specific page you want to edit, and either the page isn't semi-protected or you have an account which is more than 4 days old and has more than 10 edits, and you either have an account or don't want to create pages, and if your definition of 'edit' includes having your work reversed a few seconds later if someone doesn't like it and/or overwritten by a vandal and/or deleted and/or mercilessly edited into complete crap" was bad enough -- Gurch (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. just scrolled up to discover this thread was originally titled "Formatting assistance needed". Only on your talk page could you get from that to here via tasering :) -- Gurch (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, doesn't the website also ask for your social security number, bank account number, and routing number?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is only their requirement to log on as a "basic author". If you want to have the "Editor" flag – basically, gives you the right to authorise the flagged revisions made by the riff-raff who've only gone through the "quick and easy" process above, you also need to: "Fill out this form and include two further items: a CV or resume attached (or linked), as well as some links to Web material that tends to support the claims made in the CV, such as conference proceedings, or a departmental home page. Both of these additional requirements may be fulfilled by a CV that is hosted on an official work Web page. If you lack a current CV, lists of publications or other such documents that establish your expertise may be suitable. When your editorship is approved, you'll receive an e-mail to enable you to log in at Special:Userlogin. If you're not approved as an editor, you might still be approved as an author."

And they wonder why they have trouble recruiting members, or why trivial topics like Moscow, Palestine or John Major are redlinks. – iridescent 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm being totally unfair on Citizendium. They do host this magnificent piece of writing. – iridescent 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(re Gurch) Did you see the thread last week that started as a question about forced image widths and ended up including the phrases "Jammie Dodger sex" and "U r prolly a virgin too LOL I get laid 8 times a day" 100kb later? – iridescent 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Big Boy

It's getting bigger. — Realist² 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My, that one's grown! (Seriously, I think that would make a good DYK as you could get some genuinely interesting hooks out of that. It could probably get through GA as well as long as you avoided the more obnoxious reviewers.) – iridescent 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, still looking for more info before I send it live. I don't really understand how DYK works, what hook should I use? — Realist² 20:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your GA reviewer would be a bit of lottery, but as one of the most obnoxious of them I promise to leave your article alone if it's nominated.</joke> --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't be taking it to GA unless I find a treasure chest of reliably sourced information on this obscure composition. Don't you worry about that lol. — Realist² 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand DYK either, it has to be said. More to the point, I don't understand the thinking of the people who run it, who seem to work off a different definition of "interesting" than the rest of us. (Unless you think The Kid In Africa™ really cares that "the Silesian Duke Henry V the Fat spent some of his youth at the court of Ottokar II of Bohemia in Prague" or "that polyamino carboxylic acid compounds have extensive applications in chemical, biomedical and environmental sciences" is interesting.) I'd suggest either "…that the master tapes to Big Boy, the first release by the Jackson 5, were found in a pantry in 1994 after being lost for 25 years?" or just plain "…that Big Boy was the first record released by the Jackson 5?". If you can get hold of the number of pressings, then "…that Michael Jackson's first release, Big Boy, sold less than 20,000 or whatever copies?" would have the best "that's interesting" value. – iridescent 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK has lost its way. Did you know that my right big toe nail is longer than my left big toe nail? There ought at least to be a "why would anyone care?" criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You know my opinions on DYK; I think some of the stuff that makes it onto our "showcase" page just feeds the "Wikipedia is run by nerds and kids" stereotypes. (Yes, I know it's true to some extent but we shouldn't be boasting about it.) We have 2 million articles, with so much genuinely interesting stuff – we really don't need the "Did you know that American actor Carl Weathers says Buxton is his favourite town in the north of England"* style hooks we sometimes get. – iridescent 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

*I've no idea if that was a genuine DYK or not. It is a genuine quote from Wikipedia. – iridescent 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking either "The Jackson 5 first single" or "Master copies found 25 years later". Hopefully my first DYK on the way. I was tempted to turn it into a larger article. Say "The Jackson 5 at Steeltown Records". I think that's the only way to get such an article to GA. We could then make the two Steeltown singles redirect to that article. Thoughts? — Realist² 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to see if you can poke Lara out of "retirement" for that one. She knows far more than me (or Malleus) about what works and what doesn't when it comes to WikiProject Music and their gotta-be-different-from-everyone-else approach. – iridescent 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows more than me about whatever WP:Music's standards are, but I helped Frank Zappa get through FAC, so yah boo sucks! --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BB DYK

OK, I think we is ready to send it live. Shall I send it live and you (Irid) stick it on the DYK nomination page? Is it long enough? I know there is a minimum size it must be. Lol, my sock puppetry has been discovered. — Realist² 00:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to nominate something for DYK, follow the instructions here. Given my less-than-cordial comments on occasion about the mini-cabal who run DYK, their mentality, and all they represent, it's probably not a good idea for me to post it as it will likely set them frantically searching for reasons to oppose. – iridescent 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, according to my word count it's not even 600 words long (including the lead). They want a minimum of 1500 (not sure if that includes a lead). I would say we is screwed :( — Realist² 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they want 1500 characters in the article-text (about 300 words). You're easily over. – iridescent 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused, I though characters was a posh English phrase for word. Anyway, so long as I'm over :-) — Realist² 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To get a rough "character count excluding references" for an article, go to the article history, take the page-size of the most recent revision, and deduct 25%. "Character" means any letter, number or symbol (so "1/2" counts as 3 characters while "½" only counts as one). – iridescent 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ow my, you learn something new every day visiting Irids talk page :D — Realist² 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you know...the first single every released by The Jackson 5—"Big Boy"—was reissued more than 25 years later, after the master copy was rediscovered in a pantry.

What you reckon? Quite a hook? — Realist² 21:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "DYK… that Michael Jackson was only 10 years old when he recorded Big Boy, the first release by The Jackson 5, which was reissued more than 25 years later after the master tapes were discovered in a pantry?" – that has more "hot button" links that are likely to grab attention, squeezes in four separate at-least-arguably-interesting facts, and comes in at (exactly) DYK's 200-character size limit? – iridescent 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and me get MJ mentioned in there. OK, I'll go create the article now. :D — Realist² 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you go with mine, make sure you explicitly say the part about him being 10 in the article. I realise it should be obvious from looking at the release date and his birthdate, but the DYK cabal insist on citations for the fact the sky is blue. – iridescent 21:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DONE. — Realist² 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-empting a concern that one of the Defenders Of The Wiki will no doubt raise: when someone comes whining that the title should be Big Boy (song), that's not appropriate as it's probably better known as the title of a Sparks song (because the latter also served as the theme tune to Rollercoaster). – iridescent 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All of there singles have been moved to (The Jackson 5 song) instead of (song) for consistency. Although the vast majority don't have either as it's not needed. Also, can someone close this, it's becoming a joke. — Realist² 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't close it,as I'm mentioned on it. Any TPS want to put this out of its misery? (It would probably provide far more lulz value to let it run.) – iridescent 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the serious Lulz factor to it all. Lol, maybe I am an admin after all (Ericorbit is an admin). That embarrassing, humiliating RfA I did a few weeks ago was to keep you all off my trail. ;D — Realist² 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I DEMAND A CHECKUSER!

