Jump to content

User talk:Iridescent/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

transwiki

that is fine. Is there anyway I could have known that aside from either having searched Wiktionary or being notified by yourself? --Emesee 15:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please copy the deleted article Elevation (Psychology)

Please copy the deleted article Elevation (Psychology) to User:Emesee/Elevation. Where was it transwikid to on Wiktionary? Thank you. --Emesee 15:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand in addition to copying it to my userpage. Would you either, just restore it and mark it as a psychology stub so others have a chance to expand upon it, or else restore it and put on AfD so more than 2 people could actually have a chance to exercise judgment? Thanks you. --Emesee 16:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it to User:Emesee/Elevation for the moment. If you want to "test" it on AfD, move it back to mainspace (open the article and click the "move" tab at the top of the screen) and either AfD it yourself or let me know and I'll set up a procedural AfD nomination for it.
As regards the transwikiing - no there isn't a way you could have known; five days after transwikiing, articles are automatically put into the {{prod}} folder & if the prod isn't contested for five days are prodecurally deleted. (Ignore the "This article is at Wiktionary at Emesee/Elevation", incidentally, as the location automatically updated; it would have gone to wikt:Elevation (psychology). I can't find it at Wiktionary any more; as I don't have admin powers there I can't see what was done with it after it was moved there) — iridescent 16:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved it back to the main namespace. I added an additional external link. If you feel that it should not be included within Wikipedia then please list it on AfD. Thank you for the procedural insight. --Emesee 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I've set up a procedural AfD for it to get a broad consensus as to whether it should go to Wiktionary or here, and if it remains here whether it should stay an article in its own right or would be better served as a subsection of a related article. Don't take the AfD nomination as any comment on the validity (or not) of the article; this is purely procedural to get a consensus as to where it should go. — iridescent 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


James Collins, english singer

I have deleted the above article as it fulfils the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you for highlighting this.--File Éireann 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Elevation

I figured that, but sometimes even asking the question allows the editor to reflect how silly his posiiton is. Perhaps that'll be true for the creator of that article as well. :-) Carlossuarez46 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DROPme : I would like to challenge the 'speedy deletion' of DROPme

Dear Editor,

I notice that the DROPme 'article' has been speedy deleted and reasons given are "blatant advertsing".

I then think it is a question of making the article more encyclopedic rather than just a knee-jerk deletion. I am quite happy to do this

I am have been requested to prepare a wikipedia entry given the innate positive and growing characteristics of the software application that allow for the instantaneoius downlaoding of digital information.Its commercial application is "DROPme". Currently only available to Swedish mobile phone subscribers.

DROPme has been nominated now for 3 different industry awards: mobilgalan, SIME07 and Sony Ericsson Content Awards for its technical and consumer acheivements. It is well followed by the Swedish technical and daily press. If you 'google' DROPme it comes up at the top of the list.

The DROPme application is special as it unites & leverages existing technologies for broadcasters, mobile telephones and the music industry.

Digital downloading is a popular and growing activity. The DROPme application simplifies that pursuit.

I have checked carefully with the guidleines and existing entries. If you feel DROPMe is blatant I would as you to review: "Coca Cola", "Elbrewery" and "Guy Hands" and "Apple" (to name just a few) under the same criteria.

With regad to relevance by a comparison of relevanec in 6 weeks DROPme has secured significantly more users than Wikipedia's donor, which the webpage cites as 12,000 odd.

In summary, I would ask that you reconsider your 'speedy decision'. I am most happen to rewrite the entry but would then appreciate very clear guidelines.

Thank you.

I look forward to your early response.

Best regards

Tinje Tinje 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Tinje

The article as you originally submitted it was clearly blatant advertising and as such clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. It consisted entirely of a description of the product, unsourced claims about its performance and external links; it had no reliable secondary sources discussing the product, or any sources to indicate the notability of the product, both of which are necessary for a Wikipedia page; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory, and only covers material that has already been covered elsewhere.
I can recreate the article for you in your userspace if you want to continue working on it; however as it stands there is no point in recreating it in mainspace as it clearly violates multiple Wikipedia policies and will just be deleted again. — iridescent 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Dear Editor,

Thank you for your prompt reply and very useful critique. I accept yopur offer to recreat the article in my userspace to allow me to improve it.

I will rewrite the aricle for submission with a focus purely on its technical merits and secondary source comments. What is the definition of reliable secondary sources? As the the technology is used by reputable market leading companies, as well as being followed and reproted by the national and trade press. It is also a nominee at several leadinbg indusrty awards. The application of this technology is not covered elsewhere as no-other application allows direct downloading of radio broadcasts.

Best regards

Tinje —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinje (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Daver campbell

Just a note to say thanks for taking Daver campbell through the RfD process... the notability asserted was tenuous, but then that's the case for most professional models, I think. The creator won't be happy with the ultimate decision, I expect, but I've tried to clue him in to the relevant policies and he'll get his "day in court". And who knows, he might make the article into something worthwhile!! Cheers, Accounting4Taste 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if he can source it this could be viable. However it's such a common name it would take someone who's familiar with the sources to dig them out, I certainly can't add them. — iridescent 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

CADDCreativity

Thanks for the block, but I was in the process of writing the page as you were deleting it.

Timestamp for bot — iridescent 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DROPme

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your prompt reply and very useful critique. I accept yopur offer to recreat the article in my userspace to allow me to improve it.

I will rewrite the aricle for submission with a focus purely on its technical merits and secondary source comments. What is the definition of reliable secondary sources? As the the technology is used by reputable market leading companies, as well as being followed and reproted by the national and trade press. It is also a nominee at several leadinbg indusrty awards. The application of this technology is not covered elsewhere as no-other application allows direct downloading of radio broadcasts.

((My apologies if this appears twice as I am a little unsure how to maintain the dialogue. I have replied to your very useful comments on your user "talk page" directly as well as submitting this

Best regards Tinje 08:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Tinje 5/11/07 0912 Tinje 08:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Recreated for you at User:Tinje/DROPme. When you think it's ready to bring back select "move" at the top and move it back to the mainspace. I'd strongly advise against doing so until it has at least two external sources. — iridescent 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you bunches!

Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you! (Esprit15d 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

A13 road

I noticed you have this down in your "to do list". Well I had a go at re-writing it! (If you can tell who I am on the SABRE website you'll know why I have an interest!). Best, Sunil060902 12:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it still needs splitting into sections & the sections expanded, as it doesn't really get across the way the road changes from a London residential street to a commuter artery (while maybe not to the same level of detail, have a look at A215 road for example) — iridescent 16:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sections added, references too, though one link has sadly become defunct. best, Sunil060902 15:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Junctions box added. Sunil060902 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Max Ross

Try leaving out the middle name and searching on "Robert Ross"+Louisiana+Republican -- I got 62 Google News Archive hits for instance. --A. B. (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Sometimes it is hard to tell if you are acting in good faith or even being civil. I'm trying very hard to assume good faith and view all your contributions as civil. --Emesee 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emesee

Just out of curiosity, what was the nominee's live edits to deleted edit ratio? I know mine is approximately 5 to 1, due to a lot of new page patrolling and successful deletion nominations. MER-C 09:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

About 2/3 deleted to 1/3 live - and the deleted edits weren't {{db}} tags or anything understandable (I have thousands of those) but spurious categories & deleted articles. — iridescent 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Crystal tag on Jock Brocas

I get it! LOL. I removed the tag anyway. Bearian 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Direct physics

An anon IP, but probably the original author, has requested the prod tag be removed from Direct physics, so I've taken it to AfD. Corvus cornix 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I want to appologise for any trouble I have caused. At first I just thought it was a joke but now I see what I have done. I also want to start doing things to help wikipedia, in the hope of making up for what I did, but I don't know what do do. Any ideas? By the way, I'm impressed with how much work you administrators do. Keep it up!Damion Jones 08:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I'd suggest reading - and following the links from - WP:FIVE, to get an idea of the principles Wikipedia runs on. I've added the "Welcome" template to your talk page, with a lot of useful links about how Wikipedia works and how to get involved. — iridescent 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damion Jones (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Cromer stations (and discussion page)

I've added the merge tags anyway. It might be good to have an article on the railway stations in Cromer, with a link to the current station and a bit of info, and maybe with the others merged. This is not the first time this grouping has occurred, except not through merger. See Maiden Lane railway stations.

Secondly, isn't this about time you archive this page as it is over 90kb. Simply south 20:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Other discussion Talk:List_of_closed_railway_stations_in_Britain#Maiden_Lane_railway_station Simply south 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently in the middle of a run of 12-hour shifts but will do the merge when I've next got some time free as noone seems to object. — iridescent 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn

Let's see iof we can help Billy to do more good and less wasted effort. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page — iridescent 17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Canterberry_vs_User:SouthernElectric

Note to everyone posting on this issue

I am not a one-editor Arbcom.

At Canterberry's request, I am not taking part in any decision to block, unblock, reblock or change the length of any block in this case, and in the interests of fairness I will also not take any part in any decisions relating to the tangentially related case of Lucy-marie.

If anyone has either any evidence for/against any party in this debate, post it at User talk:Canterberry or User talk:Lucy-marie where any blocking/unblocking admins will see it; if it relates to a specific admin's actions, post it at that admin's talk page; if it relates to Canterberry's railway-related edits, post it at WP:TWP, WP:UKT or WP:LT as appropriate, or on the talk pages of the articles/templates affected, so any reversions can be discussed — the majority of his edits are valid.

If you want to report an apparent case of abuse, post it to WP:AN/I or WP:SSP as appropriate.

I will not reply any longer to any posts in this section unless they relate specifically to me rather than the case as a whole.

From your archive so I post here: Sory for the anon - two many victims. Your blocked user user:Canterberry,is back now nown as user:Catlows_Cat, same moudus - same interest Maybe a "check-user" is in order.

rdgs 195.171.4.131 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I have no objection to a front door return of Canterberry (as mentioned when he last appealed his ban) I do feel that (if) he has circumnavigated the rules it's a different situation - basically a sock of a banned user...
This entry - 00:49, 6 November 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Canterberry‎ - on user:Catlows_Cat contributions page certainly looks to me to be a smoking gun, the only issue is whose gun? SouthernElectric 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked Catlows Cat as another puppet. This obviously didn't inspire me to grant today's request by Canterberry for reducing his block. But is this a user that is worth turning around, and how do we do it? GRBerry 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A tricky one - I've never had any problems with him, but see his perma-flaming on User talk:SouthernElectric, for example, for his bad side. As I say on his talk page, I'd be inclined to unblock him on civility parole & 1RR - the almost identical case of Lucy-marie was only blocked for three days. Because he only edits rail transport articles, all it would take would be notification of the situation to WP:TWP and WP:UKT and his actions could be peer-monitored. However, as per the conversations on his talk page he doesn't seem happy with this as a solution. It might be worth asking someone with experience of problematic-but-mostly-valid users, but who is totally uninvolved and is never likely to have an opinion on a transport related page (Alison or Moonriddengirl, maybe?) to watch him if that's acceptable to him. — iridescent 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that I was considering today a spontaneous unblock, until I came online and saw puppetry at the top of my watchlist, I certainly won't be objecting to an unblock with mentoring. I just have no faith right now that more puppets won't be created. If you think he is redeemable, go for it. GRBerry 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of block evasion or sockpuppetry. But, as blocks are preventative, and, not punitive, if you think civility parole & 1RR would work, to straighten the situation out, I'd say go for it. SQLQuery me! 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As per the conversation on his talk page, he specifically doesn't want me to unblock him under those conditions, so it'll have to wait unless/until he requests it and someone else accepts. I do think far worse users have got off with much shorter blocks. — iridescent 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I know, which is why I was considering unblocking last night. In fact, if he hadn't been using another alternative accounts during the block, he might even have been unblocked unconditionally now. GRBerry 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Having found another account I suspect, I've created Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Canterberry. GRBerry 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, the checkuser evidence was inconclusive, edging toward unlikely. So unless we find evidence of another, I think we can proceed on the belief that Canterberry is redeemable. -- GRBerry (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


There's another User:AndAnotherUser, SE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.251.46 (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This also worth looking at: User:Tankerton, SE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Heywood (talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wolof help

I just wanted to say thank you for your spelling corrections on the Wolof Empire page. I did the research and writing for the article in like 4 hours and didn't spend much time on spelling. I always seem to screw those things up. thnx for catching that. PEACE Scott Free 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I try to clear things like that up when I find them. I don't think enough people here realise how important cleaning up the minor typos is to Wikipedia's image. — iridescent 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A questionable template.

Hello, I am hoping you can help me with a question involving a template. I have never nominated a template for deletion, so I want to be sure I am on the right track. Does this template ([[1]]) look questionable to you? It sure looks questionable to me. I know that Willy on Wheels is a banned user, who has returned on numerous occasions, using different names, to vandalize Wikipedia. So, how can a template, created by a user with only 4 edits ([[2]]) to his name, identifying the user as said serial vandal possibly be legitimate? I would like very much to know your thoughts. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied it under WP:CSD#T1. I see no legitimate use for this template & IMO it clearly qualifies as "divisive and inflammatory". If anyone wants to contest it, take it to AN/I and not here. — iridescent 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting rid of it. If I hadn't had some doubts, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion myself. As I say, I was hesitant. Thanks for your quick action. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No doubt it'll start yet another round of the Userbox Wars, but I can't see any value in keeping that one. — iridescent 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I lost a lot of family and friends in the Userbox Wars, but at least the good guys won. I can't think that the user in question had any intent but to start trouble. What other motivation could there be for such a template? I very much doubt we'll ever see the fellow again. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I enjoyed reading your user page. Thanks for your contribution on Jan J. Hinlopen. Taksen 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Road article guidelines

Hi mate,

Hope you are well. I noticed there is a big red link at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about transport routes which I think needs populating. I was wondering if you were interested in a project to put something together. Regan123 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

At some point, although can't say when I'll have a chunk of time free. My "Michael Palin" approach (brief summary of the route, lots of local colour) is also probably - while not at Gray's Inn Road levels - not technically encyclopaedic by the strict definition (although I think valid in providing context for the roads & railways). — iridescent 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thinking further, I can sum up my approach into one paragraph: start with a brief history of the route and the route's impact as a whole, then divide the route into sections and write a brief summary of important features of each of those sections and that section's impact on the area. The overwhelming approach of doing it this way is that assorted stubs can usually be merged in seamlessly. — iridescent 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
They're quite similar thoughts to mine. I'm going to keep working on the new Roads in the United Kingdom article, beefing up WP:UKROADS and then I'll get onto this. Interestingly M62 motorway is up for FA status. Regan123 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for diligently tidying up articles after I've done an edit. I've noticed your delicate edits putting right the typos that I've accidentally missed (rather too frequently). Hopefully, now I've installed a Firefox spell checker those incidents should be fewer! Ephebi (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'd recommend is periodically running your edits through AWB - select "Special page" from the drop-down menu, paste Contributions&contribs=user&target=Ephebi&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 into the search box, and select "make list"; check the "Enable regex spellcheck" and "Skip if no typo fixed" boxes; then, select "save settings as default" from the file menu. This will then skim through your last 1000 mainspace contribs for typos. You need to manually check all its suggestions, as the spellchecker's fairly hairtrigger and suggests a lot of false-positives.
When I get the chance, I try to run Recentchanges, Newpages and New account contributions through — an awful lot of new material is prodded/speedied for "looking messy", and this cleanup at least gives them a fighting chance. As long as you have a reasonable size monitor, you can leave AWB running in the background (check "low thread priority" in preferences) and periodically flip over to it to see what it's found. — iridescent 23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all your fault

... for making me start counting. Well, this was the 100Kth. Do I now get certified as irretriveably insane? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have done something a bit more dramatic to celebrate the landmark? Blanked the main page, or posted on WP:NI that you can't understand what all the fuss is about and would someone please explain it to you? — iridescent 16:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Reach a landmark and then walk out to get my head chopped off? Anyone who does understand that all the fuss is about in NI is by definition out of their mind, so not much point in asking.
I did consider some creating some pointy trivia, such as some empty lists (List of European Prime Ministers who have given birth while in office or List of openly lesbian monarchs), but decided to behave myself :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Request assess: A13_road

Hi! I changed User:Regan123's assessment purely down to the following guidelines on Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment:

Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation [B-class] to start with.

A13_road has had a clean-up tag for some time now. Also, I am happy to say that pictures that have not been published on my photo gallery "A13: Trunk Road to the Sea" are available for most if not all sections of the road. Will insert soon!

Who is entitled to assess? Bear in mind User:Regan123 is not (AFAICS) a contributor to the article, so although I was bemused he chose "Start" status, I felt he had a right to. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right in one sense - having looked more closely at the edit history, although Regan's made a lot of edits they're all tagging, cleaning up & redesigning the infobox. I still think it's inappropriate for him to be assessing this one, as (as you know) he's in dispute with the primary contributor.
There's no hard-and-fast rule for who can & can't assess at the lower grades (at GA/FA level the person doing the assessment shouldn't really be involved in the article, although some reviewers will fix articles that are on the verge of passing themselves). It's not really an issue at the lower levels, as B & Start class are totally meaningless & used purely for convenience in assessing what needs cleaning up. Normally I'd suggest taking it to the relevant Wikiproject, but WP:MWY is virtually moribund. If you want an independent assessment, I'd suggest taking it to User:Malleus Fatuarum or User:LaraLove, who are probably the two best article-assessors currently working. The other alternative would be to submit it at WP:GAC; while it would fail at this stage, the assessment would generate a checklist for you of how/where the article needs to be cleaned up. — iridescent 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, will bear this in mind. Do you think there are enough references now? (I think you raised this point on an earlier edit). Also, just a general question: how do I create a "Category:Transport in Castle Point"? Just for the sake of completeness. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
Just create it in the same way you'd create an article — click on Category:Transport in Castle Point, select "create article", and in the blank edit box that comes up add:
[[Category:Castle Point]]
[[Category:Transport in Essex|Castle Point]]
If you're concerned about whether a category will be valid, ask BrownHairedGirl, who's usually the driving force behind category deletions.
As regards references, IMO it's fine (although I'd very strongly suggest using citation templates for the footnotes; there's a correct way to format Wikipedia references, and the templates generate them automatically. As previously mentioned, SABRE isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes in this context & if you're planning to take it to GA level the references will need to be taken out. Incidentally, British History Online is a host for other periodicals and not a periodical itself - you should probably change the references to cite the actual publications concerned (mainly A History of the County of Essex in this case). — iridescent 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Just spotted his discussion and the reference to [[User:BrownHairedGirl|that damn Irishwoman]. I'm afraid that her answer is that the category is probably too narrow. If it's only ever going to have two or three articles, then it's too small, and if it is to be populated by adding A-roads, then it has some unpleasant effects, visible on A13 road, which seems to be getting cluttered with categories for each town it passes through. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually going to (gulp) disagree with BHG here, as I think it's a potentially (and note that "potentially") valid category, along the lines of its immediate neighbour Category:Transport in Thurrock. As far as I'm aware the only railway station in Castle Point is Benfleet and the A13 is the only significant road, so you may struggle to find anything to populate it with - it might be time to get writing on bus routes... — iridescent 20:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Somebody also needs to start an A130 road article, that will add to the numbers - unfortunately I'm not too familiar with the road but I do a know a bit about its history. Sunil060902 (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced there's a need for one, as the single paragraph on A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme seems to say all there is to be said on the matter. WP:NOTPAPER (and its evil twin, WP:Pokémon test) aren't a licence to have articles on every single topic possible. As the editor who's responsible for the bulk-AfD nomination of multiple road articles a couple of months ago, I'm probably not going to be convinced on this one unless you can dig up something notable about the road that would let it warrant its own article. — iridescent 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In its defence, there is an A129_road article and that's far shorter and non-primary! The A130 has a historic route, now B184 and A1301. It has been rerouted twice I think in Chelmsford in the last twenty years. It has a "secret motorway" section (Rettendon bypass), plus the causeway to Canvey Island. All in all quite an interesting road in its own right. Sunil060902 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Somebody's even gone and added the article in question! I wonder who that could be... best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of London congestion charge

As you did the GA review, I wondered if you wouldn't mind commenting on the above peer review. I am going for FA and whilst the map is still an issue, I have attempted to address your comments (finally - work gets in the way too often these days). Thanks, Regan123 (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for kicking the process off. I wanted to take a look through the recommended reading for Admins before I filled out the nomination form, which I'll do now.

I really am quite touched that you suggested this. Obviously I've seen with other nominations that the RfA process can sometimes be a little fraught, but I won't be crying myself to sleep if this nomination should fail. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it will fail, although brace yourself for some opposes. Have a look at Lara's RFA; as she's got a fairly similar history to you, I suspect the questions you'll be asked — and the opposers you'll get — will be broadly similar. — iridescent 23:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above, in light of the policy firestorm currently raging, it would probably be worth familiarising yourself with WP:BADSITES and being prepared to have an opinion on it if you're asked. (If you need the gory details, the version on Wikipedia Review is probably the best primer on the matter, if you can ignore the obsessive anti-Wikipedia slant on everything.) — iridescent 23:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I recognised a few names from Lara's RfA, so I suspect that you may be right. Thanks for the pointer to wp:badsites. If this RfA should happen to be successful, I do hope that you'll be prepared to continue giving me some guidance when I need it, while I find my feet. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The best coaching is Ryan's automated New admin school - basically, a collection of dummy pages & accounts for you to block/delete/undelete/rollback. Regarding badsites, the only two that really matter are Wikipedia Review and a site it's an autoblock offence to mention. If/when you do anything remotely controversial as an admin, be prepared to have your username and whatever personal details they can dig up plastered across the pair of them. — iridescent 00:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA


AWB typos - president

Thanks for fixing it. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually fix it as I couldn't figure out the parsing error - just removed it altogether for the moment — iridescent 18:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just saying thanks

Wanted to say thanks for all your minor cleanup work fixing spelling, typos, etc. Sometimes you worker bee sorts who keep Wikipedia looking good do not get nearly enough credit. So THANK YOU, and please keep up the good work! Montanabw(talk) 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

More than welcome... — iridescent 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Administrators

Just out of intrest: How do you become an administrator and what powers do administrators actualy have?Timothy Jacobs (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To see the (decidedly unglamorous) powers admins have, read WP:SYSOP, which discusses them. To become an administrator, go to WP:RFA and follow the instructions there; any Wikipedia editor can then vote for a week on whether they think you should be an admin. Have a look at some of the current RFAs to see what sort of thing people look for. At the moment, you'd almost certainly fail an RFA; most people look for a minimum of around 1000 edits, to show you have some understanding of policy — at the moment, you only have 87. You should probably get some experience at WP:AIV and WP:AFD in, as well. — iridescent 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

category discussion

Hi. I see that you are an admin. do you have any interest in sci-fi games? I see that you edited an article on them, and right now one of its categories is currently up for deletion. If you're interested, i can let you know the details. i'm trying to inform editors who seem somewhat interested in this, and also are consistently active, (and who also by the way would probably have criticized the category already if they had seen any problems with it). thanks for your help. If you could, please reply on my talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue

Please protect the page from an IP hopping vandalizer from Holland who's made many vandalizing attempts over the last few days. He refuses to use discussion page and just keeps twisting the content his way. Your assistance will be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.121.173 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He registered as "Atbbb" and continues to vandalize the article. 'Atbbb' stands for 'andrew thomas' - a member of the group whose Formation he represents and wants to obscure the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.121.173 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If it's the edits to Bad Boys Blue you're talking about, I know nothing about the subject so can't really judge which edits are valid & which aren't. — iridescent 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I did 5 reverts, look at my IP page. In one of them I explained who gets formation 1 or 2 title and why. This guy is a posse of formation 2 and the essense of his petty vandalism is to reverse formation title from 1 to 2. I cannot keep on reverting this clown's alterations all the time. Please have some one protect the page. If you're not sure on the subject, please verify the links at the bottom of page. This is a very simple matter, but that character wants to waste other people's time. Is there anything you could do to stop his crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.121.173 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Tricky one; to be honest I'd suggest posting this to AN/I, as I really don't feel comfortable protecting it for reasons outlined above. — iridescent 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

category notice

Hi iridescent. got your reply. thanks so much for your help. below is the information. (I'm posting it here because this is an ifnormational notice, not a conversational comment, so it seemed ok to come back here to your page to post it.) thanks for your help.

By the way, if you wouldn't mind, could you please let me know your opinion of this matter before you post? not trying to regulate your opinion of course, but you seem rather reasonable, so maybe we could discuss this beforehand. appreciate it. I'm logging off soon, so if you want to wait until tomorrow, no problem. thanks.

The category under discussion is this one, which is one you utilized, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Although it had already closed by the time I got there, in this case I actually agree with the deletion - while it's a valid category under a different title (I can't think of one), "Star Trek style" didn't seem appropriate - Elite, for example, was virtually the antithesis of Star Trek, given that the way to succeed fastest was to kill anything weaker than you and run away from anything stronger. Han Solo would be a better comparator — iridescent 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I probably let you down, but I decided that I could no longer put up with the humiliation of my absurd RfA.

I am as I am, I ain't going to change. I believe that I've done a good job, but I'm now questioning whether I want to remain a part of the wikipedia project at all. That certainly wasn't an outcome that I had anticipated only a few days ago. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was shocked at it. I expected some opposers (you've enough people watching your talkpage who've had arguments with you) but certainly couldn't see that coming. IMO it was just plain odd. — iridescent 19:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd is one word for it. Probably not the word that I'd have chosen though. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your consistent work in fixing spelling errors, I award you this barnstar as a matter of thanks. Chris (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A Sincere Apology

I owe you a deep apology. With hindsight I should have let you unblock me, and accepted your support. I did not, and have continued to dig myself deeper into a hole. I have apologized to another editor[1] for similar reasons. I very much regret dragging you into my self-created mess[2]. I am very sorry for involving you, as I know that you have better things to do than try and support an unsympathetic editor who has stepped over the mark. I can only tell you that I apologise for my actions, and apologise to you personally. North Olana (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems at all - as you (rightly) say to EdJogg, one of the problems with WP:IAR is that, because there are no hard and fast rules in place, rules have to be made up as they go along. My original unblock offer still stands. — iridescent 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Just saw how bad this went, guess my instinct was better than I thought..;) Dreadstar † 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, at least it provides some light relief... Is it just me, or is my talkpage at the moment nothing but people complaining about blocks/unblocks/reblocks? — iridescent 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
lol..well, you know what they say, if you're not getting complaints, you're not doing your job. I actually take pride in some of the more colourful criticism I've received...you're doing good! Dreadstar † 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Caddcreativity

I was poking around and saw that this user recreated his userpage. Delete, prod, or do nothing? hbdragon88 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave it in place, as it isn't the deluge of WP:BOLLOCKS it was before. However, if he tries to recreate his made-up articles in userspace - or start trying to put them into mainspace again - I have a feeling he'll no longer be with us. — iridescent 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

User_talk:Rockpocket#User:Vintagekits - Kittybrewster ☎ 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict over protection. Great minds and all that. Rockpocket 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what it is about this family that makes so many people who should know better go temporarily crazy... — iridescent 00:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Its beyond me. But I think the subject is no longer the real issue, it just serves as the ring in which the various protagonists can square up to each other. I think a short protection is the best de-escalation tactic. Rockpocket 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jolly Sailor

I have put this up as P:LT's selected image. Simply south 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

While you're here, do you think it might be worth discussing ways to raise the profile of P:LT? At the moment, it's not particularly noticeable, which is a shame given the work that goes into it. — iridescent 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes that would be a good idea. I know Tbo157 occaisionally advertises the voting of selected article and image on WT:LT but other than that and a brief mention on the main page, it does not seem to be seen much possibly. Simply south 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks for the vote! [3] You will go back won't you? Giano 17:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure... (If you want to practice your arbitration skills, you might want to point out to VK that if he edits Arbuthnot pages, he really shouldn't be surprised if KB reacts.) — iridescent 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to see neither of them there. Giano 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree & have said as much on the talk page, although since they've both been told the same thing for around a year now, I somehow doubt they'll suddenly start taking any notice. — iridescent 20:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to sort it with some refs and slightly less POV when I was conflicted twice last night so I gave up, I should have put "inuse" on I suppose. Normally, I try to give the Arbuthnotts and myself as much distance as possible. I think sometime a policy will have to be formed to stop editors known in RL editing their close relations. Giano 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't see how that would work, since they'd just create "accounts that speak German in a similar way" to do their editing. At least when it's done in the open like this, you can see the potential COIs. There are potential circumstances where it's an advantage to know the subject, as long as your editing's neutral - for example, I once corrected the article on my brother (a minor composer & songwriter) to show the correct birthdate, but wouldn't dream of touching the "criticism" section. WebHamster has 70+ edits to the article about his band, but steers clear of touching anything other than "names & dates" type information — a model Kitty & his friends could certainly learn from. — iridescent 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

wot edits do u mean?

i havnt vandalised Oo Iamandrewrice 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit. If you want to introduce lame jokes, I'm sure Uncyclopedia would be delighted to have you. — iridescent 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

er... i referenced that thank you very much! Iamandrewrice 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To a website that says nothing of the kind. If you really feel the urge you can raise the matter at AN/I, but I can tell you now what the result will be. — iridescent 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your observation, Iridescent. If you look at his talk page, you'll see I have talked policy until I am blue in the face. I am running out of options, myself. Jeffpw 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
HOW DARE YOU?! you blocked me for a whole day! even when i wasnt vandalising in the first place! my edits were with good intentions, and for you not to realise that then you must either be very unobservant or uncaring. I dont know which one I would prefer it to be... Iamandrewrice 12:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections

Are we? I see that the clock on the Election Status template (set at Wikipedia time, UTC) says it's only 23:13. Do you see a different time? It may be a timing difference. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My fault - forgot that the clocks had gone back here and we're now an hour off UTC — iridescent 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections comments

Good morning. Regarding your recent comments on the candidate votes page for Giano, unfortunately, they are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. The maximum length should be two short sentences. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. I've gone ahead and moved them appropriately, including a link from the vote page to the comment on the talk page - but feel free to edit my move to your preference. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, are best placed on the talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience. - ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This reeks - the conversation you reference comes to no such "prior consensus" whatsoever. Is there any actual policy anywhere for this - even a one-liner from Jimbo would do - or is it purely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? — iridescent 17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Working under the table" article

I saw you took some interest in this new article I created. If you can be of any help in improving it, I would appreciate it.

To start, I am trying to find a better name for this article that reflects a more technical term "Working under the table" is mostly a colloquial term that may only be used in the United States. The USICS website uses this term, too. I don't know what it is in other countries. But there may be legal that applies more globally, or at least in the English-speaking world, and that covers all the same topics.

Also, a lot of the other terms mentioned in this article, such as Social Security Disability, are from the United States. There may be other terms for these in other countries. Hellno2 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Illegal working would be a good catch-all title for it — iridescent 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Will consider. Meanwhile, I put an "expert" tag on the page. Hellno2 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arara, Paraíba

Help please Iridescent Arara, Paraíba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.220.88 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't help, I'm afraid - there are Portuguese speakers out there, but I'm not one. Post a request at WikiProject Brazil and someone will probably be along to fix it. — iridescent 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Now released into mainspace and ready for vandalism...

Just wanted to pop by and say thanks for your comments on James Blunt: Return to Kosovo, which you reviewed in my userspace earlier this week. I've incorporated your recommendations, done some copy editing, and cleaned up the references, and have finally released it to the wild. I wonder how long it will take for it to be vandalised. Risker (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I give it six hours. (I always wondered who buys James Blunt - and Elton John - records, given that nobody ever admits to liking him.) — iridescent 20:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it does make one wonder who bought those 11 million or so CDs, doesn't it? His mother can't have done it herself. However, so far so good on this one. I think it's because it hasn't had a big release or advertising campaign yet, so those who think of Blunt as the soft rock antichrist have yet to get sufficiently indignant. Actually, all of the articles related to him are pretty quiet right now; his publicists are probably having a fit, vandalism at least means somebody is reading the articles! Some of the references I dug up might be useful for the main article, though; might actually try to work them in instead of just spending my days reverting the regular changes to his date of birth. The things we wind up with on our watchlists... Risker (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've somehow wound up with Ashlee Simpson, Maria Sharapova and Whitley Bay High School on mine. WBHS is so heavily vandalised, it actually makes it into my 15 most edited pages. — iridescent 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh I can relate to that entirely! Richard Gere is in my top 15, and strictly because of the word "gerbil." I feel like I've taken it out at least a zillion times. But of course, that now means that Gerbilling is on my watchlist too. Risker (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Salty Walrus despeedied

Hello, Iridescent.

I saw where you had corrected spelling on this, so i thought I'd seek a reality check from you. User:MONGO tagged this for speedy deletion as nonsense. I don't think so. I declined the deletion. Don't know it would survive at AfD, but that's another matter. Please let me know if I'm out to lunch here. Dlohcierekim 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC) PS. Please answer on my talk page as I might forget to check back here. cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The walrus and other "nonsense"

I declined the speedy. <<sigh>> Mongo retagged as "nonsense". It was not what I would have called nonsense. But I could not find verifiable sources, so out it went. If I could have argued WP:Vand WP:N, I would have. I know very little about such matters. I saw where you had looked at it, so I figured it deserved a chance. You're right, I think, that there is a sort of squeemishness that's surprising in an uncensored encyclopedia. Don't know what happened with Taxwoman. I'm surprised, in closing, how many speedies I've already declined that were marked "nonsense", but did not look like nonsense to me. All my best. Dlohcierekim 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Somerset railway stations

I see from my watchlist you are doing lots of good tidying to (disused) railway stations in Somerset - Thanks. Would it be possible to include a link in the articles to the villages they serve(d) & add an item to the village articles linking to the station article?— Rod talk 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm doing a semi-automated run through every railway station article in England putting them into a standardised format ("External links" instead of "Outside Links", for example) and correcting the spelling mistakes. I'll then go through them adding the wikilinks etc - because that will have to be done manually, it will be quite time consuming & will probably never be completed. — iridescent 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bettina Bush

Hi! I gave User:Blacciebrie a little help with her new article as sort of a learning exercise for us both. While I agree that it may not clear the notability threshold (though my girlfriend tells me that being the voice of Rainbow Brite is critical info!), I appreciate seeing a new user create something positive. Anyway, I'll abstain from voting in the AFD due to this "help." kind regards, --guyzero | talk 01:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's worth keeping, do vote keep! When I submit articles to AfD instead of deleting them, it's precisely because I do think there's a possibility that they're worth keeping. — iridescent 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Heya Iridescent, wanted to follow-up and let you know that this stub survived AFD. I found a couple of sources, but I believe this article will likely remain a stub until her album comes out (2008 according to the unsourced statement in the article), though I created a google alert for the subject. Anyway, thank you very much for the process education here, I learned a lot! cheers, --guyzero | talk 03:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

SECD machine

You marked SECD machine page as orphaned; yet there seem to be a number of pages that link there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/SECD_machine). Could you clarify what is lacking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daf (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea how that happened. AWB added that when I was running through a batch of articles correcting the spelling of "principle"; it's supposed to automatically detect orphaned pages. I have no idea why it thought this one was, as it clearly isn't. — iridescent 18:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarence Mitchell

Any chance I can have a copy of this deleted article as a basis for getting it accepted ? as per UK Wikipedians' notice board#Clarence Mitchell, Thanks, GrahamHardy (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Recreated at User:GrahamHardy/Clarence Mitchell. Statutory warning: because this was deleted as the result of an AfD, reposting it into mainspace without substantial changes will mean it's speedy deleted. — iridescent 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll let you take a look when I'm done...GrahamHardy (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

James Arbuthnot

Please would you look at recent changes. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a request at AN for someone uninvolved to take a look at this. I think if me, Rockpocket, BHG etc get involved it's too likely to set off yet another round of tit-for-tat bad faith accusations. (I personally think the comments about his voice are potentially legitimate if they had an effect on his career - for example, if he'd been turned down for a media-spokesman post because of concerns that he might be seen as boring - but as they stand at the moment they don't seem relevant.) — iridescent 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How do I get back?

You are my last resort. I am not asking for an unblock. I think that I have made it quite clear that I ask for a "fair trial", and I most certainly will not ask any favours. I want to return, I promise to behave, and I want to continue to contribute. I still struggle with the fact that one single event has caused this. On balance, I made more postive edits than negative ones, and I have learned that getting into an argument leads to Hades. What more can I do? I have a lot to offer, and all I ask is that the community consider my input in a balanced and fair way. I confessed my sins, and I gave a sincere and honest reason for my socks ... I was actually trying to avoid coflict!!! Like I said, I want to come back, but I do not want you to unblock, as User:GRBerry moves in the upper echelons, and is clearly a user not equal to anyone else (so much for equality!). Your advice and guidance is appreciated. One more thing. I choose to edit on the railways of SE England, but if you think that is my limit, then you underestimate me. North Olana (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can bend policy and unblock you (or one of the accounts) if you want, but given the amount of baggage the Canterberry account has, you might want to start a fresh account without announcing who you were. If you come back as Canterberry (or User:Four Ceps etc) plenty of people will be watching every move & waiting for you to trip up. Since (I assume) you're editing from a dynamic IP (otherwise you wouldn't have been able to fool checkuser) your IP won't be autoblocked; as long as the new account behaves itself, then even if people have suspicions that it's you it's unlikely to get into trouble.
Note that this is bending policy to the extreme, as I'm basically advising you to use alternate accounts to evade a ban. While I think it's a legitimate application of IAR, which is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia, any abuse of it and the "big-hitter" policy-enforcement admins will come down like a ton of bricks; while it's not done that often due to the collateral damage it causes, it is possible to range-block your ISP, who will then start asking you awkward questions when they start getting complaints from their other users as to why they're suddenly finding themselves blocked.
If you do want me to unblock your original account, let me know and I'll do it, subject to the same terms I offered to do it on before — namely, any abuse from the account and the block goes back in place. If the "if you think that's my limit..." means it's you edit-warring on the Nottingham articles, that's not a good sign... — iridescent 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the fresh start is going to be the only option. As I said to EdJogg, I am moving house next month, and so I shall be taking a break anyhow to do the packing etc. (I probably need the break anyhow, as this place is organised anarchy most of the time). The "limit" statement was a reference to the fact that I only edit SE articles. I have a lot greater depth of knowledge than that, as I hope to demonstrate at some future time. As for Nottingham ... sorry, but that not me. I do not know what articles you are referring to, but I think you and others know my style fairly well now when it comes to the talk pages ... and if someones copying my style, then I want them "caught and shot"! Anyhow, thanks for the advice, I much appreciate it, and I have a lot of respect for you and EdJogg, not least for being able to deal with all the nonsense that abounds ... something I lose the plot with at times!) One last thing, I am NOT "Lucy-marie" either!! North Olana (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The Nottingham reference refers to this storm in a teacup. Never thought you were Lucy-marie for an instant - although there's certainly a possiblity that some of the anon edits are her trying to wind you up. — iridescent 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Feedback/assistance requested :)

Hi. I've run into a somewhat challenging situation with an editor with some alleged civility issues and an insistance on redirecting his user page to article space. His edit summaries tend towards petty incivility, but I don't care so much about that. I am concerned about the disruption of redirecting his user page so that contacting him is difficult for less experienced editors (and his editing comments on his talk page, but he's been warned about that). I think reinforcement from another admin might be helpful here. Alternatively, if you have other suggestions for how to handle it, I'd appreciate it. I'll watch your page for reply. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Have reverted the userpage (again) and issued a final warning. With a user like this who's patently set on disruption, given that they've had four warnings in the past 24 hours if there's any more foolishness the RBI cycle will come into action. — iridescent 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist. People who seem to combine good faith edits with disruption perplex me. Straightforward vandalism I understand. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Without making Durova-esque "speaking German in a similar way" allegations, this user's edit history reeks of someone avoiding an indefblock — iridescent 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is an unusual path for a new editor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

meow!

Er, thanks. I resized the image so that it doesn't take up quite as much space. Thanks again! --Kyoko 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Constructive?

Hi Iridescent. I wanted to query what your intention was in making this edit. It seems to me this is a delicate situation and you haven't really helped it with this. Of course it may be that I am wrong and it is some private joke, but I wondered. --John (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Private(ish) joke which all the participants in the conversation at that point (Alison, SirFozzie, Rockpocket & Vintagekits) would (I assume) have got; the group of us have spent the last 10 months in the firing line of Kittybrewster's amazing ability to take the most minor edit to any article concerning a member of his family as grounds for a full-scale zOMGdrama flare-up, and Vintagekits's gift for igniting such flareups. I — and I'm sure Alison — have long ago ceased to AGF for any edits made to any member of the Arbuthnot family. — iridescent 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining and I'm sorry if I was being over-sensitive. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, don't worry - the whole Arbuthnot saga - and the endless RFCs, RFARs, ANI postings etc stemming from it are baffling to everyone involved, let alone people who are uninvolved. — iridescent 18:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

spelling correction image vs. Image

Hey there,

I'm just curious as to why the image flag has to be capitalized (ref Texas State Highway Loop 49). I usually type it in lower case as it's faster to type. Just looking for the rationale behind this. Thanks! 25or6to4 (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be, as the MediaWiki software automatically converts the first character of every internal link to capital letters for processing purposes. The reason it got changed there is because I was doing an AWB run converting "Related articles" → "See also" and "Weblinks" → "External links", to standardise the appearance of the transport articles (see the "model" article at Annotated article); AWB automatically fixes non-controversial things like capitalisation, "1990's" → "1990s" etc when you make other edits to an article. There's absolutely no reason to stop entering things in lower case. — iridescent 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

PC Blakelock

Hello

I was looking at your pictures of the London Estate Broadwater Farm. Poor PC Blakelock eh.