The insanity (or should that be inanity) deepens. As I read this, apparently I'm now your sockpuppet too. Would it be easier if he just listed those accounts he thinks aren't your socks? – iridescent 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I ought to make some random comment on the RFCU just to see how long it takes for me to be added to your ring. I mean, pfft, all User:Iridescent and User:J.delanoy have done is maintain 10 and 6 edits/min, respectively, for an hour - simultaneously. They are so obviously the same account, we don't even need the checkuser. And at the same time, it's obvious that Realist's apparent "interest" in music and Iridescent's "interest" in transit is merely a blind to throw off suspicion. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the three of us were all present in this conversation. (Despite being almost a year old now, I suspect everyone involved may remember that one.) Obviously part of the cunning smokescreen. – iridescent 20:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts with my multiple sock puppets Irid and J.D - ;D) - Good lord, I RULE THE WIKI! Smell my socks! ;) — Realist² 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Shock horror, me, you and Ericorbit as not the same person. Who would have thought. — Realist² 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Go find an article he edits a lot and make some minor edits to it – give our fearless sock-hunting friend something to get his teeth into. – iridescent 15:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

His reply, about "watching you", surprised me. I expected him to include in Realist's sock ring whatever checkuser declined his request. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Give him time. – iridescent 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's much more likely, as myself and Eric suspect, that he is an actual sockpuppet, although neither of us have the energy or interest to file a case. — Realist² 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp, upside-down text & covert deletionism

˙˙˙ǝɟıl ɹıǝɥʇ ɟo ɹnoɥ uɐ ɟlɐɥ ǝsol oʇ sʇuɐʍ sdʇ ʎuɐ ɟı

Can a fresh pair of eyes look at the highly dubious goings-on at Arthur Kemp and wield cluesticks appropriately? – iridescent 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No. No time for content issues. More importantly, how the hell did you write upside down? Keeper | 76 04:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure it out too. *Shrug* — Realist² 04:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(: ǝ1boob uo buıɥɔɹɐǝs ʎɹʇ Majorly talk 04:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like work. I'm sure it's just keystrokes though. the "boob" in your post gave it away. Keeper | 76 04:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

˙˙˙ʎןɹoɾɐɯ 'dıʇ ǝɥʇ ɹoɟ sʞuɐɥʇ ¡ʎsɐǝ os sı sıɥʇ Keeper | 76 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

˙ɹǝdǝǝʞ 'ǝɹnsɐǝld ʎɯ Majorly talk 15:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Y'all have way ǝɯıʇ ɥɔnɯ ooʇ on your hands.  Frank  |  talk  16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(ɔʇn) 9002 ʎɹɐnuɐɾ 9 '64:91 ʇuǝɔsǝpıɹı – ˙noʎ ɟo ʇol ǝɥʇ 'sq00u ˙sƃıs ɹnoʎ ƃuıʇʇǝƃɹoɟ llıʇs llɐ ǝɹ,noʎ

(ɔʇn) 6002 ʎɹɐnuɐɾ 6 'L5:02 (ʞ1ɐʇ) ɥɔɹnb -- ʍou ʎɐʍ ʇɥbıɹ ǝɥʇ dn ʞɔɐq pɐǝɥ ɹnoʎ uɹnʇ uɐɔ noʎ ʞo .ʎɐpoʇ pǝɹoq ɯɐ ı ʍoʍ ...ɔʇǝ 'ǝɯosǝʍɐ 'ǝʇnɔ buıǝq ɹoɟ ʇuǝɔsǝpıɹı oʇ pǝpɹɐʍɐ
ɹɐʇsuɹɐq uʍop-ǝpısdn ǝɥʇ

(ɔʇn) 9002 ʎɹɐnuɐɾ 9 '80:121 ʇuǝɔsǝpıɹı – (˙ǝƃɐd sıɥʇ ɟo doʇ ǝɥʇ ʇɐ llǝɥ ɯoɹɟ pɐǝɹɥʇ ǝɥʇ uı uoıʇsǝnb lɐuıƃıɹo s,ʇsılɐǝɹ ɹǝʍsuɐ ʎlqɐqoɹd plnoɔ noʎ 'ǝɹǝɥ ǝɹ,noʎ ǝlıɥʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɯ oʇ sɹnɔɔo ʇı 'ʎllɐʇuǝpıɔuı) ˙ǝʌıssǝɹdɯı sı ʇɐɥʇ ʍou

I already answered it by saying "get rid of it", or was that not the answer you were looking for? :) -- Gurch (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That was my answer too, you'll note… IIRC Giano was blocked at one point (or at least threatened) for using a collapsing infobox on an article, so I'm not sure the "collapse it down" route is the way to go. – iridescent 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How about making the text really, really small? :) -- Gurch (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Or split it off into a new article even though you know it's not viable – that way when it gets deleted it's the fault of the Evil New Page Patroller who tagged it, not you. Much cruft has been quietly removed from Wikipedia this way, with no blame being attached to whoever removed it from the article in question. Besides, most NPP-ers use automated delete-tagging scripts which only notify the creator of the page – which is, of course, whoever performed the split, and not the actual author – so there's a reasonable chance the author won't even know the content's been deleted until it's too late. And it avoids all those mean "oppose: obsessive deletionist" comments. – iridescent 22:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

*wonders if it's possible to detect content splits in an automatied way* -- Gurch (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd think for a "split detector" you'd need to compare large deletions of content with large additions of content by the same account within a 5-10 minute window. I suspect doing it on any meaningful scale would both be hopelessly slow and insanely memory-hungry. – iridescent 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, rather like Huggle then :| -- Gurch (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone can do it I suspect it's you, but I think it would be too slow to possibly keep up with the RC feed,since instead of comparing "most recent edit" with "previous edit" you'd be comparing "all recent edits which reduced the page size" with "all other recent edits by the same account that increased the page size". It would probably be possible to write a script to analyse an individual editor's merge/split history, though. – iridescent 23:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would not be following all recent changes, it would only be invoked when asked to find the creator of a page. (Actually, to be honest, page-creator finding is something I need to do a lot of work on anyway -- e.g. if someone creates a redirect and then 2 years later someone else turns it into an article, it shouldn't blindly notify the creator of the redirect when asked to tag it for deletion) -- Gurch (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If I were redesigning Huggle and Twinkle, when it comes to deletion-tagging I'd make them notify every editor in the history who's ever made an edit not tagged as minor. Better to notify too many people than risk not informing a major contributor. And getting a talkpage full of 200 template messages would be a good incentive to use the "minor edit" checkbox correctly. – iridescent 23:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All very well until someone tags one of these by mistake and it tries to notify several thousand people. Also, most people don't mark deletion tags as minor (some deletion policies explicitly say not to), so if someone tagged a page, then the creator removed their tag, they would be informed that someone else put their tag back, which they probably didn't care about -- Gurch (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about "anyone who has made a change of 2kb (plus or minus) at any point in the history, or 1kb in the last six months? – iridescent 20:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of deletionism…

Deletion debate of the day. Only on Wikipedia could this be a serious conversation. – iridescent 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you're keeping on top of Wikipedia's key content issues :) -- Gurch (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, those chocolate hamburgers need someone to take care of them… – iridescent 23:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently three keeps against one delete. Only on Wikipedia… – iridescent 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick question if I may ...

Sorry about the orange bar, but I was just wondering about something and I knew you'd know the answer.

I was looking at my edit count with soxred's nice new tool and I saw that I have 177 deleted edits. I'm wondering what's counted as a "deleted edit". Would it include prodding an article that was subsequently deleted, for instance? I guess making an edit to an article that's now deleted would be fairly obvious, but I can't think I've ever done that ... --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. Or if you happened to warn a user for vandalism, and they were subsequently blocked and their userpages deleted. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, a lot seem to be edits to now-deleted pages in your userspace. If you want the full list, this is your deleted contribution history:

Special:DeletedContributions/Malleus Fatuorum
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
* 16:16, 15 November 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Kings Court (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) * 15:16, 7 November 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Lyme Park/GA1 (moved Talk:Lyme Park/GA1 to Talk:Lyme Park/XX1: Review page created in error, causing the talk page message to indicate that the article is under review, which it is not.) * 15:16, 7 November 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m Talk:Lyme Park/XX1 (moved Talk:Lyme Park/GA1 to Talk:Lyme Park/XX1: Review page created in error, causing the talk page message to indicate that the article is under review, which it is not.) * 14:56, 7 November 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Lyme Park/XX1 (GA Review: moving to talk page) * 14:33, 7 November 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Lyme Park/XX1 (GA Review: reply) * 14:20, 7 November 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Lyme Park/XX1 (GA Review: reply) * 18:19, 10 September 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Fog Lane Park (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fog Lane Park. (TW)) * 18:11, 10 September 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m Zion Centre (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW)) * 19:09, 9 September 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Habari (Habari: oppose) * 20:05, 5 September 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Stamford park (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stamford park. (TW)) * 18:58, 13 August 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Synergy/MFD User:Synergy/Wikispeak (User:Synergy/Wikispeak: strong keep) * 00:09, 13 August 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ref label (requesting deletion) * 00:08, 13 August 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuorum/Note label (requesting deletion) * 21:42, 3 August 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Mancunian (prodded for deletion) * 18:02, 31 July 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Blackfriars Group (flagged for speedy delete) * 21:56, 30 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Joshua Cooke (moving my warning) * 20:52, 30 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Joshua Cooke (March 2008: Atherton, Greater Manchester) * 21:56, 20 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Windmill/GA1 (requesting deletion) * 21:52, 20 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Windmill/GA1 (←​ Created page with '{{subst:GASweepsDelist}} *The majority of this article is unreferenced, and there has been a request for references since February 2008. All articles should be ...') * 14:18, 19 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox/doc (requested deletion) * 14:17, 19 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Mayslake Peabody Estate (requested deletion) * 14:12, 19 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (request deletion) * 22:35, 14 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/The Manchester Mummy (requested deletion) * 01:46, 14 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/The Manchester Mummy (ce) * 01:44, 14 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/The Manchester Mummy (ce) * 01:44, 14 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/The Manchester Mummy (added source) * 01:02, 14 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/The Manchester Mummy (added ref) * 00:56, 14 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/The Manchester Mummy (some additions) * 00:36, 14 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/The Manchester Mummy (←Created page with 'Hannah Beswick ( – 1785), of Birchin Bower, Hollinwood, was a woman with a morbid fear of premature burial. Her fear was compounded when one of her brothe...') * 23:31, 11 June 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . ConceptDraw MINDMAP (tagged for speedy delete, G11) * 23:54, 29 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Secret and honorary societies at the University of North Carolina (Order of the Grail-Valkyries: capitalisation) * 23:52, 29 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Secret and honorary societies at the University of North Carolina (Order of the Grail-Valkyries: our university's -> the university's) * 23:49, 29 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Secret and honorary societies at the University of North Carolina (added references section, to see what the sources are) * 21:08, 29 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:/Elsie MacGill/GA1 (tagged for G7 speedy delete) * 21:02, 29 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:/Elsie MacGill/GA1 (←Created page with '==GA Sweeps review== {{subst:GASweepsDelist}} -- – iridescent 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC) This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in ...') * 02:33, 21 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Richard0612/towel (my final, final, final offer) * 02:32, 21 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Richard0612/towel (my final, final offer) * 02:30, 21 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Richard0612/towel (my final offer) * 02:24, 21 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Richard0612/towel (fixed my "that that") * 02:20, 21 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Richard0612/towel (some ce) * 14:52, 17 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Eilmer of Malmesbury/GA1 (requesting page deletion) * 14:43, 17 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Eilmer of Malmesbury/GA1 (←Created page with '==GA Sweeps== This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good ar...') * 15:12, 12 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Chehassanjr (←Created page with '==May 2008== {{subst:uw-vandal1|Ambrosden}}. -- – iridescent 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)') * 20:37, 7 May 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Zeeshan666 (May 2008: new section) * 16:14, 28 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:Burrs Country Park Paul Anderson.jpg (moved to Commons) * 16:10, 28 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:River Irwell, Rawtenstall.jpg (moved to Commons) * 16:08, 28 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:Irwell Source .jpg (moved to Commons) * 22:41, 22 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (blanking the page, job done) * 22:26, 22 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (Frederick -> Frederic) * 22:24, 22 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (hopefully enough now to put it into the mainspace) * 22:00, 22 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (some additions) * 21:17, 22 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (added image to infobox) * 20:20, 22 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (started Bateman article) * 17:37, 21 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Crompton Primary School (prod for deletion) * 17:16, 21 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Best Bar None (rm GM project banner) * 14:52, 12 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Sunnybank, Bury (GM article assessment) * 01:19, 3 April 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Jza84/Sandbox2 (Contingent table test(s): put the 2nd "infobox" into two columns) * 21:07, 28 March 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum (Outside view by User:Filll: my last word on this RfC) * 17:42, 27 March 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum (Outside view by User:Lankiveil: seems reasonable to me as well) * 17:44, 19 March 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Hans Island (band) (flagged for speedy deletion) * 23:55, 24 February 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Big right (Atherton article: vandalism reverted) * 23:52, 24 February 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Big right (Atherton article: new section) * 00:18, 13 February 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Poopy1230 (your test worked, but please use the sandbox in future) * 03:29, 27 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Object-oriented design (the correct designation is "object-oriented design", so the redirect should be reversed to here) * 00:32, 20 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuorum/Note label (←Created page with '<cite id="{{anchorencode:endnote_{{{1}}}{{{3}}}}}">[[#ref_{{{1}}}{{{3}}}|'''<sup>{{#if:{{{3|none}}} |{{#ifeq:none|{{{3|none}}} |^ |{{{3|}}} }} |{{{3}}...') * 00:28, 20 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ref label (Undid revision 185526730 by Malleus Fatuarum (talk)) * 00:27, 20 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ref label (references -> reflist) * 00:23, 20 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ref label (←Created page) * 22:49, 14 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Church of St Mary and St Bartholomew, Bury (moved Talk:Church of St Mary and St Bartholomew, Bury to Talk:Parish Church of St Mary, Radcliffe: This Grade I church changed its name in 1991 as a result of parish mergers, but it is still listed under its old name, in its English Heritage grade) * 17:48, 13 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/GMListedBuildings (requested speedy delete) * 19:15, 12 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/GMListedBuildings (first attempt, need to try this with IE yet though) * 02:06, 12 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/GMListedBuildings (Work in progress) * 05:29, 7 January 2008 