Police,Mad,Jack 17:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - although while I wouldn't wish that on anyone, I can understand why it happened. It's hard to overstate to someone who doesn't remember it just how horrible the BWFE was in the 1980s, and the old YT division was abolished for a good reason; they had a well-deserved reputation for treating Tottenham as occupied territory. — iridescent 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the corrections at Paramaz!! Best wishes, Andranikpasha (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome... Not enough people do the minor cleanup work on good-but-slightly-messy articles like this. — iridescent 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Apocalypse and Armageddon pages

I had put comment tags on these pages, hoping no one would vandalize these but I returned to the Apocalypse page to find very questionable edits, etc. I just simply restored my edit(s). I don't know at this point what to do so I'm leaving this problem with you in hopes that maybe some users, whom I suspect are adolescent, may be kept off.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, pages like this are magnets to vandals, as so many pages link to them. As long as Wikipedia's available for anyone to edit (which, as one of Wikipedia's core policies, isn't likely to change any time soon). All that can be done is to revert & warn the vandals (put {{subst:uw-vand1}} , vand2, vand3, vand4 on their talkpage as appropriate). Once they reach a fourth warning, any further vandalism will result in their being banned; post a message to WP:AIV and they'll be banned within minutes. If the problem really gets out of control, I (or any admin) can semi-protect the pages, which prevents anonymous editors & new accounts from editing, but I don't think the level of vandalism warrants it at this stage.
Wikipedia has a balance to strike between being open to everyone (the kids who can cause a general nuisance on "serious" articles also mean Wikipedia is one of the best references around on TV characters & bands, for example), and keeping the vandals off; also, having the "ladder of escalation" prior to a block means at least three opinions (as they need to be warned four times, but any one editor can only revert someone three times in a day). As per the semi-permanent situation between you and ImmortalGoddezz, for example, what may seem vandalism, unsourced trivia etc to one person may seem a valid expansion to someone else. (I'd be inclined to wipe out most of the "see also" links from Apocalypse, for example, but I'm sure whoever added them was acting in good faith.) I'm probably not the best person to watch the articles, as while I can spot pure vandalism, I don't have the technical knowledge to tell what's a legitimate expansion and what's a deliberate insertion of false information, particularly on pages like these that encompass multiple religions. I'd suggest posting to WikiProject Religion, which is fairly active; someone there is likely to be in a far better position to clean up anything that needs cleaning up. — iridescent 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I'm somewhat concerned by your term "As per the semi-permanent situation between you and ImmortalGoddezz". I don't see either of us as, for example, being in competition. I have learned a lot from her. I am assuming that you're referring to the Imette St. Guillen page. Just to inform you, I was one of the people who joined with protestors to rally against The Falls bar. I was in the Bar, travelled to almost all of the locations mentioned in her story, and have been in The Falls basement itself. I know that some months ago, there was blockage on the page concerning the Wrestler, Benoit (I think that's his name). He had used steroids and had murdered his wife and son. So, of course, because of all of the coverage, Wikipedia had to block/protect his web page reference so that only a few could insert edits into it.

Now I'm somewhat involved in her murder case, and now, that case is starting to show evidence of things that we (the protestors) in our rallys, had suspected for some time; namely ties to Rudolph Giuliani, and other political figures. Her murder case might have an effect on the American political election process. Seeing as we're discussing this, and as I am somewhat connected with her murder case (I had met her family last year at the Fundraiser, etc.) I'd like to request some protection for her page. Sooner or later, the trial for Littlejohn will begin and, if you saw one of the comments on the Imette St. Guillen discussion page directed against me and ImmortalGoddezz, my suspicion at the time was that this comment was from one of the Dorrian Clan or else one of the bartenders, putting out a subtle threat. Dorrian did threaten me when I picked up one protest sign at the second rally so these are people that are not to be underestimated. The Rally Organizer who had started the protests against The Falls had also received threats via e-mail for any of his postings on Craigslist.org, and the reply postings to him used foul language and threats. I had received one also when I had posted for him. Sorry for this being rather long, but this is an important murder case.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you watch the above users page or not but I've addressed the whole issue of me being involved/brought up frequently along with your comment on his talk page. I know you prefer all responses on the page of origination however this was addressed more to him, so I felt it was more suitable there. --ImmortalGoddezz 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Is it a model?

Hi, just a quick question - is Image:Victoria Line train leaving depot.jpg a model? Thanks! ACBestDog and BonePlease reply on my talk page

Replied at greater length on your talkpage - but for anyone with a similar question, no, definitely a real train. — iridescent 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stepson verses step-son

There seems to be a rash of people who have decided that stepson is more correct in some grammar sects. You are aware both are correct, right? Assuming you are aware of that, where is Wikipolicy on the matter? I am a visual person so step-son looks better to me and how I do my mothered over articles. Apparently you prefer stepson. Do you have official policy references? Curious more than anything. IrishLass (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any firm opinion either way on the matter & aren't targeting it in any way. The reason it's suddenly started being corrected left, right & centre is that BillFlis has added it to the list of typos AWB automatically corrects. It looks like I'm targetting it as I generally leave a permanent AWB cleanup-run running in the background on my "extended watchlist" of the around 15,000 articles that have come to my notice one way or other plus members of a few particular categories. As most of these pages have already been cleaned up by me at some point, most of the other cleanup issues have already been fixed; hence these are currently coming up more than usual. On further thought, I'm going to personally stop "fixing" this one, as I don't really think it qualifies as a typo (I do, however, think grand-son → grandson etc are legitimate fixes). Unless there's a consensus to do so (there's a rather perfunctory discussion on the AWB talk page), I won't remove it from the list, so expect other people to continue to "fix" this one. — iridescent 21:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Just snooping because the step thing has been also driving me buggy. I agree with the granddaughter, grandson, grandmother, but basic grammar say step-son is correct so do more than a couple online dictionaries. I'm debating asking for AWB access. Is it that good of a thing to be able to work with? CelticGreen (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It's very handy if you want to do a mass search-and-replace (say, if you've renamed a page and you want to replace every link to it with a link to the new title). It's a lot harder to edit in than the usual Wiki editor - and the automated cleanup makes some very weird calls (imdb→indb, for example, as well as the step- problem). It's certainly worth having it - it's fairly easy to use and does make a lot of things that would be deathly dull at least tolerable, if not exciting. One of the worst problems in fact is that, because it can do a number of edits very quickly, a number of minor cleanups can quickly swamp your contrib history, making it hard to spot the "real" edits - look at my recent history for an illustration of the problem). — iridescent 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections

Thanks for your corrections to the Joseph Blatchford article.

Reservoirhill (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians

I wanted to say thank you for the cleanup of the typos and Merry Christmas! Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor's Barnstar

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
In recognition of your excellent and consistent copyediting work, I award you with this barnstar. Keep up the great work! Have a good Christmas. :-) Lradrama 20:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and merry christmas to you... What better way to spend it than correcting typos on new articles that will probably be prodded as soon as anyone reads them properly? — iridescent 20:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A-roads? Tube? Showing feelings of an almost human nature?

Awesome on all three counts ;). As thinly veiled spamming, you might want to join WP:UKRD :) Will (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All right - but don't expect me to be very active at the moment, as I've currently got my hands full with too many other messes that need cleaning up. — iridescent 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you on the project. And a very Merry Christmas. Here's to a good 2008! Regan123 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Discussion Page Entry

Hello Iridescent!

Merry Christmas to you! Thanks for the Discussion page entry. I will take your advice into consideration, thanks. And yeah its the UK Police i'm joining (hopefully) lol. And yeah I do want to join the Met. I was looking at their webby and the career op's look huge compared to other forces....I mean dont get me wrong obviously I know other forces have career op's but the Met's just seemed fantastic/huge compared to other forces. Thanks again. Oh if you could reply on mine that would be cool, as I just saw the sign what says about it. Oh and yeah I can imagine there is a huge amount of Paper work its on the news alot about how HM Gov are trying to cut it down as for one persona arrested its hours of form filling. I was watching a programme about the uniformed foot section Canadian RCMP and for a person arrested its 1 form! I bet that'd be bliss for cops in UK lol.

Police,Mad,Jack 19:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24

I've asked more questions. I thought you may want to read his answers. The Transhumanist 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets be nice

No, I have no problem with your restoration, thanks for discussing before wheel-warring. :) Keilanatalk(recall) 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that it gets sorted out. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting copy of this deleted page

I would be grateful if you could provide me a copy of this page: Avraham Sinai. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Port Charlotte

Since you did some clean up at Port Charlotte High School, would you mind taking a look at this discussion which I just raised on the article's talk page. I have concerns about why particular activities were added to the article (especially the NJROTC section since it seems to only be in existence because of GO-PCHS-NJROTC) and whether they're notable enough to require such individual sections.

Would you mind also looking at the overall activities section in terms of the citations that GO-PCHS-NJROTC is providing; I have my doubts about how reliable it is to site the school's activity page in the way he has. Thanks, Metros (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening me

I have to assume you are threatening me, which is an abuse of administrative privileges. I am included to report this as you are unwarranted in you recent attacks. Just because I appear to hold a minority view point and the certain members of the community disagree with me, Is of no concern to you as I am not breaking any policy. There is also no evidence of any sock puppetry as you claim. If you wish to contribute to the debate please do so but please be grown up about it. I can almost see that you would use the smallest thing to block me. Also it is not every article I touch please see the sarah payne article I have substantially edited that and the community isn't outraged. It is just I take on the current consensus and force debate on things. Sometimes being bold is the only way to force a debate. --Lucy-marie (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you might want to se Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Threatening language by an Admin.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Quite frankly, yes I am; it's not an abuse of sysop privileges to warn someone when they're headed for a block (it would be more of an abuse not to warn you). If you really think "there is also no evidence of any sock puppetry as you claim", you might want to refresh your memory by re-reading Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie or your block log. You are not "forcing a debate", you are edit-warring against an overwhelming consensus. — iridescent 15:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed Special:Contributions/Lucy-marie I think a short block of the user in question might be warranted. She's constantly edit warring, wikilawyering and generally being disruptive. Any opinions on this?--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Given her more than a year of abusive sockpuppetry, POV-pushing and disruption (I fondly remember her attempt to unilaterally convert all references to miles to kilometers regardless of context), if it weren't for her valid edits I would have indefblocked her long ago; I think she's well past the point where cleaning up the mess outweighs the positive contributions. As it was myself who filed the original SSP that brought her case to attention, I think it would look a bit biased if I were to block myself. Hopefully, the warning will be enough to stop her and it won't have to come to a block, but I'm not holding my breath. — iridescent 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I resent this language and I would like to state I have read the Wikilawyering Essay but do not believe that its content is universally applicable. When articles have multiple tags on them adding another tag and then arguing your point is not a bad thing. When a merger tag is placed and there is no comments against with any substance, going ahead and merging is the appropriate course of action. When a large number of editors opposed the mergers I stopped merging articles. Some articles are now being discussed for splitting. I do not believe that and of my actions over actual merging of articles has been inappropriate. I do say that some of my comments could be construed as uncivil but they were in response to uncivil comments towards me. Which you will say just because one person did it doesn't give you the right to do it. I would then say If you punish me you must punish the other user or else it would be classified as double standards. I also do not know where this recent threat is coming from I am editing a small number of minority interest articles and I am actively engaging in discussions, when what I have done Is questioned. If I am blocked for that I would view it as a form of censorship. It is not like I am going on high volume articles and continually vandalising. All I am doing is what I think is best for the improvement of wikipedia If you have a problem with that talk to me earlier and constructively please before getting heavy handed, as I view it to be an abuse of powers. --Lucy-marie (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to state you cannot punish someone twice for something If you have new evidence of recent sock puppetry fine but you have already punished me for sock puppetry once and I do not engage in sock puppetry.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to say a warning is plenty in this case and hope we can both edit constructively in the future.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As I and many others said in the conversation on AN/I (although it may have got buried in all the sound-and-fury), the reason you're not blocked is because most of your contributions are perfectly legitimate. — iridescent 12:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Help Requested:

Due to some personal problems with a senior media person, some people have put defamatory things on his profile(about him and his family) and somehow got it locked. Can you please remove those false allegations and lock the profile again for a long while?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.114 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is "he" and why am I involved? — iridescent 11:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is about a senior media person, Karan Thapar. You have edited the page in the past and only and administrator can make changes, so I approached you. Hope you didn't mind. Would it be possible for you to make some changes and lock the page for some days?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.114 (talk • contribs)

If this statement is what's causing the problem, is it actually untrue? If it's true, it should be in the article; if not, it should be easy enough to prove. Looking at the history, I agree with the protection; multiple users were edit-warring with no attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page. — iridescent 11:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been presented in a twisted way. Also the last para and the last link are exaggerations and blown out of proportion.

His father wasn't disgraced and forced to resign. He voluntarily resigned due to some issues about a war strategy.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.114 (talk • contribs)

I've removed one paragraph as an apparent WP:BLP violation (although, if someone sources it, it would be legitimate to mention that he's receiving media criticism). Other than that, I've left The Wrong Version protected; looking at the history, there's a lot of edit-warring going on there. You may want to contact Jj137, who protected the page, if you have any concerns about the protection; quite honestly, I don't see grounds to lift the protection yet as the revert-war will almost certainly restart. — iridescent 12:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And it is not the media criticism but slurs by some mischief makers. Can't you remove the line about the general too, it is absolutely unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.114 (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that - since he appears to have left the army to become an ambassador rather than being dismissed - the part about the general is possibly unfair. However, I can find at least one source for the "disgrace" view. As the part about the general is a content dispute about a figure of whom I know nothing, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to decide which of the two contrasting sources is right in this instance. I would say that, since the general has his own page, the matter should really be on his entry and not on his sons, unless sources say that the manner of his leaving the army had an impact on his son's career. — iridescent 12:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you noticed even that page has been created yesterday. It is just some people with very strong political leanings and personal issues who are out to malign this person. It seems very unfair. That is the only reason I tried to intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.114 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I suggest you post a request at Noticeboard for India-related topics? There are likely to be a number of people there with expertise in both the Indian military and media who will be able to clean up and watch over both articles far better than I can. — iridescent 13:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess at this point I shouldn't because it would just lead to more edit wars. You have already helped a lot. I will definitely put it on noticeboard after a while if the need arises. Well, thanks a lot and have a happy new year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.114 (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it will obviously be put right back. I'll have to keep an eye on it once it is unprotected.   jj137 ♠ 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lea Valley Park

It you feel this should be in the trail category, that's fine. I've put a trail info box on the page. There are too may pictures though. I'm not brave enough to delete any though. Perhaps you have views here. SuzanneKn (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think four pictures are unreasonable for a park that's more than 25 miles long, although I agree that the current images are all of the southern half. The issue is that the article needs expanding, not the other way round. I'd be inclined to merge the separate stub articles on the individual sections of the park into sub-sections of the main article (along the lines of what I did with A215 road); however, there's an issue here in that the articles on the (relatively short) London sections are fairly long (and will get longer as the Olympics draw nearer), while the rural Hertfordshire section has fairly scanty coverage; a merge at this stage would cause the Walthamstow Marshes, Hackney Marshes and Tottenham Marshes articles to swamp the main body. At some point I'll see what I can do but don't hold your breath waiting. — iridescent 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The reflist template

Hi, Iridescent. I noticed that you changed the use of <references /> to the reflist template on the article The African Beat. When I added <references />, I used it intentionally instead of reflist as there was only one reference; it seemed superfluous to reduce the size of the font where it was not visibly disrupting the article's main text. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your rule of thumb? I go by the general "ten or more, then use reflist" approach. Kakofonous (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't go out looking to replace it intentionally. The change I made in this case was part of my regular automated trawl through Newpages standardising headers & fixing typos. The {{reflist}} change is one of the "general fixes" which AWB performs automatically when carrying out other tasks, and can only be turned off by turning off general fixes altogether, which I'm very reluctant to do. The change was brought in with very little discussion; while I personally think it makes sense, aside from (as someone mentions in the discussion) scientific citations where exact wording is more important, I can see why some people disagree. The place to complain if you want it to stop doing it automatically is Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser, as you may be able to persuade the developers to make it an option - in which case I'd certainly personally turn it off. — iridescent 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. It makes total sense to have the automation. Kakofonous (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to get irritated about an AWB "fix", take it out on whoever thought setting it to automatically remove hyphens from step-son, step-mother etc, which - the more I think about it - is a perfect example of a solution to a nonexistent problem. Closely followed by removing hyphens from "extra-", as in extramarital etc. — iridescent 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say something

Why did you go to an editor you know clearly has a heated history regarding edits I have made to a subject we both feel strongly upon? I would also like to state publicly that I am not a racist and find racism disgusting. Why then is it that somebody who interprets POV on a subject concerning race in a way different to someone else they are allowed to be branded a racist?--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never accused you of being a racist & I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I assume you mean ONIH — if so, I notified him because, while I don't generally agree with him, I've a very long history with him across the 'pedia, stemming back to the Arbuthnot Family saga (if you really care, you can piece the whole wretched saga together by reading the talkpages of pretty much every editor mentioned here) and I thought it was right to notify someone who's been in lengthy disputes with you of a debate regarding you.
Before you start accusing me of being part of a cabal against you, I feel the need to point out that I was responsible for the indefblock of Canterberry, one of your principal opponents, and to be honest, I'd give you the same advice I gave him; given your history, you are going to be under more scrutiny than you're used to, and the sensible thing to do would be to set up a fresh account if you're not happy with this level of scrutiny. Plenty of people are watched far more closely than you're ever likely to be and still get on fine, if that's any consolation.
When you reach a certain level of prominence, you do stay in people's attention, thanks to the way the Watchlist system works. By the very fact of posting on my talkpage, I've no doubt that plenty of people who've never heard of you — from other admins to the more dubious elements of the Wikipedia Review — have now noticed you and are poring through your talk archive to see what all the fuss is about, and (in the case of the latter) to see if there's anything they can use against me. That's both the weakness and the overwhelming strength of the wiki system; everyone's opinion is equal and nothing can be hidden once it's done. — iridescent 20:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Canterberry, the above post wasn't an open invitation to you to create an army of disruptive sockpuppets. I've been turning a blind eye to your new account (which I won't name as a courtesy) as you seemed to be making a clean start, but - as I told you - if you don't stop this idiocy I'll range-block your dynamic IP and let you explain to your ISP exactly why one of the top ten websites is blocked to their users. — iridescent 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Micomunidad

Hello. I'm curious why you declined the A7 for Micomunidad, as you stated that "notability was asserted." I'm not disputing your decision, I'm simply curious as to your rationale behind your reasoning. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"MiComunidad is currently the fastest growing site..." looks to me like an assertion of notability. In its current state it probably wouldn't survive an AfD, although I'd strongly argue against nominating it; I think speedy-tagging an article that isn't an attack page/spam and is clearly being worked on four minutes after creation assumes bad faith and an AfD nomination at this stage would do the same. — iridescent 02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The page was speedied under A7 three times beforehand however, so I thought it was a routine tagging. Cheers though, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Only deleted once before that I can see, and in my opinion incorrectly (I certainly wouldn't wheel-war over it if someone does recreate it, but the deletion rationale in the log looks fairly dubious to me) — iridescent 02:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Per User talk:MiComunidad, he/she created it twice under a different name. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah... cunning ploy. I'd recommend AfDing it in that case; once it's been through an AfD (I've no doubt it will fail) it can then be G7'd if it's recreated in any form. — iridescent 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait a few days or so to let the author find sources as to its notability (as he was given fair warning here) as to avoid allegations of nominating a very new article, and then sent it to AfD. I agree that that the possibility of finding such sources is nil in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Stranger things have happened — if they can even dig out a reliable source for that "fastest growing" I'd probably be inclined to let it stay. I won't hold my breath for it. — iridescent 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Spam, Spam, Spam ... wonderful Spam. I think that sums up my view! This is a website. It is clearly a new one, and is (like all websites) looking to attract attention ... and hence the pesetas. So advertising itself as the fastest growing site etc. etc. is pure marketing heifer-poop. I see little notability, until it has actually established itself, it stable, and can then show that it was the "fastest growing ..." etc. etc. In other words, notability, comes from longevity ... i.e. it has been around, rather than is here today and might be around tomorrow (providing it gets the marketing exposure its desperately needs). In my book, this is a AfD, without hesitation. Harry Holland (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

← unindent So AfD it. Despite what certain people seem to think, my talkpage is not the Wikipedia complaints department. And welcome back... — iridescent 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Doyle (24 character)

You and I may not be the best of friends but, I assume you value serious discussions within the context of wikipedia policy and guidelines. Could you please cast an independent eye over the arguments. It seems as if voting is trying to be used as an argument on the page by Tunasushi. I and others appear to be getting annoyed by all the arguments which are bought arguing to keep the article, which are wholly void of anything credible. It also appears as if article ownership is being taken upon by Tuna and Angel and possibly a couple of others. The page was merged by a user and then immediately reverted by Tuna who claimed there was no consensus. It seems Tuna is failing to register the arguments and the point of policy and guidelines. The policy and guidelines are what govern wikipedia and must be adhered to. Also whenever policy is mentioned claims wikilawyering which is neither policy nor guideline.