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hornetwoman17 (Neutral: advise withdrawal) * 00:36, 30 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Penistone railway station (removed GM tag) * 01:02, 29 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Timber Wharf"/ (request for deletion) * 00:47, 29 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Peter Fletcher (GM article assessment) * 07:17, 28 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Tour de G'ville (grocer's apostrophe removed) * 13:48, 24 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Hazelhead station (rmv GM tag) * 13:41, 24 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Seel Park (GM article assessment) * 21:25, 18 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Joe Hanrahan (removed GM project tag) * 20:03, 17 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:System Fault (GM article assessment) * 02:31, 13 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Mercury/Recall (Requests pending: pissed me off too) * 23:46, 9 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m Cozzi (here -> were) * 23:45, 9 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Cozzi (fixed some of the English) * 19:07, 3 December 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Chill Factore (GM article assessment) * 22:11, 7 November 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:TraffordTownHall.jpg (image information added) * 22:03, 7 November 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:TraffordTownHall.jpg * 22:01, 7 November 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:TraffordTownHall.jpg (Trafford Town, formerly Stretford Town Hall until 1974.) * 19:29, 5 November 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Timber Wharf (GM article assessment) * 22:03, 30 October 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Mayslake Peabody Estate (First thoughts) * 21:28, 17 October 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:DidsburyIndustriesEmployment.png (A graphic representing the industries of employment of the residents of Didsbury.) * 16:06, 1 October 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Portal:North West England/DYK/Suggest (Suggestions for future Did You Know features for the North West Portal:) * 23:55, 29 September 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Portal:North West England/DYK/Suggest (Suggestions for future Did You Know features for the North West Portal:) * 22:28, 28 September 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:Sale Borough Council arms.jpg (Summary: new parameter added) * 21:38, 13 August 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:Cenotaph640.jpg (Stretford Cenotaph. Picture taken June 2007) * 20:00, 9 August 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m File:TraffordLodge640.jpg * 19:57, 9 August 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m File:TraffordLodge640.jpg (Licensing: Description of picture added) * 19:36, 9 August 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:TraffordLodge640.jpg * 07:44, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 07:42, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 07:41, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 07:34, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (another test) * 06:26, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/TestConvert * 06:18, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (Undid revision 147796958 by Malleus Fatuarum (talk)) * 06:17, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 02:23, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 02:21, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 02:18, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 02:14, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 02:12, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 02:10, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:52, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:49, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:42, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:40, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:37, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:27, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:24, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:20, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:18, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:14, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:10, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 01:00, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:58, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:55, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:52, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:49, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:47, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:41, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:22, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:20, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:18, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:11, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 00:08, 29 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:53, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:52, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:48, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:45, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:36, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:31, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:25, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:19, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:10, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:09, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:04, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/TestConvert * 23:03, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (Undid revision 147733898 by Malleus Fatuarum (talk)) * 23:02, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 23:01, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:58, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:55, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:50, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:45, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:42, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:38, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:35, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:32, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:31, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (revert to original version) * 22:29, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:22, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 22:08, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 21:35, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 21:34, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 21:32, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 21:29, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 21:23, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 21:13, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 21:02, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:48, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:37, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:36, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/TestConvert (←Created page with 'This is my test, {{User:Malleus_Fatuarum/Sandbox|5|mi|km|1}}.') * 20:35, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:34, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:32, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:30, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:26, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox/doc (←Created page with 'Trying to get rid of protected category.') * 20:24, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (Undid revision 147709988 by Malleus Fatuarum (talk)) * 20:22, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (←Blanked the page) * 20:19, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:18, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 20:11, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 19:49, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 19:46, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox * 19:39, 28 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Malleus Fatuarum/Sandbox (←Created page with '<includeonly>{{nowrap|{{{1}}} {{#ifeq:{{{abbr}}}|on|{{#switch:|on=[[{{#switch: |AU= astronomical unit|AU |ft= foot (unit...') * 21:18, 20 July 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:OrdsallHall25.JPG * 01:24, 31 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Delph Donkey (Proposed for deletion) * 22:27, 22 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Preston Guild * 22:26, 22 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Preston Guild (←Created page with '==Proposal for deletion== *As it stands this article is simply repeating material already in the Preston article, and is adding nothing to that. -- – iridescent 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)') * 00:19, 22 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m File:SaleWaterPark640.jpg (Summary) * 21:28, 21 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:SaleWaterPark640.jpg (Summary: Some additional detail added) * 21:19, 21 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . m File:SaleWaterPark640.jpg (Summary) * 21:16, 21 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:SaleWaterPark640.jpg (Summary: Date taken added) * 21:13, 21 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:SaleWaterPark640.jpg (Summary) * 21:09, 21 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:SaleWaterPark640.jpg (Eric Corbett) * 20:55, 10 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Template:Trafford towns (Old Trafford added) * 00:48, 10 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Template talk:Trafford towns (←Created page with '==Towns== Is this meant to be a list of towns, as the title suggests, or of areas, as the present content suggests? -- – iridescent 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)') * 22:31, 6 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:The Green Quarter (Notability) * 01:31, 6 May 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User talk:Jza * 08:02, 21 April 2007 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Talk:Eccles Cake (moved Talk:Eccles Cake to Talk:Eccles cake over redirect: Capitalisation is wrong)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

No juicy attack pages there, I'm afraid… – iridescent 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That brings memories. About half of those are when I was testing a new version of the {{convert}} template that I was trying to produce. Bloody template syntax! --Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG you posted deleted content on the wiki! *starts ANI thread and arbcom case calling for iridescent's desysopping* -- Gurch (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a good job Iridescent is already an admin, that kind of thing would be enough to sink any RfA. It's kind of bizarre though that I can't even see the headers of my own deleted edits though. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember the days when every registered user could see deleted edits... I have been around too long :( -- Gurch (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How long, do you think, before only administrators are allowed to edit wikipedia? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't actually get that far. Though it will probably get to the stage where you can't edit without registering, and it will probably get to the stage where only administrators' edits show up immediately (whether through flagged revisions or something else) -- Gurch (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If it ever gets to the stage where only administrators' edits show up immediately, I'll be out of here so fast the air around me will ionize. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand WP:Flagged revisions correctly (which I'm not sure anyone actually does), there will be a new class of "trusted users" (I imagine similar to Huggle's whitelist) whose edits will show up immediately, while new accounts, IPs and recently problematic editors will have to wait until someone else vets their edits.

I make no secret at all of the fact that, while I don't object to an experimental introduction to test the idea in practice, I expect the experiment to fail; this seems to introduce another layer of very time-consuming bureaucracy for no good reason, and seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Yes, the Germans use this method, but de-wiki (which might be the biggest non-English version, but is still tiny compared to us) is a very different kettle of fish. – iridescent 17:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather impractical to me as well, almost like a solution in search of a problem. But if being granted this new "trusted user" status is like asking for rollback, then perhaps no serious harm done. On the other hand, if becoming "trusted" involves any kind of wikipopularity-contest-cum-vote, then more ionized air. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too bad if it actually was like Huggle's whitelist -- automatic, not reliant on some approval process, and as inclusive as reasonably possible (the Huggle whitelist requires 500 edits only because if the threshold was lower it would be too big; I would happily make it 100 otherwise) -- Gurch (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RMK Residential School

I've nominated this article, which you de-prodded, for deletion, and am letting you know so you can participate in the discussion. THF (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. I can't see this one being deleted; consensus is very clear every time anything like this comes up. I can't recall ever seeing an article of this type deleted. – iridescent 18:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nipplegate

This will be interesting, I've only given the article a passing glance several months ago. Pop corn at the ready. — Realist² 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of the TPSs, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy is the FAC in question. My gut instinct on looking at it is that it will fail, but I can't actually put my finger on why I think so. Certainly it veers into some very dubious conclusions (Janet Jackson was responsible for the re-election of George Bush? Really?) and seems way too long, and to ascribe far too much significance to the event. – iridescent 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be opposing, because of content issues. — Realist² 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, on a closer reading I think it's cherry-picking sources to reach two very dubious conclusions (that this was in some way significant in a broad social context, and that it had a significant impact on Janet Jackson's career). I am particularly taken by the fact that "the rest of the world" consists of, er, Canada. – iridescent 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I said. — Realist² 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Many television viewers in the nation were still in shock from the Super Bowl incident" has got to be one of the better examples of Wikipedia hyperbole I've yet seen. – iridescent 19:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It really says that??? (flails) I've been busy with RL work and haven't had time to do FAC stuff yet today... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It really does. – iridescent 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"cherry-picking sources to reach two very dubious conclusions" should really be a blue link. Keeper | 76 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's OR (WP:SYN is a dirty word with me right now); the sources are genuine, it's just that the author has relied too heavily on a single "zOMG she showed a BOOBIE!!! Nothing will ever by the same again!" source which has colored the tone of the entire article. Plus, it's ludicrously US-centric – I wasn't joking when I said the "rest of the world" section mentioned Canada and nowhere else. – iridescent 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If I were nasty I would add a "worldwide perspective needed" banner on the article. He really should have tried GA first. — Realist² 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like that probably has a better chance at FAC – where the participants try to fix the problems raised – than at GAC, where he'd almost certainly be sent packing. He needed to set up a peer review and spam every WikiProject with the most tenuous interest in the subject with a link to it, to try to get people talking about how it could be approved. – iridescent 22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, SOME of us who do a lot of GA work, do work our butts off to fix salvageable articles that come our way... :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm… I'll take some convincing that that represents the majority. As an exercise, pick three random candidates at GAC and (without touching them yourself) track their progress. At a guess, one will be "waved through" and passed despite serious issues, which aren't even mentioned; one will fail for the most nitpicking of reasons; one will degenerate into back-and-forth sniping between the nominator and the reviewer. More and more of the people who make the effort at GAC are leaving, and the number of MOS-drones grows by the day – and this in turn puts people off submitting articles to it. GAC these days is a lottery, perfectly good articles are summarily rejected, while articles with serious issues are waved through, either as back-scratching or because the reviewers don't know what they're doing. As I may have mentioned once or twice (ahem) FAC has problems as a process, but at least there there are enough voices in each discussion that decisions are made by consensus. – iridescent 23:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That view doesn't correspond with my own experience of GAN, either as a reviewer or as a nominator. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being unfair – I haven't had anything to do with it for a long time (I think the Hellingly article was actually the last one I had there). I stopped reviewing GAs a long time ago (Sheerness was the last one, and that was more than a year ago); I'll start paying more attention to it to see what the reality of it is now. (I do still think GAC's should all have the input of more than one user before either passing or failing, though.) – iridescent 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I take a rather similar view on issuing blocks, particularly blocks on established editors. That's something I don't think it's appropriate for a single administrator to do. It's about trust, and having checks and balances. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. In the case of blatant vandals, shooting first and asking questions later is more appropriate than leaving the account unblocked while it's discussed, as in the meantime the vandal carries on vandalising. For any "slow time" issue (editwarring, block evasion etc etc) I'd agree that there should always be a discussion of some kind, if only to get a reality check. For contentious things like civility blocks or non-blatant suspected sockpuppets, it should always be discussed beforehand; things like that always result in drama even when they're entirely justified. – iridescent 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was BOLD, I hope Sandy or any FAC regulars don't come down on me, but the potential for drama wasn't worth keeping it on there, and would only leave the nominator unnecessarily frustrated. — Realist² 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that post – the odd thing is that, although it's blatant trolling, I can kind of see the IP's point. One can make a far better fair-use rationale for "Justin Timberlake exposes Janet Jackson's breast" than one can for "This is what Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake look like fully dressed". – iridescent 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just didn't want to start a censorship debate, amongst other things, on this poor guys FAC. :-( — Realist² 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No argument there – the place for that conversation is on the article's talkpage. Assuming the FAC stays open, I dare say someone will make a pointed comment about the dubious fair-use rationale, anyway. – iridescent 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the image either, at the end of the day, it takes 2 seconds to find an image of Janets tit on the internet, bless her. — Realist² 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Break: Fun for all the family with Google Image Search

If Google is to be believed, she does nothing but whip 'em out at any opportunity. – iridescent 23:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did the same, but changed Janet for La Toya, equally, if not more X rated. What is it with those Jackson girls. — Realist² 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes… but if you pose for porn shoots, you only have yourself to blame… – iridescent 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[2] No comment. -- Gurch (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal favorite – iridescent 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's why she had her account renamed (then again...). BTW did you know you share your handle with a transsexual actor? -- Gurch (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes – it's a very long obscure multi-layered in-joke (made even more surreal by the fact that most people now don't know what it originally referred to). Maybe I should change it again. Incidentally… – iridescent 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rest assured that none of those are me :) -- Gurch (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the cakes are me [3] amazing what they can do nowadays with genetic modification. I am of course also the one on the left in this pic [4] That's my best look. Sticky Parkin 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For those who've Fought The Good Fight over in the BADSITES cesspools, Greg Kohs brings up an "unusual" mix. I dread to think what Google would come up with for Slim Virgin. – iridescent 01:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the first hit on Malleus Fatuorum is a photo I took. What are the odds on that, exactly? – iridescent 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"slim virgin" mostly produces stuff from encyclopedia dramatica. oh, and porn -- Gurch (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Hell, I'm staggered! How did my username get attached to those images, most of which I've never even seen before? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Because your name appears on pages that they are on. Such as this one -- Gurch (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just knew it would be Iridescent's fault somehow or other. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia's problems are in some way or another Iridescent's fault -- Gurch (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Hey Jerry teps. Thanks for cleaning up the recent vandalism on my user page. Happy editing to you and your kin. FlyingToaster 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the residue from the /b/ attack last week or what, but every crank on the net seems to be paying us a visit tonight. – iridescent 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call

On restoring rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully there'll be no drama from it. He really does have a genuine use for it and doesn't just want it as a trophy, and I really don't think he'll abuse it. (Famous last words, I know…) – iridescent 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lurve

Hi could you salt it? thx DFS454 (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only been created twice today and before that not for almost two years. I've temporarily salted it - I don't want to do so permanently as it is a potentially valid title. – iridescent 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough DFS454 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

??

it wasn't vandalism!! read it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.9.42 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that a fact? Go back to /b/. – iridescent 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE UNBLOCK MY TALK!