Could you please sort this mess out and review the arguments based on policy and guidelines after all what are they for?--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like there's no particular reason for him to have his own article, as he appears to be a minor enough character to be merged into a list. (See Relatives of Harry Potter for what I'd consider a "model" merging of minor character articles.) I think there also need to be external sources on the character - interviews with the authors, etc - rather than relying on personal interpretation of the episodes in discussing it.
I don't think it's appropriate for me to clean it up and merge it myself, as I wasn't a particular fan of 24, didn't see this episode and so might misinterpret/remove elements that are significant to the character. It would probably be a good idea to post at WikiProject Television and get a consensus there.
Be aware that anything like this generally starts a flamewar & revert war (check out this firestorm); before you get into any argument, it's worth familiarising yourself with WP:FICT and be prepared for an onslaught of anonymous abuse, sockpuppet votestacking etc. Wikipedia shouldn't function on a "who shouts loudest wins" principle, but (as you found out on the railway articles), all too often it does, particularly on low-traffic articles like this. — iridescent 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand exactly what you are saying I think this covers lots of different areas of policy but especially WP:OWNERSHIP, I would however like to draw your attention specifically to User:Lan Di who is refusing to get the point on any of the articles. I have commented personally on Talk:Phillip Bauer, I am sure the user will likely still ignore me but I would like to know what do in relation to this user, if they continue pounding the same point when clear policy has been given?--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have gotten to the point. She is the one who keeps trying to make her own point and has violated consensus on a number of occasions. Not only that, she has been banned at least once and closed an open argument on whether to merge or not for at least one article. I'll find the proof if need be, but she has to be stopped and stop complaining when she can't defend herself against facts.--Lan Di (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Re-opening of a closed argument is not a violation of anything especially if there is more to discuss regarding the subject. The facts you have provided on one character to assert their notability was that they had a title in the show. That does not show anything except fan-cruft and weakens the rest of your arguments as you are not providing credible reasons as to why the character is notable. It also seems that the main argument that is given by you is moved plot along in a few episodes. That does not give any form of external notability of the character. That means the the notability criteria is failed as there is a failure to establish real world notability. I would also like to quote Iridescent here "Wikipedia shouldn't function on a "who shouts loudest wins" principle." It appears as if you are trying you best to do just that, I also have the strong feeling you feel you own the articles. In future when you try and say someone is violating policy and guidelines back it up with actual policy and guidelines.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say you re-opened a closed argument, I said you did the exact opposite. That is a violation, and that is a fact. Trust me, I don't own any article, never said I did, and I'm not shouting, if I was, I would use caps. I have backed up my arguments with facts and policies. one example of this was you acting as if you are trying to make a POINT by using rules to only your advantage and ignoring them when they are useless to you. --Lan Di (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said I re-opened a discussion I simply said re-opening a discussion is not prohibited, which is something that could have been undertaken. no arguments bought by yourself have been backed up with guidelines or policies any arguments credibly, guidelines and policies are still devoid and absent even after clear policy given against is bought. If you have guidelines and policy other WP:POINT which is irrelevant in this instance as we are purely talking about the content of the articles and not each other,I would like you to share them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only editor stating you are acting like a buffoon, with your arguments. The arguments you bring are that of an obsessive fan and who needs to get their head out of your the 24 world and see rationality and the wider world for what it is. If you had your way every single character on 24 wikia would be on wikipedia. The purpose of the rules, guidelines and policies is so that the encyclopedia can be enhanced improved and prevent non info. To accomplish this the rules must be adhered to, you appear to avoid all rules, guidelines and policies in your pursuit of giving every character with 10 seconds or more of air time a page here. That is disruptive and something which can result in a ban, as you are avoiding all credible arguments and disrupting genuine discussions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, when I argue facts, you say I'm breaking rules. In fact, I didn't even want Lynn McGill brought back to main page. Most characters in minor character list I don't mind. So stop making accusations that can't be supported. You accuse me of breaking rules, well you better have hard proof, not just your opinion. I never disrupted any discussions, I am only arguing things based on facts. Oh, you're not the only editor, really, so who else are you working with, or is it another puppet of yours like the only one that has been discovered.--Lan Di (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You make repeated frivolous claims and do not listen to reasoned policy arguments, It seems that you are only willing to accept your opinion and ignore all other reasonable opinions. You are being disruptive as overtime you make a claim on some pages another user bring up valid reasons as to why it is ridiculous. Policy and Guidelines as to how your arguments bear any weight are still missing and must be added and sourced correctly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as I said in the Doyle talk page, I'll agree that Doyle's more of a footnote than anything else, unless he returns for the next season. Secondly, Lucy-marie's assessment of the talk discussion is skewed. I don't see how she saw a merge consensus based on the comments written so far. I reverted the merge until a definitive consensus was reached. Thirdly, Lucy-marie has an obsessive compulsion to do as she will without regard for the opinion of others. When consensus goes against her, she either ignores it or forum-shops for admin intervention. A prime example is adding merge tags for recently split articles (see here and here) - this is exactly in opposition of the consensus calling for their recreation. I thought this (see question 7) was interesting as a backhanded way to curry admin support so she can force her hand. I've been subjected to her edit-warring and Wiki-lawyering - the typical ways she rams her opinion and style down other editors' throats. TunaSushi (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As they say it takes two to tango and you seem to be th eother person also other editors are irritated that ownership froma cabal is taking place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal, don't make accusations where they aren't warranted. You have yet to show proof that one exists. If you call members from a Wiki-project a cabal, then no projects should exist. Just like you keep adding merger tags to split projects, is another example of how you keep forcing yourself. Luckily we are policing your actions, so that you single-handedly don't destroy 24 projects.--Lan Di (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It sems like somebody needs to keep you in check as well or else wallies like yourself, who have taken it upon them self to ignore the rules, guidelines and policies of wikipedia, will turn this in to mob rule anarchy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above is far more appropriate for your actions than anyone else I've encountered in Wikiland. TunaSushi (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent was right all I was to expect was a flamewar & revert war and an onslaught of anonymous abuse, sockpuppet votestacking etc. That is precisley what has happened, none of you have provided any proof as to why this character or virtually any other should not be merge, based on actual policy and guidelines. There are credible users like myself who have actually bothered to read the policy and familiarise them self with it. Then there are single issue users who do not familiarise them self, Lan Di for example and will sleectivly cherrypick irrelevant policy and guidelines to attempt to divert attention, away from the core issue. In this case the core issue is: does the character fulfill the criteria for the retention of a seperate page and not questions about civility etc. I would actually like to move back to the central issue and stop playing games, I doubt that this will occur though.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're the pot calling the kettle black. "Credible" is a funny term to use. I've researched Wiki policy and guidelines several times over actions you've taken and comments that you've made, and you're either in violation yourself or subjecting everyone else to your own rigid interpretation. I'm very tired of your name-calling (whatever a wally is) and seeing accusations like abuse, sockpuppetry and vote-stacking. I've been civil in every unfortunate circumstance where I've had to deal with you, and I can truly say that you've ruined the Wikipedia experience for me. You've personally accused me of sockpuppetry - I didn't even know what that was until you said it and I looked it up. Now there's a "cabal" against you? You can't handle criticism. I read it somewhere else, maybe Theresa's page, you simply don't know how to edit collaboratively. The games you play are all of your own design. TunaSushi (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I have no sockpuppets, if I do, you better have good proof, because I don't. Try matching my IP address to any other user, you will not find a single user with my IP address. Although you may find multiple IP addresses because I also go to college and log on from there, but the IP address I am logging from on now is my main address. What the heck is a wally anyways? I'll find out soon enough though. Isn't namecalling against the rulee anyways, for example WP:CIVILITY? I've also been civil, never calling anyone names, period. I made accusations based on facts, which you then ignore. And whatever proof you have of a cabal, you still haven't even showed. When you make accusations you need to back them up.--Lan Di (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


My talk page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Unless any of you have something to say on this matter that concerns me, take it to the article's talkpage or your own talkpages. If you really have an issue that can't be resolved, take it to DR or ANI as appropriate, and if you think someone's operating sockpuppet accounts in a manner not permitted by policy take it to WP:SSP with evidence - and as LM rightly says, whatever she's done in the past is in the past and unless you can find evidence of any current abuse by her, stop making insinuations. You are all of you welcome to ask me (or anyone) for opinions on the matter; this does not give any of you the right to post rambling abuse back-and-forth at each other here (or anywhere). If this carries on, I will start handing out civility blocks, and if necessary I'll protect The Wrong Version to put a stop to this silliness. — iridescent 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree this is ridiculous. My first comment in this section was in response to LM's accusations that she posted here on your page. I thought this would be the appropriate place to respond. TunaSushi (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

London congestion charge - FAC

Seeing as you have been involved in far more Good Articles than me I thought I would try and go one better and get a FA on London congestion charge. There have been some remarkable additiona and work by many editors on this, so fingers crossed! Comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London congestion charge most welcome. Regan123 (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a very deep breath here and point you in the direction of possibly the single most disruptive editor in the whole of Wikipedia, but also possibly the best in terms of article writing, and suggest you ask Giano II to comment on the matter. Even if he doesn't take an interest, so many of both The Cabal and the Enemies Of The Wiki read his talkpage and will likely decide to stick their oar in on any article that's mentioned, that posting there generally acts as a kind of de-facto high level peer review. While I've taken a fair few articles to GA status, FA status is quite different as it involves so much adherence to arbitrary style points, and I'm not particularly well qualified to comment on it. — iridescent 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. It seems to be going OK at the moment so I might not go there at the time. If things change, it might be worth taking you up on the suggestion. I hope to have it there in time for the anniversary date...Regan123 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

William Butler Yeats

Hello. I am curious about an edit you made to the W. B. Yeats article last month (see this diff [[4]]) in which legitimate links were altered, and certain items were delinked altogether. I am just really puzzled by it. Can you explain please? Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was baffled as well, but have worked out what happened; someone else made a bunch of bizarre edits; the article then came under my periodic AWB cleanup of recent changes to significant articles (standardising step-father → stepfather throughout the article as previously both versions were used); the account that made the weird changes has since been oversighted off the system altogether (I assume for an offensive username or a username containing personal information), making it look like each of their edits was part of the edit immediately following. (When someone's doing AWB cleanup, you can see exactly what changes were actually made as AWB automatically logs them in the edit summary.) I've seen this happen occasionally before — it's most striking when the account that creates an article is deleted, leaving the next person to edit the article shown as the creator — but it doesn't happen very often, and I wish they'd find a way to prevent it as it's really confusing. — iridescent 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... well, I'm still baffled, but I've never understood how AWB works, anyway! But, I do thank you for trying to clear it up. When I looked at what had happened, I assumed it was something strange with AWB. Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Premature chickens

Still a little premature, so I won't discuss it <zip> ... but thanks Kbthompson (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

At 42-0 last time I looked it would take some pretty hefty derailing. — iridescent 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
45-0, actually but I don't want to make any 'administrative' blunders by inadvertent canvassing! I am having problems getting through the door at the moment, because of all the nice things people have had to say 8^) Back to normal next week, when exactly the same group all start slagging me off - lol. Kbthompson (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Be prepared for them all to start hating you, since anything you do will always be wrong (see every other post on this page). — iridescent 11:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
People hating others for taking decisions is a part of the human condition. I'll just have to learn to live with it. Kbthompson (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.
There's all these new buttons ... The power. The power. The horror, the horror. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Panetics

Hi Iridescent, an administrator is perhaps waiting a word from you or user:John in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Panetics for closing the discussion. If you have any question, I will be glad to answer. Robert Daoust (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Requested:

Subject: “A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors”. Thank you for reviewing my first Wikipedia article on East Los Streetscapers. There is much to learn about Wikipedia and writing an article. I am a bit overwhelmed. I am requesting your help by re-visiting this article and reviewing the edits and tags that are continuously being placed on it by user named “Blow of Light”. These include deleting the “references” and threatening to “prod” the article, etc. I would very much appreciate your evaluation of these edits so a consensus can be achieved. I want to preserve the integrity the article.
I welcome qualified edits that will improve the article..
Thank you for your help.
BSacknoosin (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any problem at all with the article. The only issue I can potentially see is that someone may claim it lacks notability, but the sources seem more than adequate to me. — iridescent 19:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitley Bay Question

Hi, your work on the Whitley Bay High School page has made me hope that you might have some familiarity with the area. I'm trying to determine if Hopkins' Parcel Bin is a hoax. It's on AfD now. Any input as to whether it's real would be helpful. Thanks.--CastAStone//(talk) 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While I've been Daan Saaf for more than 10 years now, this is pretty definitely a hoax; the "source" doesn't mention it once. — iridescent 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your work

I would like to award you this barnstar for the amount of time you spend cleaning up Wikipedia.

The administrative barnstar
This is for your tireless work in cleaning up typos etc using AWB and also for the amount of time you spend contributing with your sysop tools. Tbo 157(talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... Although ironically, I've been virtually inactive for the last couple of weeks. — iridescent 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:London's showcase picture

I decided to add Chinatown to the main, even though it is not a featured picture. The summary of though could do with sme expansion and i think i did a rather weak job.

Seperately for Cromer i added an option 4 for a name. Simply south (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The London portal seems to have become moribund (and the selection of pictures fairly poor), so to be honest I'm losing interest in it. All credit to TBO157 for virtually single-handedly keeping P:LT so much more active in comparison.
File:Mergist-logo.svg
Regarding Cromer, I'm not keen on "Cromer's railway stations" as it looks a bit messy. While I genuinely believe the AMW line is generally right in situations like this — articles are almost always more useful as sections in a longer article than as stubs, as it puts the stubs in a context — I'm well aware this doesn't reflect Wikipedia practice, and Cromer (with only one open station left) seems a pretty good proving ground to test the waters for potentially bigger similar merges (does every station on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line really need its own identical stub instead of a section in the article on the line, for example?) but that's an editwar for another day. (While you may be sick to death of hearing the name, look at the way Lucy-marie's currently being — IMO totally unfairly — ripped to shreds for performing similar merges; take a deep breath and read this section for a taste of the "debate" this kind of merge can cause when the article-owners take exception.) — iridescent 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

As you have probably already seen, my RfA was closed as successful, and I am now an administrator. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better admin. I do have to admit some concerns with some of your own comments though, which I felt were veering a bit past exaggeration to the point of near fabrication. For example, to accuse me of "semi-permanent edit warring"? Saying that I tagged articles for deletion simply because I didn't like them? You may use those arguments to try and convince other editors, but when I'm the one that's reading them, it's obvious that they're not true, and you were just making a "revenge" oppose. I would encourage you to keep this in mind when you participate in RfAs in the future, and doublecheck whether or not you're really making a decision based on someone's fitness for admin tools, or whether you're just using the RfA as opportunity to act out on a personal grudge. It is possible to oppose someone's candidacy, without making things up or attacking them personally. Anyway, as regards my own adminship, I am going to take it slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator though, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. And, for what it's worth, it is my hope that at some point in the future we will be able to find something that we can work on together, in the spirit of cooperation. We obviously both love Wikipedia, and perhaps we can find a way to build on that towards a position of mutual trust. It would be nice to get back to a relationship where we all benefit. :) --Elonka 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not a "revenge" oppose - AFAIK, I've only ever intersected with you once (on Talk:Broadwater Farm), and while I disagree with your position there, you certainly weren't the only one disagreeing with me — Malleus Fatuarum was making many similar points, and I nominated him for adminship last month. I'm not quite sure why you think it was motivated by revenge; I'd estimate that I oppose in at least 50% of RFAs I participate in, as I only generally participate in RFAs on candidates on whom I have an opinion. If it came across as a personal attack, I'm sorry, as it wasn't meant to be (and I thought I took pains to ensure that it didn't look like one; I even specifically said that I didn't support the accusations that were being thrown around last time).
The accusation of edit-warring on Franco-Mongol Alliance I stand by; while I have no knowledge of the subject so am in no position to determine who's right, the fact is that an awful lot of heat & light's being generated about what, in all honesty, is probably one of the least-read lengthy articles on Wikipedia (that's no criticism; I've written A1 road and Central Communications Command which are certainly in the same category) and neither party (including you) was showing any inclination of giving in. As even relatively inactive admins face repeated attempts to suck them into lame wars (I have performed two blocks, one protect and six deletes this month, and look at the amount of sound-and-fury that minimal activity has generated on this talkpage), the ability to say "I still think you're wrong, but I don't really care" is essential for a admin, unless you're happy to be the permanent focus of zOMGdrama day-in day-out.
I think you're possibly reading too much into my opposition; yes, my weak oppose was the first one, but it was one of 61 opposes; while some of them were possibly bad-faith and/or from long-standing enemies, plenty more were from unimpeachably neutral long-standing editors such as DGG, Radiant!, JzG etc. That said, I don't support the apparently bad-faith attempt to overturn the process, and - I assume - in light of such a close RFA you're vanishingly unlikely to "do a Durova", which appears to have been the main concern of virtually every oppose. While I doubt I'll work with you much, seeing as we generally focus on totally different areas, I have no ill-feeling towards you at all, hope everything runs well, and would be happy to work with you should the opportunity ever arise. — iridescent 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As I've been mentioned here, I feel entitled to butt in. I am frankly astonished at Elonka's accusations. I supported her RfA, but it now seems that I may have been mistaken in doing so, and I am very disappointed. "Yah boo sucks to you, I'm an admin now", is rather childish. I felt quite strongly in my own RfA that there were are least some "revenge" opposes, but I didn't feel it necessary to crow about it. I'm shocked that a new admin would do that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just re-read the RFA top-to-bottom, and having done so I'm frankly baffled by this conversation. Not only am I one of the weakest opposes, every point I made is also made repeatedly elsewhere by multiple other contributors. Are you accusing all of them of "taking the opportunity to act out a personal grudge" and "veering past exaggeration to the point of near fabrication"? On a skim through their talkpages, it doesn't appear that any of the 60 other opposers have warranted a lengthy personal attack from you, and — given that aside from two of your RFAs and a very minor & non-contentious copyedit of Franco-Mongol Alliance, I'm only aware of having intersected with you once (in August) — I'm at a loss to understand why I'm being singled out for the honour. — iridescent 12:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, I'm still digging through holiday backlog. But there are some major misunderstandings here that I think need to be cleared up.
Iridescent, if you feel that Radiant is an "unimpeachably neutral editor", I have a whole ton of diffs to show you otherwise, including places where Radiant was abusing admin tools to unblock allies in a dispute. :/ JzG's oppose, though I disagree with his reasoning, at least he was civil about it. DGG's oppose, however, I most definitely did challenge at his talkpage, though he has declined to respond. It's one thing to express a civil concern, and it's another to just make stuff up. At worst, DGG was either lying or grossly exaggerating. At best, he got me confused with some other editor. If someone is stating falsehoods about me, especially in such an important forum as an RfA, I have the right to speak up and challenge those falsehoods.
As for the Franco-Mongol alliance issue, I'm sorry that your perception of it is something that just needs to be ignored. If you (or anyone) digs a bit deeper, I think you'll see that we have a very serious issue there, with an editor (PHG) who is systematically using Wikipedia to rewrite history. He's misinterpreting sources, quoting false sources, and pushing a very very biased POV, where he's trying to make a case (on multiple Wikipedia articles, with more POV forks appearing on a near daily basis) that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem in 1300. This isn't a case of, "Oh, we're disagreeing about the wording of one sentence," this is an ongoing series of activities that are extraordinarily damaging to Wikipedia. Further, PHG isn't just ignoring me, he's ignoring every other editor on the talkpage, at the article RfC, on his user talkpage, and multiple ANI threads. If you feel that this is something that should be ignored, then we have a very fundamental disagreement on the longterm health of the project. If there's one thing that we should agree on, it's that Wikipedia articles should be written in a neutral manner, based on the highest-quality sources, and represent an accurate summary of modern scholarship. --Elonka 06:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Having done a longer dig through PHG's edit history, I'm actually going to retract my comments regarding the F-MA, as it is fairly apparent that this is a problem editor; while I'm not in a position to judge whether all his comments are valid/invalid, a dip-sample of contributions seems to show a consistent pattern of citing wilfully obscure sources, which don't seem to correspond with mainstream opinion, and then presenting them as the only version of The Truth. That said, I do stick by at least some of what I said above - there's nothing I said that wasn't also raised repeatedly by other people in the RFA, and I do think you're possibly singling me out just because I happened to be the first one, and I really don't understand what my "revenge oppose" is supposed to be in revenge for, since (given that I rarely stray outside my core areas of English geography, IT in the emergency services, female indie singers and UK transport infrastructure) we virtually never overlap. Also, since your RFA was successful, it's hardly as if I derailed it, whether or not my comments were valid. (If I'd made a patently untrue comment, and the RFA had subsequently failed as a result of "oppose per" votes, that would be a different issue.) — iridescent 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking another look, I appreciate it. And if you have suggestions on how PHG can best be dealt with, I'd appreciate it. So far it's looking like ArbCom is the only remaining effective option, and I'm not looking forward to that.
As for your oppose, well, it was pretty obvious that you'd been waiting to post it. You were oppose #1, with a lengthy and heavily diffed comment, with some really blatant exaggerations, which you posted within 10 minutes of my accepting the nom. It was clear that you've been "ready and waiting" to oppose as soon as the RfA went live.
But truly, I haven't just singled you out. I took the time to acknowledge every single comment at my RfA, both good and bad, and even all the neutrals. I didn't just rubber-stamp everybody with the same template, I actually tried to make small wording changes on many of my notes. Many of my comments did end up just being copy/pastes (there's not much I can reply to someone who just said "Support" or "Oppose" with no commentary). For those who made good-faith opposes, I acknowledged them. For those that I felt were in bad faith, I went into detail about why I felt those comments were made in bad faith, or, I tried to go into detail about why I felt that the judgments were unfair. As an aside, one thing I definitely noticed while doing the thankyou notes, was the differences between the talkpages of the supporters and opposers. It wasn't true in all cases (for example, yours was an exception), but in most cases the supporters were accounts that had busy and "humming" talkpages, that were scrolling fast with a lot of constructive work going on. Whereas most of the opposers were either obvious meatpuppet accounts, or if their talkpages were scrolling fast, it was often because there were lots of warnings and complaints on them. Which again doesn't have anything to do with your particular oppose, it's just that I found it interesting, to see the patterns of people that were supporting and opposing me!
As for where we go from here, it really wasn't my desire to just dump on you. Instead, I genuinely wanted to clear the air, because it's my belief that when you have respect for someone, it's best to get things out in the open, rather than holding back grudges. And for what it's worth, I do have respect for you, and I really would like to have a productive working relationship with you in the future. One thing we obviously have in common, is that we're both passionate about Wikipedia. Perhaps we can build on that? --Elonka 02:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