I'VE SERVED MY CONSEQUENCE AND WILL NOT MESS UP YOUR PAGE ANYMORE. REALLY. IF YOU DO NOT MIND, PLEASE UNBLOCK MY TALK PAGE. --j-01101 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done as your block has now expired. Any abuse from you and not only your account but your IP are hardblocked indefinitely. – iridescent 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Big Boy on DYK

Yeah, I thought they weren't going to put it up. Do you know when it will appear on the main page then? — Realist² 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how frequently they update it; I know there are five queues, and a bot automatically works through them, but I don't know what the order is or how frequently. – iridescent 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Live. But you probably already knew that. You can now really annoy Sandy and put a big garish Triple Crown on your userpage. – iridescent 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Michael Jackson 'Great Idea' Award — From the Michael Jackson WikiProject
		For planting the seeds that would see the creation of and DYK for Big Boy (The Jackson 5 song). It was a great idea, it's been too long without an MJ related article on the main page. — Realist2 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on that one. It's drawing surprisingly few vandals, given that it contains three links to pages which scream "vandalise me!". – iridescent 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I might apply for the crown, or just wait still I get a second DYK. — Realist² 22:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want another thought, you're about to come up to a lot of significant anniversaries in a few months (May, July, August, September, October, December, and of course. And Raul does like Significant Anniversaries when it comes to choosing articles for WP:TFA. We shook off everything this rabble could throw at us; it might be worth giving it a go. – iridescent 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I few weeks ago I asked Raul if Michael Jackson would be suitable for the main page, he did not reply...— Realist² 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul tends not to be all that talkative (comparatively). You might want to ask Sandy or some of the FAC regulars for their opinion. I'd tend to think that if we can have 4chan on the main page and survive, we can have Michael Jackson. If nothing else it would be a good real-world test of Flagged Revisions. – iridescent 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, he did reply: ("I don't object to featuring that on the main page (It hasn't appeared for the same reason lots of others haven't -- because there's a large backlog.)") – iridescent 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So he did, I only kept checking for a few days. Realist² 07:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Trinitee57.JPG

This image was uploaded the right way and has been used in Trin-i-tee 5:7. Your request was declined and tag was removed. The image is not copyrighted. Tarysky (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Iri, I think that's you shut down. لennavecia 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This conversation does not involve you User:Jennavecia (with all do respect). According to the bot, your edits were wrong and removed. Tarysky (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad for speedy rather than PUI-tagging it, but the fact remains that it's not used in any article and is a fairly blatant copyright violation. Off to Orphaned fairuse images as of 19 January 2009 it goes. There's no "borderline" about this one. – iridescent 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

due respect. And that's me shut down. لennavecia 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar question

I received a question about whether to write "a historic" or "an historic". Please reply on my talk page because the guy who asked me is watching there. Thanks! Crystal whacker (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also posted on your talk: the Guardian style guide goes with "a historic"; the Times style guide with "an historic". Take your pick. Personally, in the Wikipedia context I'd go with "a historic" every time, as it's a legitimate variant in every version of English, unlike "an historic". One or the other MOS-types who watch this page may be able to point you to a musty policy page buried somewhere in the MOS. – iridescent 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I never ...

I never thought I'd be seeing you at FAC. Good luck!

BTW, I increased the size of the lead image, which is perfectly in accordance with the MoS guidelines: "Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include ... Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

zOMG not a forced image width!!!!1!11!

It's a fairly atypical FAC – about one-quarter of the length of most FAs, and scraping perilously close to the 10000-character cut-off that periodically gets proposed; however, I really don't see how it could (or should) be expanded. Initially I had no intention of taking it to FAC – as the fact that I've done nothing with it for six months since its creation shows – but in doing the restructuring following the peer review realised we're coming up to the 50th anniversary of the closure, and that consequently for the first time in half a century it will actually get coverage both in the trainspotter rail enthusiast magazines and in the local (and possibly national) papers. Since (as Realist can testify) the press are generally "inspired" by Wikipedia articles, if it's going to be improved it ought to be before then, and even if the FAC goes down in flames (I can't see why it should, but FAC is at least as unpredictable as RFA) it should at least trigger some improvements. I've always been very fond of that article – any site can have an article on significant topics, but only on Wikipedia would an article on such an inherently uninteresting subject be treated with exactly the same respect as World War 2 or John Major. – iridescent 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am glad you took it to FAC. One, hopefully things will go well with you (hint, Malleus, do a copyedit!) and two, I always like seeing the railroad articles go up. It's a nice change of pace from video games and hurricanes and rock bands. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If it fails to get promoted (no reason why it should), then it won't be because it doesn't meet 1a of the FA criteria. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's 1,539 words of readable prose, so it's longer than the (soft) minimum lengths of 1,000–1,500 words discussed in the past. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

O.o - Good luck ;D — Realist² 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A few (hopefully helpful) comments

• This, from the lead, needs to be explained: "The railway closed to freight in 1959, following the hospital's decision to convert its coal boilers to oil, which rendered the railway unnecessary." The inevitable question is "what do the hospital's boilers have to do with the railway?"

• "Although the railway joined the Cuckoo Line at both the northern and southern ends of the platform, virtually no through trains ever ran. Because the line to the hospital ran northbound but connected to the mainline south of the platforms ...". That just makes no sense at all to me!

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the boilers, hopefully this should be enough. I really don't want the lead to get bogged down into a long discussion of hospital boilers if there's any way to avoid it.

Regarding the latter, it makes no sense to me, and I understand what it's trying to say. This is a real "picture worth a thousand words" issue; see this diagram of the station layout. Trains running from the mainline station to the hospital had to reverse south out of the station, before heading northeast to the hospital, because the junction split north/northeast despite being south of the station. If you can think of a way to explain this that doesn't sound like gibberish, please do try! I'll have another think and see if I can come up with anything. – iridescent 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks much better to me, but it raises another question in my mind. I thought the line was built to transport building materials? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic potted history:

1. Built as a steam line to transport the building materials for the hospital;
2. Once the hospital was built and had generators in place, converted to run on electricity from said generators (one of the sources has a "fact" that this was to stop patients being upset by the dirt of the steam trains, but I find it hard to believe anyone in the early 1900s would have found anything unusual about steam trains);
3. Used to ferry passengers and coal to the hospital;
4. Passenger numbers drop off as cars come into use, so the passenger facilities removed;
5. Boilers converted to oil, so no longer a need for coal; British Rail insist on high maintenance standards before they'll allow their oil wagons to use it, which the hospital deem too expensive. – iridescent 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Any objection to splitting References and notes into Notes and Bibliography, with the cited books in the latter section? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No objection at all. I replied to this one at the peer review; I personally don't think it's necessary (only three books are cited more than once) but I have no opinion either way if you think it would be worthwhile. – iridescent 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, and thanks for all the cleanup work you've done on it. You now have more edits to it than me (although I do have an additional 40-odd edits to a userspace version which was cut-&-pasted in). – iridescent 13:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If any TPS knows about more about image copyright issues than I…

Can someone offer a second (third, fourth) opinion on this image and the associated deletion debate? I'm 99% certain it's a hand-tinted photograph and not a painting (the black-and-white figures on the station platform are a giveaway, as is the fact that trivial elements in the foreground such as gravel and power cables are shown in greater detail than "important" elements further away, such as the locomotive and the building, and that an unsightly power line cuts diagonally across the image). If it is a photograph, the original photograph was undoubtedly taken pre-1923, as it shows the platform which was removed in 1922. There's an issue as to whether the coloring would itself create a new work and if so, when that took place; the original uploader says the image is a postcard postmarked 1915, but I'm not sure how one would go about proving that.

This image is currently the only "problem" image in the article; while it would be a shame to lose it (it does a better job of illustrating the layout of platforms than words can, as well as adding a nice touch of period imagery) it's non-essential, and either way I'd ideally like to get the situation resolved one way or the other. – iridescent 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, I don't think there's a problem with it. But then I know nothing about image copyright either -- Gurch (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If Ravenseft has offered to upload the front and back (on the commons DR) then that should resolve the issue. Incidentally, your deletionism and attempt at leveling up in the MMORPG disappoint me. Giggy (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

At least I managed to get rid of Woman tits. I cannot believe they managed to find three keep voters for Wet pussy. And these same three people will no doubt complain next time Wikipedia's not being taken seriously enough. – iridescent 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Break:Postcard copyright

I've now raised the "problem" here. It seems particularly idiotic to be uploading the reverse of every postcard just to prove when it was used; what happens in the case of unused postcards? Because such cards are quite expensive, it also limits the use of valuable PD material. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the deletion request* personally, as I think it illustrates Redvers's gripe about Commons perfectly – that too many people there (by no means all) are obsessed with policy at the cost of common sense. I'm not going to lose sleep over this one – while it's a good image to have, it's not essential. I hope you see now what I meant when I wrote at the peer review about the problem of using "almost certainly public domain" images… – iridescent 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

*Not with the actual request, but with the way the "delete" arguers are thinking – iridescent 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame because it's a decent image, and the various comments left demonstrate a complete lack of understanding not only of copyright law but also of old postcards in general. On a more positive note my local library has a complete collection of the Railway Magazine and I'm planning to have a look at the April 1905 edition to see if there's anything worth using. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an undisputed one of the passenger car in use, that would be a great one to have, as that's the obvious missing link. – iridescent 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User Ravenseft seems to be doing a grand job of pointing out the idiocy of requiring front and backs for postcards. What guarantee is there that the back is even from the same postcard? Lunacy. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; both with you that he's doing an excellent job, and with him that the goalposts seem to be being frantically rearranged to a pointless extreme. (In the million-to-one event that the postcard was hand-tinted after 1923 despite being taken before then, and that the tinter or the heirs of the tinter are eagerly pursuing royalties Happy Birthday to You-style from every copyright infringer, then giving extra publicity to their picture can surely only increase its value?) – iridescent 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have believed for some time now that there's a hidden agenda at work behind much of these increasingly absurd image policies. Let's take the worst case, it's a copyright violation. So what? What commercial benefit has been gained that would make it worthwhile to pursue a copyright case through the courts? In the exceedingly unlikely event that a legitimate copyright holder complains, then the image can be removed, no harm done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In some cases – photographs of living people, for example – I can see the point, in that they don't want images released into the public domain that can then be amended and used to illustrate attack pieces. For something like this, the argument doesn't hold water – does anyone seriously think the heirs of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway are going to take legal action? – iridescent 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about recent stuff, but I'm reminded of a TV advert for Renault (I think), in which the director stops the film and rewinds to airbrush out some graffiti on a tree in a distant forest. To demonstrate their attention to detail. I'm wondering if I was to send this image to NASA and ask them to blow it and enhance it, would we then see a copyrighted picture stuck on the wall of the driver's cab, thus making it a "derivative work"? Crazy seems to feed on crazy. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

← On the subject of this particular image, I've asked Durova to have a look; she's probably our most experienced user when it comes to the technicalities and issues of working with older images. If she shows up here or on the Commons thread and anyone (yes, that means you) feels the need to argue, please do try to keep it semi-civilised. Much as I admire most of what Giano does, a talkpage like his is not something I feel the need to emulate. – iridescent 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

…and she's made the very helpful suggestion which hadn't occurred to me at all, that if it's taken off Commons and hosted on Wikipedia, then it's covered by Florida law and not country-of-first-publication law, and since it can be demonstrated to be pre-1923 it is public domain in the US. Some things make me glad I don't understand copyright law. – iridescent 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Break: TPS?

(outdent) I don't' know crap about copyright, but thought I'd mention: I was looking at my watchlist, and saw "If any TPS..." and I thought TPS? TPS? and then it clicked and I thought, oh right, that would be me. *blush* a little slow today.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It even has its own acronym. – iridescent 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I actually did get that, that would be the "click" that happened. OTOH, maybe the "click" was my brain trying to turn over. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed

Rather than see the FAC derailed (sic) with a long-winded discussion of this, I've removed the image from the article until the status is definitively decided, either by a Commons decision to keep or a decision to host it locally on en-wiki that isn't challenged by the Fair Use Police. The FAC is currently on 0-0-0 still, and I don't want it to get bogged down on this relatively minor issue. – iridescent 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sly

I'll overlook your unspeakably taboo act of editing my comments because... it was funny. --barneca (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would I do a thing like that? – iridescent 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, yes. --barneca (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? Ever since I was unmasked as an evil sockpuppet, the bounds of your petty rules can no longer restrain my evil plans. Bizarrely, my Evil Sockmaster is apparently Ericorbit, of whom I probably have one of the lowest crossovers I have with any established editor; 633 pages in common, compared to 841 with you, 1273 with Lara, and 9462 with J.delanoy. – iridescent 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a shame; you're about to get indef blocked as a sockpuppet, while I am on the ascendancy. I've just sort of been nominated as a "bureaucrat". --barneca (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What do I know? I have no life. or friends. because i am gay. – iridescent 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! What's the word I'm looking for; ironic? redundant? eponymous? self-... something? I know there's a word, I can't think of it. Someone has nothing better to do that write "you have no life" on random Wikipedia pages? Ha! Reminds me of the people who revert with the edit summary "stop edit warring!!" --barneca (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my favourite recent "uninvited guest". At least he's honest. – iridescent 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Charming. I especially liked the random breaking of the Malleus toolserver link; that'll teach you! --barneca (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. لennavecia 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm an enemy of the people... among other things. لennavecia 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a "life whore", and where do I get one? -- Gurch (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to oblige. – iridescent 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What, my plastic surgeon on DYK? o.O

Ping. — Realist² 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we've run out of notable subjects and are now moving on to the non-notable ones. – iridescent 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey...