← As regards how I got the vote in so quickly, there's no particular mystery to it; I have your talkpage watchlisted, as I do with a number of the regulars (I find periodically looking at what other people are discussing is useful to get a general view of trends), saw Acalamari propose you a couple of hours before it went live, and since I knew I was going to comment on it, started writing it and waited for you to transclude the RFA. Not particularly unusual; Kelly Martin's RFA had I think 15 votes before it was even transcluded. The first oppose in any RFA is generally the one that looks bitchiest, since the subsequent ones are generally "Oppose per...". (Every RFA generally gets at least one oppose that makes the candidate think "What the hell?" — this was mine, and this was my all-time favourite.)

I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done with PHG. As he's (possibly deliberately) using extremely obscure sources, generally written in archaic languages, unless you happen to speak mediaeval Armenian it's virtually impossible to refute them from primary sources; the best I can see is that none of the secondary sources seem to agree with him, and that an event as significant as a pagan conquest of a site holy to both Christianity and Islam should have been widely reported — witness the number of contemporary sources on the fall of Baghdad or Kiev, for example. Since he does seem to be working in good (albeit skewed) faith, the usual revert-block-ignore cycle doesn't seem to apply here; while it goes against every Wikipedia principle (as well as being awesomely hypocritical, given that the possibility that you'd do this was a leading basis for my oppose), I'd be sorely inclined to give him {{uw-error1}}-through-4 messages, block him if the problems continue, and semi-protect the pages in question to prevent him setting up new accounts to reinsert the material. After having spent a disproportionate chunk of the last couple of months fending off sockpuppet attacks on such earth-shaking pages as Windsor High School (Halesowen), I'm rapidly starting to ABF.

Not sure the talkpage comparison is entirely valid; there were certainly some dubiously inert accounts suddenly sprung back to life, but I don't think you could ever call (for example) User talk:DGG or User talk:JzG inactive... Although I certainly think RFA's do have a tendency to flush out everyone you've ever had a run-in with. (I deliberately didn't mention mine until it had finished, precisely because I knew that every reverted-vandal with a grudge tends to pile in.)

All that said, I have absolutely no hard feelings to you at all; while I did oppose the RFA, I (paradoxically, I guess) have no particular worries about you, as outlined somewhere in the mess of posts & crossposts above. — iridescent 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the PHG thing has now overflowed to ArbCom. Since you have taken the time to look into the situation, you may wish to post a statement (up to you). Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance. Just wanted to make you aware... --Elonka 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review have picked up on it as well, for what that's worth (no link provided as per the arbcom ruling, but I'm sure you can find it) — while WR might be a vicious attack site etc etc etc they can actually be quite helpful in issues like this as they tend to focus The Cabal's attention on the matter. I've actually argued in favour of an Arbcom ruling - or an ex cathedra ruling from Jimbo, as I think something needs to be done to put a stop to this, even if it means dishing out blocks, as this is starting to impact on unrelated areas (as the amount of time being spent on this conversation shows). — iridescent 15:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Angelriver

I have quite frankly had enough of Angelriver not contributing constructively to wikipedia and continually focusing solely on my contributions rather than the content of the articles. Angelriver has been previously warned, and has just continued, please do something to get this user to, either focus on the issues of the discussion or to stop attacking me. the Tom Lennox talk page is the last straw really, the comments are there just as an attack and serve no purpose in furthering the discussion Talk:Tom_Lennox dated 18:22, 26 January 2008.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, although it looks to me like you're in the right this time (although it has to be said, I generally do take a very strong AMW line towards this kind of issue), I don't know enough about 24 to say with any confidence which characters are major enough to warrant their own article. The Thomas the Tank Engine guidelines are generally quite a good rule-of-thumb for situations like this, where a series has a lot of characters who make too many appearances to be considered "minor", but where creating a separate article for each would result in a sprawl of stubby articles. You might want to ask Theresa, who seems quite good at sorting out situations like this, for her thoughts on the matter. — iridescent 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas in the Trenches (song)

Thank you for your comments and help. I will do what I can to bring this article up to standards so that it is no longer considered for deletion. Rudy Breteler (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem - the two most glaring things in its current form are the lack of references, and the related problem of weasel words this causes - "some historians believe..." etc — iridescent 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
bah, I give up, its not worth scrabbling over it against a determined opposition. However I thank you for at least clarifying the reasons for which it was deleted, rather then leaving me guessing. I now understand Wikipedia just that much better, which was my goal in the first place, since I haven't created a new page from scratch since several years ago, when Wikipedia was an entirely different organism then it is today. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It hasn't been deleted - it just got moved to Christmas in the Trenches (song) — iridescent 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try when I get the chance but won't be for at least five-six days. — iridescent 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re my issue

Thank you for taking a fair view. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Green Lane Masjid

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Green Lane Masjid, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Green Lane Masjid. EmmetCaulfield (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Moore, Nixzmary Brown, etc.

I noticed that you had nominated some articles written by User:MurderWatcher1 in the past. I've run across some re-creations of articles, and this newer one about Nixzmary Brown. There is just so much wrong with, and about these articles, that I don't know where to begin. The Brown article is little more than a trial blog, with day to day additions of the trial. Meanwhile, looking at Jennifer Moore, Imette St. Guillen, Chanel Petro-Nixon and Ramona Moore, patterns emerge. My concern is that while tragic, these articles are about non-notable persons. Since when do we devote pages to murder victims that weren't notable except for being murdered? The author is trying to create a connection between the articles by discussing nightclubs, partying in NYC and legislation, but in truth, it just doesn't connect so well. I was hoping you might revisit this, since you seemed much more expressive about the problems with these articles before on the AfDs (which I just looked at). Thanks. AndToToToo (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think these should mostly be deleted, as if anything's notable it's the crime and not the victim. However, after the firestorm that erupted last time - spread across AN/I, DRV and assorted talk pages - I don't really want to get involved with these articles again; a read of MurderWatcher1's talkpage clearly shows that he sees creation of these articles as a religious duty, and in a case like that it's impossible to really discuss the matter. — iridescent 23:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

[User:SouthernElectric] has decided to leave WP. LM is quite brilliant at defeating people in an argument ... with the result that another positive contributor has left the project. Wish that LM's contributions to the railways project were so. Olana North (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that SouthernElectric was banned blocked for edit-warring on a completly unrelated issue, from the trains discussion. The point of the discusions are not focus on user but rather to focus on the content of the discussions, regardless of weather you like the edidtor or not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:208.180.22.12

I would ike to lodge a formal complaint of incivility aginst this annon user. The user is mainly just posting personal attacks towards myself and I would either like the user to stop or be stopped. Examples can be seen here,here and here --Lucy-marie (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine Lucy, I will leave you alone if that is what you want. I apologize for my previous behavior. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
208, comment on content not the contributor - LM might not be popular with a lot of people but that doesn't necessarily either mean she's wrong or that she's a bad person. LM, as you can see from this history I'm barely on Wikipedia at the moment so can't promise when/if I'm going to be able to reply let alone take action on this type of thing. — iridescent 19:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help to lock Plácido Domingo’s article again

Hi Iridescent, The article has been locked 2 consecutive times from last year due to heavy vandalism by anonymous users. Once the lock has been lifting off, they start vandalising again. The final locking expires on 14 January and now vandalism start again. Please look at the history page. We need your help to lock the article again as soon as possible. The vandalism is going on as I am writing this. Hopefully you could lock it longer than usual period. I send this message to Jossi too. - Jay (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Špegelj Tapes

I have edited this article, it is full of lies and made up facts, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C5%A0pegelj_Tapes - my more detailed explanation, As I see you already looked at the article, you filed to spot rather racist and nationalistic crap posted there as factual, I do not care who posted that nonsense, who ever did, was totally of the rails and had no clue what he was on about, to stupid and to ignorant to know the facts of the case and just started to make things up to make it more interesting. I find it rather pathetic, w/e the case, I edited the article as I do not have time to post all the links and facts about the whole case. Anyways, I'd appreciate if you lock the article and when I have time I'll edit the article with all the facts and data. thanx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0pegelj_Tapes Mic of orion (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The sum total of my contribution to this article was to correct the spelling sentances → sentences. I have no intention of locking this article in either version, as there's no sign of edit warring or any other problems. — iridescent 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

iLinc deletion

I'm a newby to this process and am just learning it all. Sorry for the entry-level chat. Question: I see that you delete an entry for iLinc. I'd like to either retrieve or repost that sans the offense/blatant advertising content (whatever that was, I don't know because I never saw it). I'm looking to just post something similar to what WebEx has posted - a factual history of the company with a few links to relevant people, industries, etc. Should I repost or can we retrieve and edit the deletion? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylecurtis (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Asher (explorer)

Any chance I can have a copy of this deleted article retrieved to my User page to work on ? Thanks, GrahamHardy (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry just noticed this request - have to go & will be a while before I'm back, it is probably worth asking someone else to restore it. (Try DGG). — iridescent 12:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

retirement?

Did I know you'd retired? --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so much "retired" as "overcome by distaste" at the way Wiki-politics seems to be degenerating into a wolf-pack "pick on anyone who disagrees" mentality. (See the correspondences with and about Lucy-marie in my most recent archive, for example.) I'll still keep an eye on my stomping grounds (although I think I'm going to pull out of football related stuff, as there are plenty of people who know more than me), but I'm withdrawing completely from anything "political", and any but the most innocuous admin actions (unless I stumble across an obvious attack page, for example). — iridescent 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am one of many who would miss your many intelligent contributions. It is a shame that so many good contributors are being forced out by packs of baying teens who lack the maturity to achieve and abide by consensus (not to say that some younger editors don't make positive contributions to the project). I think generally, these shit storms tend to pass over - and things get back to something approaching normal (for here). Anyway, thanks and I do hope to see you around. Kbthompson (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am still lurking about... If anyone feels the urge to get involved in a shit-storm, they could try cleaning up this can of worms I've just opened... — iridescent 11:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just looks like robust article defence to me - or do you think you'll suddenly be stopped and searched on your way home? There's been a spate of 'disappearances' and 'retirements' lately - so many, I'm beginning to think of wikipedia as some sort of south American republic ... Kbthompson (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Google SlimVirgin if you want an object lesson in how this kind of stuff gets ludicrously out of hand too fast if left unchecked. — iridescent 12:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sad to hear

I just saw the discussion above. I understand, but am very disappointed. You've shepherded more than a few of us along the way. Maybe even inspired a few too. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering why??

Hi, I'm still a little new to the editing at Wikipedia, but I am wondering why you removed the stubs "US-theat- theatre-struct-stub, Virginia-struct-stub, and US-south-university-stub" from the Ferguson Center for the Arts page? Also, why did you remove the student's production list added by a previous user?? Thanks (Nicolaususry (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

I removed the stub tags because it's not a stub article. I'm baffled by the "removed the student production list", as I did nothing of the sort, although I'd concur wholeheartedly with removing it as uncyclopaedic. — iridescent 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cromer railway stations

An IP editor has made an edit to the article which doesn't make much sense to me - disused station infobox showing Weybourne as a previous station!? Maybe you'd like to take a look? Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Union Canal

I've just added an image to Grand Union Canal, and I noticed you took a picture near the same spot! I've just been looking through your gallery of Commons images, and wanted to congratulate you on a very nice cross-section of images from across London. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... — iridescent 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Senior Management Team

An article that you have been involved in editing, Senior Management Team, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senior Management Team. Thank you. Ratarsed (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That still here? Dear god. — iridescent 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
'fraid so; thought you'd be interested in the AfD for it as well, as you prod'd it -- Ratarsed (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I removed the userbox. I was actually not adopting. I have one adoptee but I'm the co-adopter. And I fix typos on articles, not my own userpage so I think it's okay. But I fixed them anyway.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanna give you a prize

I'm Javitomad, a Spanish user of English wikipedia.

I've seen you've improved some articles about Spain.

Because of that, I want to give you a Barnstar, the Spanish Barnstar.

The Spanish Barnstar
I, a Spanish user, give you this Barnstar for contributing for a better Spanish-English Wikipedia.
Javitomad (...tell me...) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Javitomad (...tell me...) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Postpostmodernism

I have to say that this article gave me one of the best laughs I've had in awhile. "Postmodernism is defined in relation to what it comes after: modernism." Thanks. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Page

A page that I created Jameel williams was deleted by User:Versageek today. Could you please send me a copy at [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headphones2413 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no; having read this article, there's no possibility it will ever be valid content, and in any rate it was only three lines long. — iridescent 09:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"See also" - please stop

Greetings Iridescent, could you please stop replacing "Related topics" with "See also"? The former is explicitly sanctioned by the Manual of Style and does not direct the reader in an unencyclopedian tone. Regards, Skomorokh 23:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - blame AWB, which does this search-and-replace automatically as one of its "general fixes" - as far as I know there's no way to disable it without disabling the fixes altogether. I do agree that it's a replacement that shouldn't be made as the MOS specifically doesn't forbid it; I've raised the issue at AWB, which will hopefully lead to this particular search-and-replace being disabled; in the meantime I'll try to manually prevent it doing this one should it try to; if I miss any, do let me know. — iridescent 23:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for clearing that up, and sorry for tacitly accusing you! Regards, Skomorokh 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem - I appreciate it must be really annoying, especially if you've used it on a lot of articles and suddenly see 20 changes of mine on your watchlist. (But, anyone here to argue about me removing of the term "Weblinks", see below...) — iridescent 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, you may want to pop onto the AWB talkpage listed above and "second" the request to remove it as a fix - the more people complaining about it, the more likely someone is to do something about it. I freely admit I don't know enough about coding to even attempt to remove it (although if you do understand these things, the module in question is here). — iridescent 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem with "weblinks" (shudder). I have added an {{editprotected}} request at the script page to fix the "related topics/articles" issue; administrators are usually prompt in responding to those. Thanks, and best of luck with the cleanup crusade, Skomorokh 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I do still have sysop powers; are you certain that removing the line in question isn't going to have any nasty side-effects? If so, I'll remove it myself as there's clearly no case for leaving it in. — iridescent 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never edited anything like that code, but my proposed change seems intuitive. In other words, I recommend that you by no means trust my judgement! I'm sure an admin in the know will wander by shortly, and there is no impending catastrophe if it takes a while. Thanks again for the help, Skomorokh 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've left it, as I'm not 100% sure what needs to be left in to let it continue replacing "Internal links"→"See also", which is a replacement that should continue to be made. Hopefully someone who understands these things will be along shortly. — iridescent 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

General note regarding "Weblinks"

It occurs to me that this is a cue to pre-empt another possible similar complaint; while I agree that "Related topics" → "See also" shouldn't be perfomed, anyone here to argue against my replacing "Weblinks" → "External links" when I come across it will have to do a lot of convincing, as this is neither an accepted variation in the MOS, nor a standard English usage. — iridescent 00:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Removal

Thanks for that, I'm going to lunch, but I'll get you a quote from TOR in a timely manner.

    • edit; apparently it wasn't a big enough deal for TOR to issue a press release about just yet, but here's the announcement from the author's page: www.votecorica.com (I referenced it on the article as well)

Flashinpon (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your protection of Crouch End

Hey Iridescent, I am concerned about your protection of Crouch End. The article has only been edited twice in the last 19 days, hardly enough to be considered "significant but temporary vandalism or disruption" which is required to semi-protect an article. I was very close to just unprotecting the article, but I figured it would be best to at least get your view on it before I did so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right; that shouldn't have been protected. While there's undoubtedly a revert war going on there, it's in such slow motion that it's not causing any harm. Go ahead & unprotect it. — iridescent 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, it is now unprotected. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh-err missus

The Barnstar of Good Humour
For helping to hijack BrownHairedGirl's talk page, after the watershed (fortunately...) BencherliteTalk 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, this one's going on my userpage... And I haven't even mentioned the fact yet that BHG wrote Dick Spring. — iridescent 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we just call her Samantha? BencherliteTalk 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Amy Lau

Thanks for letting me know. It looked like blatant spam to me with the URL pasted in everywhere. Still learning the ins and outs, and have a long way to go, but I like to think I've made more positive contribs than negative so far.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really support this initiative, as it seems to duplicate too many other things elsewhere, as well as edging uncomfortably close to an "elite user group" - same reason I think WP:EDITS has no place on Wikipedia. I hope you project works, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to be part of it. — iridescent 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin H. Glynn

Thank you for cleaning up this article. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I still stand by my AFD'ing his book, though... — iridescent 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you are right on that point. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cattle Health Initiative

That article was a mess, but I took some time to clean up and research. Would you consider recinding your AfD nomination? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree: withdrawn. Well done with the cleanup - that one really did look unsalvageable! — iridescent 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No kidding. I just was following my routine dilligence before agreeing to delete, and stumbled on some good info. This is the beauty of WP, learning something new every day. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jenny Boully

Hey, please take a CLOSE look at the page again, and look at the links that were provided. Most of the article is in direct violation of WP:COPYVIO, as I stated in my edit summary. ArcAngel (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already posted on the matter on your talk page. This is a straightforward list of publications; just because it's the same list as appears on other sites, certainly does not constitute a copyvio. — iridescent 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I wasn't making myself clear. It's not the links themselves, the problem is with the article text - compare the article text with the bio text in the links, and you'll see where copyvio exists. ArcAngel (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be misunderstanding what constitutes a copyvio. The offending sentences in full are: "Her work has appeared in Seneca Review, Boston Review, and Conjunctions, Tarpaulin Sky, and has been anthologized in The Next American Essay, The Best American Poetry, and Great American Prose Poems: From Poe to the Present. Born in Korat, Thailand and reared in San Antonio, Texas, she has studied at Hollins University and the University of Notre Dame, and earned her PhD from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. She divides her time between Texas and Brooklyn." I don't see how any of that could be rewritten other than ultra-superficial changes such as "she has studied"→"she studied", since it's just a straightforward list of publications, qualifications and place of birth. — iridescent 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mariology

Many thanks for your help! Gracie, Gracias, Danke Schön, Merci! -:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More than welcome... — iridescent 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Information communication technology

Many thanks for the clean up job

--Hallenrm (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) You're very welcome — iridescent 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI - Protection of userpage

Thank you Iredescent, appreciated. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - but be careful in accusing editors of vandalism, as the IP's edits in article space were all valid, and even their edits to your userpage were good-faith spellchecking, not abusive. — iridescent 17:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyclones

who are you referring to? Is Juliancolton a cyclone writer? I could look at diffs myself, but meh...a yes or no would do me fine...:-) (watching this page Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

About 75% of his mainspace edits are about cyclones. Given that the biggest cyclone of all time is currently taking place it seems a bit odd for him to take the time off to submit an RFA right now. — iridescent 22:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And there it is. Even in my isolated corner of the world, even we get news of Nargis. Now I get it, and thanks! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypnodog

Let me know when you've got it ready, I'd be thrilled to copy edit it for you and support it at FAC. I have a feeling it would make for a really interesting and different article. Risker (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do... If you feel the urge to copyedit something, you might want to have a stab at Almeric Paget - I wrote this one up to "adequate" standard and then abandoned it with some very rough edges, but IMO he's one of the most interesting characters on here — iridescent 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

my talk page

Has a reply for you. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah... Having looked at the site under discussion, a lot now becomes clear... — iridescent 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Email. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning?