You're an admin and not connected with horse articles in any way, shape form or fashion. Can you possibly help put out a small brush fire at Template:Equidae? I don't particularly want either blocked, but perhaps a bit of cooling off time is in order. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

it always puzzles me why people think this requires an administrator -- Gurch (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we are all-powerful. >_> لennavecia 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because in this respect, past behavior has proven the two editors listen better to an admin, sad as it may be. The trick is finding an uninvolved one that both will listen to. Thanks again, Gurch. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Gurch has handled it. My knowledge of the subject comes from a single essay by Steven Jay Gould, so anything I'd add would likely be clueless and unhelpful. Protecting The Wrong Version in cases like this generally does more harm than good – except for things like Israel where you know the two sides will never reach a consensus, leaving the editwar to burn itself out is usually easiest. It's not like either version is factually incorrect or actively disruptive. – iridescent 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Realist2/Big Boy (The Jackson 5 song)

Can you remove the categories from this page please. I forgot to do it before getting it protected. Thank you. — Realist²

Done - but why is it protected? It's never been vandalised, and policy is clear that this is an inappropriate full-protection (unless J.delanoy knows something else in the history that's been oversighted). – iridescent 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, given that it's now in mainspace, is there any need for the userspace version to exist? – iridescent 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was busy creating an article, I think I sent it to RFPP if my memory serves me correct. I wanted it protected because no1 would edit it again (including myself) and my sub pages are somewhat prone to vandalism. If you want to unprotect it feel free, just another sub page I need to add to by watchlist. I wasn't aware of that, I do apologies for making the protection request. — Realist² 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're never going to edit it again, and you're not going to allow anyone else to, why keep it at all? This is a wiki. Anyway, since when does the protection policy permit indefinite full protection of arbitrary user subpages simply because the user says so? -- Gurch (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gurch, If I was aware that it was against the protection policy do you think I would of asked for it? I didn't demand it, I asked for it, and was given it. It's really that simple. Had I been aware of the policy I would not have asked. I really didn't see a problem, I'm sorry. — Realist² 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed – everyone has all kind of crap floating around in their userspace, and while I don't really like full-protection of anything – mainspace or otherwise – that's not a major vandal target (and think anyone with even semi-protection of pages that anyone should be able to edit such as talkpages should with a very few exceptions make their way to Citizendium, where they'll find the climate more to their liking), it's not an unreasonable request to make. Nobody can be expected to know all of our – often mutually contradictory – policies. – iridescent 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just surprised you see the need for it. I don't see any problem with leaving it protected (although someone may unprotect it at some point – generally permanent-full-protection is only used for high-vandalism templates) – I have assorted full-protected stuff floating around in my userspace (most notably the automated quote-generators at the top of this page and my userpage, which are too tempting a vandal-target to leave unprotected). In the case of this article "anyone can edit" doesn't apply, since anyone wanting to edit it would be editing the article itself. It might make more sense to either {{db-g7}} it or do a history-merge with the mainspace article, though, unless you have a need to keep it for some reason. – iridescent 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have generally just protected userpages (other than the user's main talk page) upon request, regardless of whether they are vandalized or not. If you want to unprotect it, feel free. I never saw it as a problem before. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly a "problem", but I believe (as I imagine do many other users) that page protection should be used only when absolutely necessary. This being a wiki and all -- Gurch (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

O.o

"A picture say's a thousand words", make it two thousand... — Realist² 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if they made a movie with that cast I'd pay to see it… What's with the old man? And the dorky kid in the background? And the fact that the only black guy in the picture is lighter-skinned than everyone else? And if you were choosing "an individual to take an interest in the child's upbringing and personal development", would Michael Jackson be your first choice? – iridescent 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's so odd, but a part of me want's to believe this is a real picture, not a fake, just for the randomness of it all. Do you think the old guy even realizes who he is sitting next to? Probably not. — Realist² 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it's genuine. Parisexposed.com is a genuine site selling scans of personal photos she left in a storage locker and didn't pay the bill for (reliable source). – iridescent 22:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well well well. So this is what he get's up to, after a nap in his hyperbaric chamber thingy. — Realist² 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the old guy is Lionel Ritchie without his makeup on? Or Janet without hers? – iridescent 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Fox news is a reliable source now? I should have watchlisted this talk page sooner. Synergy 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so. – iridescent 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think fox news are reliable with two exceptions, Political issues and possibly BLP issues. I would rather people use fox news as a sources than the current crappy obscure web links used. If every Wikipedia article was sourced head to toe by Fox news sources (heaven forbid), the encyclopedia would be better than it currently is. Most articles have no sources at all. All hail an invasion of Faux News. — Realist² 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of Perlachturm edit

Hi Iridescent, I am writing a skilled work about the reliability of Wikipedia and did a few malicious edits own my own for understanding the coherence of the website' s self healing capacities. You reverted my anonymous edit after 13 minutes, and I' d be glad to know if you used a bot or did the reverting yourself (as the perlachturm has only 200 clicks a month). I also want to add that my useful edits of course outweigh the vandalism I did. Frusciantor (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while bots can spot common vandalism, insertion of malicious falsehoods can only be spotted by human editors. And if you continue wasting the time of those people who have to manually clean up after your mess, I will block your IP from editing Wikipedia. We are not your personal testing ground; please find somewhere else to carry out your "experiments". Since this is the sum total of your contributions, I find it hard to believe that "my useful edits of course outweigh the vandalism I did". – iridescent 21:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I could use some more eyes...

At Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_redirect, if Iri or any of the TPS would like to join in. It's a particularly bad venue for the question being raised (Whether Saint Pancake and St. Pancake should redirect to Rachel Corrie), so I doubt it's really going to get the right sets of eyes. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On a quick glance my gut instinct is that that's only a valid redirect if it's a term in common enough usage that there's a legitimate expectation that people will be searching on it (someone who's seen the term used and wonders who it refers to). The search statistics don't seem to bear that out. I'll warn you now that any dispute involving the power word "Israel" will draw every crank under the sun and you'll find it impossible to get a consensus; I suspect you'll end up going the create→RFD→WP:DRV route before you get a stalemate "consensus". – iridescent 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's busy creating dramah at ANI now. I did look at the search terms--St. Pancake is actually more popular than Saint Pancake, and together they got about 12 hits a month last year. The Middle East angle hasn't really been brought up at all... a lot more of the arguments seem to be based around the assertion that it's a G10 and hence prohibited from existing, despite oodles of other redirects from (disparaging and unofficial) names that exist. I watchlisted this months ago, wondering when someone would notice and try and censor it. Took a good long while. Jclemens (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)