My adopter User:Steve Crossin seems to be busy. I would like to know what warning (if needed) I should use when a user added false info like this that I reverted. Can you help?--Ryan (talk ♠ Review) 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reply on my talk.--Ryan (talk ♠ Review) 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ryan (talk ♠ Review) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Some Bizzare

Further to your edit to Depeche Mode Discography, the record company is spelt intentionally incorrectly! (see image on Some Bizzare Album page). Edit reverted. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that one; I thought I'd set AWB to auto-skip any pages including "Some Bizzare" but that one must have slipped through. — iridescent 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

TechCollective

why did you delete TechCollective? I responded with reasons to keep it. Please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yochaigal (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll repost your comments from the talkpage, so I can respond to them:
This is not an advertisement. The cooperative community has a very small internet footprint. I simply want every cooperative to have a page on wikipedia, or at least be included in the cooperative portal. I plan on doing every cooperative in the SF Bay Area eventually.
I don't think this page should be deleted for two reasons:
Information on cooperatives is incredibly important, as there is few and far between at the moment. I don't see how this differs from any other page about cooperatives --- such as
or
I thought that it was useful to have the page here as it reflects the bylaws, which if I was a person looking for corporate bylaws that refer to coops specifically it would be handy to have some that were CC licensed.
You seem to have an incorrect understanding of what Wikipedia is. Despite what a lot of people think, it's not a "directory of everything", but only covers subjects that meet a (fairly strict) definition of "notable", and include references from multiple, independent, non-trivial sources to demonstrate the fact. In the case of this co-operative, the relevant guidelines are here. If you can demonstrate that the co-operative meets the guidelines, and include references to demonstrate the fact, we'll gladly accept it as a subject, but as the article stood, JohnCD acted correctly in tagging it for deletion. I know it's annoying to see articles you've worked on deleted, but we do need to enforce the policy, to keep Wikipedia as the reliable reference source it's intended to be and not a forum for advertising along the lines of MyWikiBiz. — iridescent 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

ok

thanks, that makes sense. --- yochaigal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.32.193 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to move it to user-space so you can work on it, let me know — iridescent 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurrays RfA

Hey, regarding your question there, the usernames of his students have been disclosed since the early beginings of the project, please see here. I dindt want to post that there since I know asnwering is usually reserved for the candidate, cheers! Acer (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll go back & clarify the question — iridescent 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Line breaks

I notice that you have taken out all the line breaks between formulae in the Zobel network article. I put these in when I wrote the article because I though that the extra white space makes the maths easier to read. I have seen others besides you conducting a campaign against line breaks so I guess there must be a MOS stricture against it somewhere. However, I would be grateful if you would explain why I shouldn't do this, if indeed it is forbidden. SpinningSpark 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a case of a campaign against you and feel free to revert any cases you don't agree with. Because virtually every editing program (most notably AWB) automatically strips out both duplicated line breaks, and removes html wherever possible if there's a wikitext substitute, per Keep markup simple, the html paragraph markers are stripped out. If you don't like the result, revert them... — iridescent 20:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa there, I'm not getting paranoid - I knew it was not a campaign against me. I said it was a campaign against poor innocent line breaks who are having there punctuation rights infringed. Thanks for the info, I'll revert it now I know it's ok. SpinningSpark 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to raise the issue at WT:AWB if it's causing problems, but getting changes made to the system is generally like banging your head against the wall. — iridescent 20:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Email

Thank you for the lengthy reply. I've sent you two emails as a response.--Urban Rose 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have replied to both. It's 3.30am here, so the next batch of replies won't be until tomorrow... — iridescent 02:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

More emails

Just letting you know, I've sent you two more emails.--Urban Rose 03:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied to both... — iridescent 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

I had already seen two of them. I've also sent you another email.--Urban Rose 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Can you please describe the type of vandalism that was just done to my userpage. The only one who has been targeting my page recently is Grawp, but ever since I announced on ED that I was done with RC patrol, Grawp (an ED user) has been friendly toward me, so if he has returned to his old ways, that would be interesting to know.--Urban Rose 01:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply to this via email as per WP:BEANS — iridescent 14:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Test page

Hello Iridescent.

My page made up about my self was just a test to see how to create new pages, and was in no ways meant as vandalism. How can i delete the page that i created?

PS: From ThomasFromDenmark—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasFromDenmark (talk • contribs)

Have deleted it. In future, if you ever want to delete a page you've written - and you're the only person who's worked on it - put {{db-G7}} at the top of the page and it will be deleted. — iridescent 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

NCFC

Just back, saw your note to Dweller, I've semi-protected the page for a bit, it's boring isn't it?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have reached a compromise now... (I don't remember any of this happening last year.) I dread to think what it must be like keeping something like the Chelsea squad in order. — iridescent 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral777

Note that the user also has the same comment on his userpage. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - the cunning little rascal fooled me with the old "bury it under a rambling Myspace page" trick... — iridescent 22:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Bless - he's gone off in a sulk and started a rival to us. Their "Policy" page is well worth reading. — iridescent 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comment about the Policy. Neutral777 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


Please explain to me

Please explain to me how my last edit was inappropriate. You marked me down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerpuetz (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You have recently vandalised two pages using TW (1, 2). If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia I will remove your Twinkle access and/or block you as appropriate. — iridescent 04:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution&diff=prev&oldid=212256007

You said that was wrong, but, I can assure you that was an accident, I am in no way a vandal, And where it says: "SUCK MY SPHINCTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I was actually trying to roll that back. Tylerpuetz (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't roll it back, you added it. Wikipedia is not a race - please check your edits before you make them. This kind of disruptive editing wastes everyone's time; I note from your talkpage that I'm not the only editor expressing concern at your behaviour today. — iridescent 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hate to interrupt here but he has also undone an honest mistake I made on Template:WikiProject Seinfeld. I have no problem with the revert itself, I was just taken aback alitte by the template he left on my talk page. Anyone could see it was a good faith edit, and a kind note would've been better than a generic template. He also reverted someone else's good faith edits (see comment on his talk page). Just thought you might be interested. Joelster (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If I added it, it was by complete mistake. I hope you take my word. I will take your advice, and closely review my edits thoroughly before adding. I guess I was going to fast. Thanks for your concern. Tylerpuetz (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - everyone makes mistakes but PLEASE slow down! — iridescent 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This may be a dumb question, but would I be allowed to delete the comment on my user talk page? I really don't want a bad reputation, and since I have slowed down, I think I would receive no more complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerpuetz (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes - you can always delete anything from your userpage (with a couple of exceptions such as current block notices) — iridescent 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


libel in Comparison of file systems

I edited the talk about Comparison_of_file_systems because of what I think is libel and unrelated content. But since I am a beginner in Wikipedia, I did not dare to delete it. I see that you had previously protected the related page, so I am sking you. Should I delete the offending entry?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpoto (talk • contribs)

I can see someone's already removed it. If it carries on being re-inserted I'll reprotect the page; feel free to remove it if you see it being re-added. — iridescent 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol

... though technically, I'm actually a Cockney me old china. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So how on earth did you end up lumbered with NCFC? You could have had a class outfit like, ooh, Orient — iridescent 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Or, like so many of my London born and bred friends, Manchester United... --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's good for the Man U fans that they've won the title again - saves them the effort of telling everyone they're now Chelsea. — iridescent 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your oppose neutral !vote support at my recent Request for adminship. I really appreciate that you kept your eye on the page throughout the RfA, as it would have been very easy to say your piece and move on. I have a huge stack of work in RL to do in the next few weeks, but if all goes well, I’ll start doing more digging on Hypnodog soon! I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweet!!

Oh man, that pic on your userpage by the Wikipedia logo is AWESOME!!!!! yeah, yeah pyromaniac in his native element.... Just had to say something. Cheers! Thingg⊕⊗ 02:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If you want to copy it, the code is <span style="background:#ffffff;position:absolute;top:-45px; left:-165px;z-index:-3">[[Image:Bomba atomowa.gif|164px]]</span> — just cut-and-paste it at the top of your user page. You can use any image (it works best with portrait-shape ones), although if you use lengthy animated gifs you're likely to get Stern Words Of Advice about bandwidth-hogging given the time they take to load on dial-up. — iridescent 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:WP:LT

Hello, Iridescent. You have new messages at Bluegoblin7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, thanks for your help with this - it's appreciated!

BG7 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your Signature

Is This Better. Trees Rock Plant A Tree 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's just about OK - but if someone complains about it, don't be surprised. — iridescent 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, my eyes hurt. A little less flourescent for those of us with a bit of colour-blindness, maybe? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your AWB made a mistake

Unforseen → orunf? You may want to check on that...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn, is it doing that again? Sorry about this - I caught it doing that last week and it's supposedly been fixed. Which it obviously hasn't... — iridescent 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it's a bug in the software that's making it do this - hopefully it'll be fixed soon. — iridescent 03:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Question(s)

Just a question how do you do you add that whole nuclear explosion thing to the wikipedia icon on the left? It looks very cool.:) Don't worry I will heed your warning about AWBXp54321 (Talk,Contribs) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Read about four posts up from here. Same warning applies to you as I've given him; if you use an image above a reasonable filesize, expect to see it removed. — iridescent 21:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


ABF and Shanner191

I would just like to say that I don't usually sound as pessimistic as I did in the case of BlueGoblin7 and Shanner191, I try to AGF as much as possible. However, I'm sure you've heard the saying, "If it quacks like a duck...". I was pretty confident it was a sockpuppet case and that's why I sounded like I did. I'm glad I was right or I would've felt horrible for acting so negatively and rudely and hopefully BG7 can get this sorted out in the future. Useight (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It was obviously a SPA of someone, but I (wrongly) thought it much more likely that it was someone trying to derail him. He stepped on a lot of toes at WP:LT trying to tell a lot of long-established regulars that they were doing their jobs wrongly (see this for example) so it wouldn't have surprised me. — iridescent 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was definitely possible that it was some third-party trying to derail him, at least in theory. But the account had been around for several months, and the edits were so perfect (tram-related, to BG7's talk page, and the RFA) that it would've been a masterful plan for someone to set up the account, make it look like his sock, and then support his RFA.
As a side note, to try to bring some good faith examples in, my roommates (Nerditron and Leeboyge) are both new users, but they both know in detail what RFA is, and all kinds of other terms that I didn't know until I had been around for a while, because I talk about Wikipedia all the time. Yet I have advised them against commenting at RFA until they have some more edits lest they be accused of being sockpuppets. However, I'm thinking that cases like that are few and far between and we were safe to assume it was a sockpuppet of someone. And Wikipedia needs people like you who are willing to act in someone's defense rather than leaving them to fend for themselves. Useight (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I can do my share of assuming bad faith. — iridescent 16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen's Royal Irish Hussars

Thank you so much for cleaning up my errors on the QRIH page. It's funny how easy it is to miss the most basic mistakes and it's nice to have another pair of eyes run over it. I'll be adding more to the article in due course when I'm finished with another project.GDD1000 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I periodically run the automated spellcheck built into AWB over batches of articles (it opens articles, runs them through the spellcheck, and automatically moves onto the next if there's nothing to correct, so you don't have to sit there typing in article names). I'm always amazed at how many times it finds something really obvious in something that's probably been read by a thousand people, none of whom have spotted any problem. — iridescent 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Superb. That's something I'll have to try. Thanks for the heads up.GDD1000 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The IDA

Was this the dicdef of inadvertent you meant? " 1. Of persons, their dispositions, etc.: Not properly attentive or observant; inattentive, negligent; heedless. In quot. 1653, Not having the faculty of observation. "
Why a Russian A-bomb in the pic? Ivy Mike is much cooler.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Not properly attentive" in the sense of not realising what sort of fuss this was bound to set off. It's a Russian a-bomb purely because I wanted colour film, but of a small enough file size that it wouldn't make the page lag forever on a dialup connection; this came in below 100k and saves messing around recreating it with a new frame rate - it's also of the right dimensions that the cloud aligns with the Wikipedia logo. (My personal favourite explosion photos are Castle Romeo and Redwing Apache, both of which could serve as works of art in their own right.) — iridescent 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
How can anyone not think this is art?
Gotcha re inadvertant.
100K is pretty small, so good decision. The others you mentioned are pretty cool pics too. YouTube has one of Romeo (and Bravo), but they're probably too large.
Y'know, people will think we're nuts talking about A- and H-bombs as cool or works of art, but, in a weird way they are. Unless you're directly beneath one, I suppose. Fortunately, other than the two used on Japan, the "need" never arose to use them again (at least so far). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't think there's anything particularly wrong with looking at explosions as works of art, any more than enjoying a war film. IMO the Avro Vulcan is possibly the most attractive man-made object ever made (the photos on Wikipedia really don't do it justice - there's a far better one here), yet it's a weapon of mass destruction whose only practical application was involvement in a highly dubious colonial war. — iridescent 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I'm just noting what others might think -- but then, I don't worry about that. As for war films, the more realistic, the better. The opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, the Ardennes scene in Band of Brothers are excellent because the show the true devastation of war. For nuclear war films, Threads is the one I consider the best -- horrifying without being preachy like The Day After was.
I always liked the Vulcan, too. and the A-5 Vigilante, the B-57 and the B-2. Beautiful planes with unbeautiful purposes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of internationalism, add Me 163 and Tu-160 to the list. Extraordinary looking things, the pair of them. — iridescent 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the Me 262 was cool too ... that shark look ... And in all fairness, the MiG 29 is cool looking. 21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, throw the Gloster Javelin in there, too. The side-on photos on Wikipedia don't do it justice - from above or below it's like a child's drawing come to life. — iridescent 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Xtra sweet and crunchy

I sit in stunned awe (wheras usually, being a dog, I sit pretty hoping for a treat.) Are you certain it is inadvertent, however? Methinks it might be advertent. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See above - "inadvertent" in the sense of "inattentive, not realising the drama this would cause". Knowing Lara, do you really think she'd deliberately stir up this kind of shitstorm? — iridescent 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably not - however, once the drama started she must have realized, so why is she pig-headedly continuing and even escalating it? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question. Dunno how to get her off the side of the building now though - perhaps your award will be the right approach. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There are only two approaches to ending incidents like this - quickly pick a "right" side, all gang up on the other and block all their friends (aka the Poetlister Defence), or make a joke of it and hope everyone involved realises what a ridiculous thing it is to get excited over. (The third option, "sit and wait for it to go away", isn't a real option - just look at User talk:Betacommand to see how well this works.) — iridescent 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The third option, as you say, is pointless. It might help if Lara just said, "sorry guys, I was stressed, I'll try not to do it again". Most Wikipedians can be forgiving if you just acknowledge that you had a "duh" moment. Been there, done that. We're all allowed our mistakes, but refusing to acknowledge them isn't helpful (no matter how much pride you have to swallow (been there, done that, too)). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at it from her point of view - she puts up a userbox, admittedly POINTy but no worse than plenty of others to be found here, and immediately has a couple of dozen users acting like she's the worst thing to hit Wikipedia since Mr oompapa. If one-tenth of the sound-and-fury currently directed at her could be aimed at this fine, upstanding collection of undoubted good-faith editors, an awful lot more of a service would be done to the encyclopedia. — iridescent 18:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

She just said "That was the point"[5] So Teh Dramaz was intentional. I could comment, but I'm just stunned. Bad as her actions have been, to admit she intentionally caused all this drama... well, I'm temporarily at a loss. Except it does tend to justify my disdain for her "leave me alone" whining on her talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch... I do like Lara but that's... ouch. Can't really defend that one. — iridescent 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of like, "Doc, I just blew my foot off with a howitzer; can you reattach it?" I don't how else to describe it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Userfying deleted article

Hi Iridescent, I noticed that you will userfy deleted articles if asked. Can you please do that for me with this article please? Christmas in EastEnders I'm not planning on recreating, but I need some of the sources that were on there as I can no longer find them on line anywhere. I would really appreciate it. :) Gungadin 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's at User:Gungadin/Christmas in EastEnders. As per the AFD, don't move it back to the mainspace unless/until it's substantially rewritten. — iridescent 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Gungadin 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere ... :-)

If you'd be prepared to co-nom here, then I'd be prepared to consider standing again. Deal? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, I was way too slow. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It has been done. That took almost an hour to write - you'd better pass this time! As I said elsewhere, don't panic if the "oppose" section ratchets up at the start; everyone you've ever had a row with will have read about the RFA on your talkpage, and will have it watchlisted waiting to pounce when it goes live. I've no doubt you'll get at least 100, and probably closer to 200, supports. — iridescent 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief

I swear some people do things just to tempt me down the path of evil. Heaven only knows why I actually looked at your most recent AfD nominee. What gets more curious is that the only blue-linked names there go to an article created six weeks ago and based pretty well on IMBD. They don't meet WP:PORNBIO and since they are BLPs I feel obligated to nom that article for deletion, which in turn makes your AfD nom even less noteworthy. So the next time someone says I am too deletionist, I will blame it on you, okay?  ;-) Risker (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually just realised there was a second set of twins...and they have a really old article too, but same problems, don't meet the notability guidelines. Most of the redlinks are articles that got speedy deleted for lack of notability. Risker (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for noticing the vandalism on my talk page and reverting it. I very much appreciate you for doing that. Thanks again! Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

I withdrew that immediately when told to. Trees RockMyGoal 00:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a "Joke" edit. I meant it. But i was instructed to remove it so I did. Trees RockMyGoal 00:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter K Ekman

I see no vandalism from this account. What is the justification for your block of User:Peter K Ekman? Mww113 (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is patently a troll account, whose sole edits have been to spam all editors who have worked on Frotteurism with a joke message. If you read the post three above this one, you'll see that the editors he's targeting do consider it vandalism. If he's a genuine user, he's perfectly entitled to post an {{unblock}} request. — iridescent 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Can i ask that in future you dont attack so agressively when people make mistakes with AWB, ive seen you shout down at least two editers in the last few days over this matter. These editers were acting in good faith, i happen to know them both and know that they didnt realise what they were doing. They had only just been granted the the devise. While it is your job to correct them, please dont hurt or intimidate other editers. I hope i dont see it again. Thanx. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No. AWB has clear rules of use written in large bold letters on their front page and it's down to those using it to follow those rules. I assume you're referring to this and this; if so, these are clear violations, and it's better for all concerned if they receive a warning now rather than a block/removal of tools later on. Given the requirements for AWB authorisation, an AWB user by definition isn't a new user (the users in question have 2600 and 1961 edits respectively), so WP:BITE doesn't apply. — iridescent 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Im fully aware that they are violations, i also know that these editers have only just started using the devise, ashume good faith and dont make accusations of editcountis when its not always founded. Kodster is far from an edit counter. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While they may not be newcomers to Wikipedia, they are newcomers to AWB, and that's the important thing. Even though they may be experienced editors, and should be expected to follow rules, the editors may not have realized (like me) that moving the categories around was considered "insignificant". All we're asking is that you not assume that the editors you warn are edit counters who think that Wikipedia is an MMORPG. :) Here's an example of what I see as an exemplary warning to first-time abusers (meaning that they haven't been warned before).
I've noticed that you have been using Auto Wiki Browser to contribute to Wikipedia. However, edits such as this and this are inconsequential. Please refer to AWB rules of use for more information. Remember that while contributions are appreciated, use of AWB simply to gain more edit counts is considered abuse, and can lead to removal of your AWB access. Thank you. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Joels Drift

Please be careful - there is no possible way that Joels Drift was a candidate for speedy deletion. Thanks! — iridescent 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strange, i cannot remember tagging this article; My best guess is that i mistagged this one instead of a different article. Apart from that you are certainly right that this one does in no way warrant a speedy deletion tag. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem - it happens... — iridescent 15:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Mistaken Revert

Thanks for backing me up on that one =] Appreciated. Thats a snazzy psychedelic thing you've done to the globe int he top left, nice going. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


You're welcome and thanks - I'll probably get a complaint about "being liable to cause epileptic fits" (people realy do complain about things like that). — iridescent 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, Ok. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He still isnt having it, would you mind having a go at an attempt to reason? I could say it a hundred times and i'd still get the same answer off of the user. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG seems to have it all in hand now, so just leave it. — iridescent 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm amazed at the amount of wikidrama that can come off a single edit that changed one byte. ffm 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Its all been blanked on his talk page now, so not to worry. Looks like he's licked his wounds and got over it even though it took someone else to delete it for him. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Further more its amazing what happens when you try to do the right thing, I suppose thats a lesson in life. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

May I use your talk header for my talk page?

Well, I don't know if it's yours of if you just created it, but I like it much better than my bland, current one, anyway. :-l

Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC).

Yes, of course - everything on Wikipedia's licenced under GFDL, you don't need to ask... — iridescent 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Why, thank you. :) --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
To add the code, paste:
<span style="background:#ffffff;position:absolute;top:-45px; left:-165px;z-index:-3">[[Image:name of the image you want behind the WP logo|164px]]</span> <div id="title-override" class="topicon" style="float: left; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0px; width: 100%; padding-top: 5px; display:none"><div style="background: {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|white|#F8FCFF}}; font-size: 100%; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.1em; position:relative; left:0.5em;"><br /><center><center>Text you want to display in the header</center></center>{{clear}}</small></div></div>
at the top of your talk (or user) page. — iridescent 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Just stopped here to say thank you for your opinion in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ilyushka88_2. Ilyushka88 (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - sorry it's negative, but I honestly can't see anything to judge you on. — iridescent 22:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, as to be honest, I have used to negative replies. It's always good to have some feedback. Ilyushka88 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me!

So my sig is too long? And it can't have a link to my guestbook? A lot of the others do, and they haven't been warned! Anyway, I'll fix the problem. Later :-| P.S. reply on my talk page please.  THE $R$  Habla!  Hancock  03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern skin bug

Your "new message" button is obscured on your talk page under the modern skin. ffm 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm sure I'll survive... Anyone coming to my talkpage is almost certain to be using the default settings since the other skins crash AWB, and anyone else can just click the "edit" buttons to edit. — iridescent 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, cause that's unclickable too! screenshot. (I use this as my default skin, and have no WP:AWB issues) ffm 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My userpage consists entirely of transclusions and I can't see any legitimate reason for you to be editing it - if there is, leave a message on my talkpage. Thanks to the way Miszabot operates, my talkpage will always have at least 5 posts on it; to leave a message just click on the "edit" button next to the last message on the page, same as usual. (There would be no reason for you to be adding/editing content at the top of the page, and editing anywhere else isn't affected.) — iridescent 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And did I edit your userpage? Again, you can do what you want, but it is an inconvenience for others. ffm 16:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, the "unwatch" button is also obscured, so I can't even stop watching this. ffm 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Alt-shift-w to watch/unwatch pages. The screenshot you link to is of my userpage so I assumed that's what you were talking about editing. — iridescent 22:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I simply used that because it was an example, the same issue occurs on your talk page. ffm 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

←No problem. If it's causing serious problems, I'll change it; however, I personally think the benefit of having the full iridescent (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) fields at the top of the page outweigh the problems it causes on a single, relatively little-used skin (if it was affecting Monobook, obviously things would be more serious...). Having flipped over to Modern on a test-run through the user pages of the users posting or mentioned on this page (which I figure is a reasonably representative sample of those editors likely to be posting on talkpages), the same happens with five of their pages (Kodster, Realist2, Aitias, LaraLove and Bluegoblin7), which makes me think it's a widespread enough problem that either the Modern skin needs to be redesigned to deal with it, or WP:USER needs rewriting to introduce a "no amending a page above a certain height" restriction. I don't propose to do this myself, but if you want to put a case together for either outcome, let me know and I'll certainly come along and confirm that it's causing problems. Open note to anyone else reading this — if you're having the same problem, let me know so I can have some kind of feel for how serious this problem is. — iridescent 23:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Random comment

Hahahaha, I just came to comment on one of your recent edits (but I fixed it up myself) and I noticed that you put my GIF image behind the Wikipedia logo. That's awesome :P. Keep up the good work! -- TIM KLOSKE|TALK 00:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That was you? Cool... — iridescent 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah really. Small world... anyways... have a good day! -- TIM KLOSKE|TALK 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The coding's <span style="background:#ffffff;position:absolute;top:-45px; left:-165px;z-index:-3">[[Image:Animated Kaleidoscope.gif|164px]]</span> if you feel the urge to copy it... — iridescent 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Neal Century

Hi... this is Neal Century. Your words about my works and my Blogs, as Myspace, were words af a person that is acting uncivilly. Saying Rubbish about an "OPERA" in important sites as Wikipedia.org... Could give you serious consequences. We are moving through to take legal Action with Mr. Jimmy Donal Wales ( Wikipedia.org Co-Founder and President of Wikia, Inc. ) and the INTERPOL to report this matter. I've the rights to contact you and inform you about the happenings after been talking to mr. Wales and info-en@wiki... about your words. Still, we think is not right to delete the Neal Century Page... and that's why we are moving forward to the problem. [email protected] is a contact you can use to send a mail to explain yourself and your words. We will keep every kind of documents. Hope you understand the situation... and i hope to end this issues as best as we all can. Thanks Neal Century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.142.51 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is now the second legal threat you have made. I do not want to block whilst your article is up for deletion as it will deny you the ability to defend it, but if you make any further legal threats I will block you from editing Wikipedia. — iridescent 14:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
He's still doing his idiotic "ILL SUE" song and dance, on my talk page and others. JuJube (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Not any more. — iridescent 15:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hooper

I've nominated three of his articles for deletion. The two you have not contributed to are:

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BloodSweatTeacover.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:BloodSweatTeacover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than delete this idiocy as I usually would, I'm leaving this here so any visitors to this page can see it, as the image in question is perfectly tagged. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10, the policy this bot is throwing around, specifically does not require that the image page includes a "link to all articles where the image is used", but this bot is continuing to tag images that fail to meet this non-existent "policy". As the bot operator's attitude to anyone pointing out this error is that they are "small minded fools", I do not intend to engage in debate on this one but, if this happens again under these circumstances, will shut this bot down. Note to everyone else receiving warnings from this ridiculous vandalbot; whatever the dire warnings at the top of its talk page, you are totally within your rights to revert its edits; Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia that only a self-declared inner circle who think that policy doesn't apply to them" can edit. — iridescent 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi there! I am in need of a second opinion on User:Razorflame/Admin Coaching the questions that I answered under the what-if questions section. Thanks, Razorflame 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thanks for the consideration, but I think that I am going to ask a different user. Thanks, Razorflame 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't I see your edits on my Watchlist

You're reverting vandalism on articles I'm watching, and your edits don't show up on my Watch list. Any idea why that is? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm using one of the less-well known powers of the inner cabal, which keeps bulk-reverts out of recent changes to prevent them from flooding the list. It may also be that you have your watchlist set to disregard minor edits? — iridescent 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
ARGH! I thought I'd made sure I was watching minor edits, I know at least one problem editor who always marks his as minor. That was the problem. I'd checked to make sure I was watching bot edits, but not minor ones. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BloodSweatTeacover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BloodSweatTeacover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop this now. This is getting ridiculous; if this continues, I'm blocking this bot. — iridescent 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Calm down. Jeez. If you're gonna oppose, don't get into personal attacks. It's like telling someone working on a piece of art all they did was blow on the paint to make it dry. Xp54321 01:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What precisely do you consider a "personal attack"? I've re-read my post and I certainly can't see anything. Looking at your contrib history you seem to be badgering every single opposer; please be aware that this will likely ruin any chance you have. — iridescent 01:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used awb in days. Just saying. Xp54321 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No; since I warned you, you've moved on to abusive use of rollback instead. As I say on the RFA, if you think accusing you of editcountitis is a personal attack, perhaps you'd be more convincing if you hadn't written this. — iridescent 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a piece of sarcasm as I noted and recommended for deletion in later mfd discussion I'm still wondering why it wasn't deleted. Xp54321 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Making a mistake with rollback is not abuse.:-0 User:Xp54321 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to Requests for rollback and re-read the very first line on the page. I would also point out that it's not me who removed your rollback access. — iridescent 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New Sig cont.

I checked WP:SIG. It says not to put distracting links in your signature, such as "SIGN HERE!!!!!." It doesn't say that it can't have a link to an autograph book! THE $R$ Habla!Hancock 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Revert

Its fine, really. Your welcome, good job on the block. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jasynnash2 (talk · contribs)

Unfair use of WP:TROUT, dude. The discussion only applied to the articles meeting the speedy deletion criteria, not Notability et al. Plese separate the two concepts in your mind and take that fish back. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough... — iridescent 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for your strong support of my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Countess sculp.jpg

The problem isn't that it would be a copyright infringement to take a photo of the statute. The problem is what license is this photograph of the statute? Is it public domain (meaning someone could make a derivative work that is copyrighted? Is it GFDL? Does it require attribution? Can it be used for commercial uses? These questions can only be answered by the uploader, unfortunately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Have replied on VK's talk page as he needs to see the reply. — iridescent 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

More f***ing Huggle

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Fly For Fun has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. - tholly --Turnip-- 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Any more of this stupidity and I'm revoking your Huggle access. I am getting totally fed up with this. — iridescent 18:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it was reverted to your revision. I clicked the button just as your revision appeared and the cancel pending actions button doesn't appear to work. - tholly --Turnip-- 18:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi. If you have complaints or suggestions regarding Huggle – rather than the people who use it – I would love to hear them. Failing that, though, it's a little like saying web browsers should be banned because they are used for vandalism. And if you want Huggle banned, you can do that yourself, though you may have some explaining to do. Thanks -- Gurchzilla (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In a sense, my attitude towards Huggle isn't a criticism of your writing it - which you did an excellent job of - but of the way it's used. I view Huggle (and to a far lesser extent, Twinkle and rollback) in much the same way as I view firearms; they have the potential to be extremely useful in the right hands, but given their potential both for abuse and for accidental misuse, should be banned from general distribution and only given to people who've demonstrated that they can be trusted with them. As I said on WT:RFA, which I assume is the discussion that led you here, any tool that enables a good faith and experienced user to rack up twelve separate complaints on their talkpage in a couple of weeks is seriously flawed. Even AWB, which is far slower, is restricted to users who've demonstrated some familiarity with editing and is regularly removed from users who abuse it, whereas Huggle and Twinkle access is given to brand-new users, some of whom openly admit to using in a "high-score" style edit-race. As User:Betacommand can tell you, even our most experienced users can come to grief using automated tools at high speed, and I'm starting to get thoroughly fed up with having to warn Huggle users for inappropriate reverts. — iridescent 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It is true that use of such tools by inexperienced users can be a problem. I have been wondering how, short of a process similar to adminship requests, it would be possible to identify such users; I would not, for example, have considered Aitias to be inexperienced (and certainly not a 'brand-new user'), yet it would seem his use of Huggle has been an issue. Do you have any suggestions? – Gurchzilla (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it ought to have as a minimum the AWB criteria (500 mainspace edits, with those edits at least briefly reviewed to check appropriateness, and a demonstrated proposed need for it) before access is granted. As Huggle basically performs the same functions as Twinkle, albeit faster, I'd go further and have a criteria of at least a month's use of Twinkle/rollback and 500 Twinkle/rollback edits with no legitimate complaints about incorrect reversions in that time, to demonstrate that the proposed user understands just what they're dealing with. Take, for example, an obvious good-faith but misguided user of automated reversion tools; the collateral damage from users like this is very high, with inappropriate content re-added because all they see in the diff is content being deleted; knee-jerk reversions of anything containing the work "penis"; reverts to vandalism because they don't bother to read what they're re-inserting; deletions of appropriate content because it's being added by an IP] etc etc etc. For every reverted editor who bothers to get back to the reverter and discuss the matter, there are likely many more who are driven off the project in disgust when their good-faith contributions are reverted as vandalism, not to mention editors who didn't watchlist the page so aren't even aware the content has been reverted.
At the very least, I think it needs to be made clear (as AWB and rollback already do), that any abuse or incorrect use will result in immediate loss of the tool without warning and it will need to be reapplied for. I know this can already be done by blanking & protecting the .css page, but I (and I assume others) are reluctant to do so as there's not a clear policy on it. I've no idea if it's possible, but would there be a way to restrict Huggle to (perhaps) 1 edit every 30 seconds? This would force people new to it to actually read what they're reverting, and hopefully put a stop to the editcount-racing mentality. (When I see your users setting themselves edits-per-day targets, I freely admit that my finger hovers over the "block" button.) The speed restriction could be removed once they've made perhaps 1000 valid reverts with no legitimate complaints, thus demonstrating that they understand what they're doing.
And — while it will never happen short of a ruling by Jimbo — I don't think a Wikipedia:Requests for automated tools along the lines of the BAG would actually be a bad idea. — iridescent 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've sent out a new version of Huggle. In response to your feedback, I've added a notice displayed when the application starts up which states the need for care and the consequences of misuse. It also contains various small fixes which have recently been requested, which I wanted to get out quickly, as developing some sort of approval system will take much longer. It would, of course, have the same problem as AutoWikiBrowser – anyone can modify the application to not require approval.
There is no need to be reluctant in removing access; not everything has to be laboriously explained in policy, and /huggle.css subpages aren't used by anything else, so the protection is harmless. I am considering leaving a message on the administrators' noticeboard outlining the need to deal with abuse and the steps for doing so. Is there anything I should mention that isn't already covered here? -- Gurchzilla (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest putting an firmer warning on the WP:HUGGLE page as well, along the lines of the warning at WP:AWB and WP:TW ("Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in the software being disabled."/"Never forget that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked.) That way, not only does it hopefully make it clearer to the users that it's a privilege, not a right; it also means admins who come across someone using it inappropriately but aren't familiar with Huggle can see right away that the users have been warned. If it's possible, I'd love to see Huggle automatically add "using Huggle" to edit summaries (as Twinkle, Friendly etc do), to make it more obvious if any problem edits are coming via Huggle or normal point-and-click rollback. — iridescent 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added such a notice. It is possible to tell that Huggle is being used by looking at the source text of user warnings -- as with the standard warning templates, the template name is given in a comment at the end of the message; Huggle's templates all have "huggle" in the name – Gurchzilla (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Good - hopefully that will clarify the situation to users. (By an odd coincidence, I've just revoked someone's Huggle access for the first time less than 10 minutes ago.) — iridescent 16:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Huggle -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Edward Low has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Caltas (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous; this is the third one of these today. Please note that if I have any more false "vandalism" reports from you because you aren't willing to preview your edits, I will remove your Huggle/Twinkle access. — iridescent 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Caltas has just been granted Rollback. If he isn't going to be more careful in using it I think it ought to be removed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I too had a word. We all make mistakes but this is a bit much. --John (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on him. As per the long conversation with Gurch, creator of Huggle (at the top of this page), I think we need to be much more proactive with taking "power tools" away from even good-faith editors who are using them incorrectly. — iridescent 20:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I granted the rollback right I take some responsibility I feel. I've also asked Caltas to slow down and be more careful, or the tools will be removed sans drama. Sorry Iridescent. Pedro :  Chat  20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries - these things happen. I've actually just installed Huggle (although I've no intention of becoming a regular user, I figured that I ought to know exactly what it entails) and am shocked at just how fast it goes, and at how easy it is to make this kind of mistake. Twinkle has all the prompts, "enter summary" fields etc; Huggle has a one-touch rollback-and-warn button, and one slip of the finger results in this kind of silliness. Me or you can just shrug these things off (as this is three warnings in a day, presumably the next one will auto-report me to AIV), but if I were a new user, things like this could easily send me sloping off in a sulk to Wikipedia Review. — iridescent 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hah, well I guarantee to treat you leniently if I see you at AIV! I have never used Twinkle, Huggle or anything else. I use manual edits so any mistakes are mine alone. I do sometimes use AWB, and know how easy it is to absentmindedly hit "save" when you have been doing hundreds of edits. Faster isn't always better I suppose. --John (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

←Twinkle's quite handy to have installed, as it automatically opens the talkpage of the last editor when you roll something back - since it's hard to think of any time you'd be rolling back without leaving a message, it's a good reminder. It's also very handy for AfD nominations, as it automates all the "finding the right place in the log" donkey-work. As I think I've said, I'm shocked at how fast Huggle is; in the time it's taken to watch "Dragon's Den" I've done 250 edits, and that's deliberately working slowly. — iridescent 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The thing about Huggle is it was designed with only one thing in mind – to be as fast as possible. At the time, over a year ago and developing it purely as a tool for personal use, I didn't anticipate problems like these. Having already contributed for a year and a half, and -- having written the software myself -- knowing its limits well, I made very few mistakes, and corrected the few that I inevitably did make. At the time, there were no anti-vandalism bots, so everything had to be done manually, and rollback was limited to administrators; one motive for making Huggle so fast was to try to allow me, as a non-administrator, to handle vandalism as efficiently as administrators.
Huggle's combined revert-and-warn button, which you've mentioned a couple of times, is indeed proving something of a problem. It's intended for use only to deal with blatant vandalism, and of course when I was using it myself, I knew this, because I put it there in the first place. To be honest, now that there are anti-vandalism bots and non-administrators have rollback, Huggle's speed is not necessary except during peak times when there are only a handful of people watching for vandalism; however, I'm reluctant to intentionally slow down something written to be as fast as possible.
I do find it somewhat disturbing that you've recieved three warnings in one day. I've only recieved one warning from a Huggle user (though plenty more from other tools, I should note); it is somewhat weird being yelled at by your own tool, I have to say. While I am not sure whether the greater share of the blame lies with the user or the software, I do believe some of these incidents, particularly the one to which the warning at the top of this section relates, are the result of a common problem which could be alleviated by changes to the software. Huggle shows new edits to the page (by default, this can be disabled) in order that you can see immediately if a page is edited. This is useful in several situations; it lets you see your own edits as they're made, it lets you see that someone else just reverted a vandal so you don't have to bother, and it lets you see if the vandal (or someone else) edits the page again. However, it seems that legitimate users are sometimes reverted. You are, like most established users, on Huggle's whitelist. This whitelist can be manually edited, but is for the most part maintained by the software itself, a task that it seems to do quite well. It is, at least in theory, impossible to use the revert-and-warn button on a whitelisted user; indeed it should not be possible to warn them at all, without manually de-whitelisting them. (It is possible to revert a whitelisted user, without issuing a warning, in order that mistakes by other users can be corrected).
The probem seems to be that if one is looking at an instance of vandalism, and tries to revert-and-warn at exactly the moment someone else reverts the page, that person ends up on the recieving end of the warning, in addition to having their reversion reverted back. I have not experienced this myself since I rewrote the software for general release; however, I am probably naturally cautious in such situations as I know the internal workings of the software and am aware of potential faults such as this one. I am currently working on changes that should hopefully reduce incidents like these. Let me know if you have further suggestions for improvement of Huggle -- Gurchzilla (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said somewhere above, I've just been deliberately using Huggle to see what it actually entails; while I doubt I'll make a habit of it (I never spent much time in vandal-fighting) I do agree that it's a beautiful piece of design; less "clunky" than, for example, AWB or Twinkle, and (hopefully) by catching vandals early, will deprive them of the satisfaction of seeing their changes stay live and with any luck discourage them from staying.
As regards changes I'd like to see made, these are the ones that spring to mind. Bear in mind that any programming knowledge I have is 20 years out of date, so I've no idea how easy these would be to implement:
  • Have it default to checking changes in article-space only. I can't imagine there's any template, portal etc that isn't being watched - and seeing Hugglers revert changes other users are making in their own sandboxes, for example, is not really defensible and leads to bad-faith accusations flying;
  • Instead of the current "Q to revert and warn", have it revert the change, but bring up a menu of possible warning messages (as the current Twinkle "warn" menu does), with "no message" as the default — this would force users to think about the appropriate message to leave. At the moment, I strongly suspect a lot of good-faith but invalid contributions are leading to editors being tagged as vandals. I appreciate it would slow things down slightly, but I don't think it would slow things down significantly. Possibly keep the "Q" key for only blatant vandalism, and a separate key to bring up the warning menu, with a clear warning that one misuse of the blatant-vandalism tag would result in loss of access? As I said on the AN thread, ideally I'd like to see it open the talk window of the user in question (as Twinkle does), as that allows you to see other warnings, discussions, explanations etc;
  • Have a minimum-time for the first (say) 1000 edits - perhaps a "please confirm you want to make this edit" box which disappears after x number of edits. Having played around with it, it's very easy to find yourself reverting mindlessly at high-speed. My "human-bot hybrid" jibe at RFA wasn't bad-faith - this editcount racing really is a problem. (Can you imagine even six months ago, someone with 35,000 edits failing an RFA for lack of mainspace experience)?
  • As I (and others) have said, I don't know if it's possible, but I would love to see a formal approval process for Huggle users. The AWB approval process seems to work fine at filtering out the "people who want a toy to play with" from the "people who have a genuine use for it", and doesn't seem unduly bureaucratic; also, because an admin would have to approve every user, hopefully that admin would take the flak for any misuse, rather than everyone shouting on your talkpage. It does seem bizarre that the (slow and not much use) rollback function requires approval, while the far more powerful Huggle & Twinkle don't...
Not sure this is really the best place to be discussing this, as only those (hopefully) few users who have me watchlisted will see it; feel free to cut-and-paste any of the above to AN, VP etc if it comes under discussion elsewhere. — iridescent 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Huggle uses rollback if it is available; if it isn't available, Huggle will still work, but will revert much more slowly -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Checking only articles by default is simply a configuration change so I've done that. This won't affect user who have already customised their configuration, though -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the "delete" function doesn't seem to work - nothing happens to the page, and I get a "failed to delete page" message in the log at the bottom. Don't know if it's a fault in the software, a fault on my account or if my settings are wrong; the block function works so it's not that it doesn't recognise me as a sysop, and pages still delete from the browser so it's not that MediaWiki has a flaw. — iridescent 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I'm not an administrator, implementing the delete function has been something of a challenge. In the next version, however, it should actually work. (You may wish to look at the list of changes in the next version -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also made a change to the way the configuration pages work. Usually settings listed at Wikipedia:Huggle/Config serve as the defaults and settings in user configuration subpages override those (with the exception of some things that can't be overridden). Future versions will store the version number in the user's configuration and, when the user upgrades to a newer version, Huggle will be forced to re-write the configuration in order to update the version number. This allows me to make a particular version invoke particular configuration changes at that point, if I so wish. In other words, I have fixed things so that when a user upgrades to the next version their namespace filter will switch to articles only, but if they then subsequently change it it will stay changed -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, as it happens I can imagine someone with 35,000 edits failing an RfA six months ago. In fact, I can imagine someone with 35,000 edits failing an RfA fourteen months ago, as that's what would have happened had I accepted one of the many nomination offers I got while editing as User:Qxz and doing little other than dealing with vandalism -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(Frantically checks to make sure I didn't oppose you - phew!) That was a weird RFA though, you have to admit, looking at the "characters" who came out of the woodwork for it; if you ran it again, you'd probably sail through. Although if Malleus is still reading this conversation, he can probably confirm that my nose for these things is not good... — iridescent 23:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That was, yes; though I'm not referring to my last RfA, which failed because I was considered too controversial, but to the hypothetical RfA that never happened but which I was offered when I was editing as User:Qxz. Arguably had such a thing come about then I should have failed for use of alternate accounts rather than lack of mainspace contributions, but the latter is what would probably have happened since nobody knew it was me. And opposing me on an RfA would be the right thing to do, so don't feel bad about it :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
While I certainly understand "doesn't do any mainspace edits" opposes, I never understood "does trivial stuff as well" opposes. When I clogged RecentChanges for a month recategorising Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom nobody complained. — iridescent 23:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving this section up the talkpage so it's with the other Huggle conversation, as they follow on from each other. — iridescent 23:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it work?

How do you get that pretty flashy pattern to appear behind the Wikipedia logo, on your user and talk pages? I can't figure it out. The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Paste <span style="background:#ffffff;position:absolute;top:-45px; left:-165px;z-index:-3">[[Image:name of the image you want behind the WP logo|164px]]</span> at the top of the page. Don't use any large files (I'd say 120kb maximum) as it'll make the page lag horribly on a dialup connection otherwise. There are plenty of animated images here to pick and choose from.
Strange - you're the third person to ask me that this week, yet it's been like this for a year now. I've obviously somehow come to notice... — iridescent 04:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/619 in Ireland

If you're going to make subjective and highly contentious annotations to another user's comment signature, please sign them as per convention. Doing it in this manner was not only misleading as to their authorship, but you had applied formatting (which I can only assume was deliberate) to make the annotation appear to be automatically generated, thus some supposedly objective comment spawned from MediaWiki, in a manner that can only appear to be a deliberate unattributable attempt to slur the person commenting.

If you accuse this account of being a sock/meatpuppet, then please say so, and say so openly.

I make no comment as to the wisdom or civility of making the comment in the first place.
Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The user in question had made seven edits prior to this comment. I did not "misleadingly apply formatting" - {{spa}} is a template and always appears this way, and there are no circumstances in which the MediaWiki software adds any comment to a conversation so I don't see how you can accuse me of "impersonating the software". By convention, {{spa}} (along with {{unsigned}} and {{interrupted}}) aren't signed, to stop discussions from becoming unnecessarily long. And the reason {{spa}} is worded as it is - "this account has made few or no other edits" - is precisely because we work on the principle of assuming good faith and don't go around making accusations - a core policy which I think you could possibly benefit from re-reading, as a glance at my history would show that I have no interest whatsoever in your edit-war and apply tags when appropriate throughout XfD. — iridescent 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I would also add that since then, the account I was "unfairly accusing" has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry... — iridescent 15:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I was previously unfamiliar with the existence of {{spa}}. I have to say I'm aghast that it exists, and appalled at how it formats its output. Output which can only be judged as being intended to look like the automatic signature. The trouble is that {{spa}} looks like objective automatically-generated content, when in fact it's one editor's (not even an admin's) subjective opinion to choose to use it. This ability to take one editor's gripe (which we know isn't always well-intentioned) and make it appear as something with more authority than it warrants is a bad thing.
If this user was a sockpuppet, then they're a sockpuppet because of how they're controlled, not because of their interests. There are tools to spot socking, tools based on IP addresses. If we wish to accuse someone of socking, it should be bold enough to say "sockpuppet" rather than "single interest", and it should be obviously attributable to the editor making it.
My real concern here is that we start to conflate single-interest editors (hopefully not yet forbidden) with sockpuppets.
Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on a long time... My personal opinion (and I think the general consensus) regarding {{spa}} is that single purpose editors are fine - so someone who only writes on steam locomotives, for example, shouldn't be penalised for only participating in discussions on steam locomotives - but that accounts such as this, which have made few or no other contributions prior to participating in the AfD/RFA/etc in which they're contributing, are not "a part of the wikipedia community" and thus their opinions should be discounted (albeit not ignored altogether) when closing discussions such as this. On a related point, to repeat what I said above; there are no circumstances in which messages are automatically generated, other than error messages for incorrect formatting (even {{unsigned}} is added by someone, not automatically generated), so "looking like an automatically generated message" doesn't apply.
For better or worse {{spa}} (and its close relative, {{not a ballot}}) are currently part of the process; the place to discuss changing them is Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, not here. — iridescent 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again.

(Further up, I asked you how one gets images in the top left corner of their userpage (Thanks again!)) Now, regarding that user Joeboyferret-something, it seems to me that he is that IP user who was vandalizing Ferret a little earlier; now he has registered. He made similar changes to the article, compared to what the IP did, after all. What do you think? The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Likely - but assume good faith... There's not enough vandalism to warrant sending him to WP:RFCU yet; I'll keep an eye on his contributions and rest assured, if he carries on vandalising he'll be blocked soon enough... — iridescent 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And there he goes... — iridescent 02:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well done!!!
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For a good catch before the damage was too severe! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia downloadable tools and the such

Hello Iredescent

I dont know if your the best person to ask but what is th best one? How many of them are their and if so what are they and what do they do best? And how would I go about downloading it and if I did would it bugger things up? Many thanks. Yours, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you want to do, really. The best for vandal-fighting is HUGGLE (just follow the link), which shows all the changes that are being made to Wikipedia, as they're being made, and gives you the option to revery them. However, if you read the conversation near the top of this page (and the large flashing warning at the very top), because it works at ultra-high speed, it's VERY easy to accidentally misuse and get yourself blocked; LUPIN does much the same thing, slightly more slowly, but it's easier to use without making mistakes.
I personally think the most useful all-round tool to have is AWB, which allows you both to make the same change to a large number of articles in one go (eg, correcting a name), and to run a spell-check on a large batch of articles. TWINKLE and FRIENDLY are both quite useful; Twinkle makes it quicker to revert changes and issue warnings, and Friendly makes it easier to perform "welcoming" tasks.
There are quite a lot more about - see Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools and Category:Wikipedia tools, but the above are ones I'm familiar with.
Be warned that all these tools (with the possible exception of Friendly) can do significant damage, even if used with the best of intentions (have a look through the archives of User talk:Xp54321 for the last week or so to see just how quickly well-intentioned misuse of automated tools can take you from "the verge of adminship" to "the verge of an indefblock" in just a couple of days); the warning for use of ALL these tools is not to make any edit you're not sure of, and not to treat anything as vandalism unless you're 100% sure it couldn't possibly be good faith.
Hope that helps! — iridescent 20:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi yeah it did, I've got a few of them up you know report vandal and etc but none of them is things I do alot so i'll just leave them alone. Using them few and far between. But thanks anyway, for taking the time to read and reply. Thanks again. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, saying that I am finding the warn one alot quicker than all the previous going to that page and copying them. You know when people say right to create multiple accounts and all that what does it mean? Like one user has a thing and it says " 268 account creations " whats that all about? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends. If it's an admin, they're probably just talking about Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators, where fresh accounts are created for new users. They might actually mean multiple accounts, where one user operates under more than one name - but I can't imagine any legitimate reason to have 200+ accounts. — iridescent 11:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I was thinking and reading requests for admin coaching and I am intending putting my name down on it. Would you be interested in coaching me? Its no worries if your not, but I thought i'd ask because you strike me as someone who knows what they are doing. Many thanks. Yours, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply re admin coaching

Although I'm certainly willing to answer any questions, I'm probably not the best person to act as admin coach, since — although I do have admin status — I tend to focus in fairly specialised areas, and there are large chunks of Wikipedia I don't really spend any time with. Also, given the nature of my work, I'm quite often away or busy for long periods of time; there's also a conflict of interest situation (both on Wikipedia and in the real world) if I were to edit and/or discuss at length many of the articles you work on.

Of the current coaches, the ones I think would best suit you are Balloonman or Pedro. I think LaraLove would also suit you very well, but she's in Texas so (I'm guessing) would probably never be online at the same time as you.

When you go for RFA, the participants will generally look at your history for the last couple of months. A few things I'd recommend doing now — to make sure any problems are well in the past by the time of the RFA - are:
  1. At the moment, your edit summary usage is unacceptably low. I'd strongly recommend ticking "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under "Editing" in your preferences;
  2. While by-and-large you've worked in a reasonable variety of areas, you've virtually no Wikipedia Talk edits — only 39, and all but 15 of them are to WikiProject pages. Because Wikipedia Talk is where policy is discussed, it's good (although not essential) to be able to demonstrate you've participated in policy discussions so you understand how consensus is formed, and also to show that you understand the high levels of abuse that admins get subjected to;
  3. You've a lot of userboxes on your user page; while there's no policy at all against this, you might want to trim them down quite substantially. The people who vote at WP:RFA tend to be strongly against people using Wikipedia as a social networking site, and a lot of information about yourself — as opposed to what you bring to Wikipedia — can (fairly or not) swing people against you. In particular, I'd get rid of "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday", which a lot of people hate; adminship on Wikipedia isn't any kind of promotion, it just means a few more technical powers.
  4. Although you've created a fair few articles, some of them are a bit messy (as you can see by the assorted cleanup tags people have put on them), and none of them are very long. As one question that is always asked at RFA is "What is your best contribution to Wikipedia", I'd suggest picking one or two and expanding them into long, informative articles. They don't have to be masterpieces of writing, but they ideally should: cover everything a casual reader without specialist knowledge who stumbled on the article would be interested in knowing; have inline citations for each piece of information; be from a neutral point of view. Have a look at the (now slightly out of date) article I wrote on Central Communications Command for the sort of thing I mean in a police-related context; I freely admit that it's messy and deathly dull, but if you didn't know anything about the subject, it tells you everything a non-specialist is likely to want to know.
  5. Stop giving out level 4 warnings unless the vandal has already received earlier warnings or the vandalism is really serious! Because AGF is part of the fourth of the Five pillars, even if you're perfect in every other way, an RFA will be shot down in flames unless you show you're willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, as nobody will trust you with the protect & block buttons. I'd strongly recommend making a habit of reading WP:AN, WP:ANI and WT:RFA every day, even though they're generally dull as ditchwater, to get a feeling for the way admins "behave" on Wikipedia.
  6. You've very little experience in deletions, and deletion policy is such a core theme that people will expect you to have demonstrated that you understand it. Read (and make sure you understand) WP:CSD and WP:DEL as people will ask you questions about them. Read through the the current deletion discussions whenever you get the chance, to see what sort of things are discussed; once you feel confident that you understand policy — but not until then — start to join in at least the occasional discussion there.
  7. The same few questions are asked at RFA each time. Read the questions-and-answers at the most recent successful RFAs to get a feel for what questions you're going to be asked, and what the people who answered them successfully said.

Hope all that helps! Sorry it's a bit long-winded... When you do find an admin coach, I'd suggest you point this conversation out to them, so they can see what I've already told you (and disagree if necesary). One thing I can't emphasise enough is don't nominate yourself for RFA; self-nominations almost always fail. Your admin coach(es) will nominate you themselves when they think you have a reasonable chance of passing. — iridescent 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much, I'll take in all those things. Thanks again =]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruskington

Hi, thanks for reverting that article on Ruskington. Someone seems to be taking umbrage with the fact that there is a village newsletter, and keeps deleting that section. I don't do a lot on Wikipedia, but it seems a little lame to get into an edit war. Plus it's people with just IP addresses doing it, so I can't even have a discussion directly with them! Anyway, cheers. Russ (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem... It's a bit of a baffling thing to get into an edit war over. — iridescent 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Florida babe

Your edit summary here says it's a temporary block, and so does the comment you left on her Talk page, but the block says indefinite. Corvus cornixtalk 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I know - hit the wrong button (serve me right for using Twinkle as a shortcut). I've corrected the talk page notice. — iridescent 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
'Skool.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle 2

First I'd like to apologize for any unpleasantness between us. Now a bug about huggle. Metros disabled it. But I just successfully used it. Please don't block me. Check my recent use. No problems as you will see. I am reporting this to prevent problems in the future. I consider huggle one of the most useful tools ever invented especially all those cool diffs for aiv. Again please don't block me. I really want to help.Cheers!Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Um.Hello?:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, as long as you don't do anything irresponsible I won't block you - but do be careful! I've notified Gurch, the author of Huggle of this. If/when he fixes the bug and you find Huggle blocking you again, let me know and (assuming you haven't done anything wrong in the meantime) I'll provisionally re-authorise you (on the understanding that you're careful).
On a related note, I know it looks like we're picking on you, but if you ever do want to be an admin, I can't emphasise enough that you need to take the editcounter off your userpage. Have a look at Successful adminship candidacies and you'll see that nobody who editcounts ever passes an RFA; indeed, look at this conversation and see how many people are arguing for the editcounts to be deleted altogether. — iridescent 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He has been blocked. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know; I think it's a bit harsh, but I can understand why Metros did it. As the block will expire in the next couple of minutes, I'm not going to wheel-war over it - but I can't emphasise enough to him to be careful. As per my post on Metros's page, I really think you should tone it down as well; there's a lot of really bad advice from you on his talkpage, and if he ever does want to be an admin, the kind of things you're advising him to do ("regularly update your editcount", "carry on using it despite the warning not to" etc) will potentially be held against him three months down the line. — iridescent 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was making a point because he was being bugged unnessarily, as metro filed a sock case against him it seemed to just be one thing after another. Ive advised Xp to get this log removed from his log. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said on Xp's page, there is no such thing as "scrubbing it off the log"; the Wiki structure means that (except in a few very rare cases that are oversighted) everything stays on your record forever. I'm not trying to hassle you - or him (my admin logs are all freely available at the top of this page, and you'll notice I've never taken any action against him) but, as I say above, you're encouraging him to make mistakes that will stay with him for as long as he's on Wikipedia. — iridescent 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:SRS's Siggy

Oh dear, I'll have to give him a tour of the signature policy. The good news, however, is I don't think that an RfC will be necessary. I'll also need to teach him to ask me about a situation before blatantly ignoring someone. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you spam

Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Potentially serious apparent Huggle bug

Not sure if your talkpage is the place to report these, but you'd better note this; I've confirmed that his huggle.css page was definitely blanked at the time, and he's right; his contrib history shows him using Huggle since the blanking. I blanked my huggle.css page as an experiment, and it also letting me log on just fine. Any thoughts? — iridescent 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Xp54321#Huggle. It's probably a cache issue. I've given a short block to the user to sort this out. Metros (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems that I broke the logic for checking the configuration subpage while implementing the approval mechanism. It will be fixed in the next version. Though I have to say, the fact that users won't take the advice of administrators unless forced to by technical measures is a little worrying -- Gurchzilla (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If users took advice, we wouldn't need the block button... — iridescent 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Could you please block this IP 213.140.22.65, that vandalised many times, instead of multiple warnings, this voice and could you please protect the same voice too? This Ip is well-known in Italian Wiki for continuous vandalisms (see: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:213.140.22.65). Thanks. --Nosferamus (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The article's semi-protected, which will stop him re-adding it. I don't think it's so much vandalism, as editwarring and inability to understand that another wiki isn't a reliable source. — iridescent 15:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar, RE Help

The Guidance Barnstar
Hi Iredescent, just to say thanks ever so much for all the information. And actually taking the time to reply and help me. You deserve it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! — iridescent 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasnt an IP it was this character. User:ZealousSaracen Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Already indefblocked — iridescent 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he dont like that! See the talk page. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(His talkpage) Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother replying to him - it just encourages them if you give them attention. Revert, block, ignore. — iridescent 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That one who keeps vandalising your talk has personal attacked me, I think its time. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He states he is a sockpuppet, he is taking the buiscuit now. Please do the necessary. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked, account creation blocked. Just revert, report, ignore if it happens again. — iridescent 18:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I dont see any other possible outcome Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that hooey, and by the way I did that thing in my Preferences about the edit summary. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Me and another user have been in a campaign to revert regular vandalism on User:Flardox's page, I have just reverted another one. Maybe it is time for protection? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh!

I just cracked up when I saw that you blocked that user for $1. More vandals deserve that kind of lovely parting gift.  :) Again, thanks for the laugh. Needed it. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Much as it pains me, I've reported this to Gurch as I've no idea why it's doing this. Personally, I'd love to let it stay. — iridescent 18:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bug in Huggle block template

Much as I'd love a dollar for every block, I'm not convinced this is what the block message should really say. Any idea why it's doing this? (It's only doing it since today, but it's done it three times in a row so it's not a one-off glitch.) — iridescent 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that. I recently moved the various user messages from the config page into separate templates to make them easier to maintain, but neglected to replace the "$1" -- used as a placeholder in the same way as some MediaWiki messages -- with {{{1}}}, as required in a template. It should be fixed now (though you'll need to restart Huggle) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Spoilsport — iridescent 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You can always manually enter "$1" as the block reason if you really want to :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
True... I'm tempted. (As per the neverending conversation above, I'm currently testing Huggle for a week or so; while I won't make a habit of it (vandal-fighting was never my thing) it is a really impressive piece of kit. Something that does occur to me is, it might solve all the problems if it only worked with rollback; that way removing rollback would automatically disable it, without messing about with stylesheets — and someone who isn't trusted with manual rollback certainly shouldn't be machine-gunning at 500 edits per hour.
By the way, your manual seems to have a typo in it; it gives two different actions for the "D" key (blanking warning and show diff) — iridescent 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The next version will allow access to be restricted to only users with rollback. Unfortunately at the moment every time I think the next version is ready for release I find something else wrong with it. Regarding the keyboard shortcuts, those listed under "Warning form" apply only when the warning form is open (select "Advanced..." from the Warn menu) to allow you to select a warning type quickly -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah - makes sense now... (Having seen just how easy it is to make mistakes on it, I've actually toned down my Dire Warning at the top of this page; when I, with 2 years/60k edits, am making slips I can easily see how others do. And they don't have the luxury of G7'ing accidentally-created IP warning pages...) — iridescent 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... I feel a little guilty for not doing more to make it less error-prone – adding in Undo and Cancel and confirmation when reverting whitelisted users is about all I've done recently – but I seem to have more than enough to do implementing requested features and fixing bugs :/ -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

←Compared to the bugs and niggles with AWB all these years on, they're minor. Anything that's usable by anyone is going to be misused. This is why we don't let toddlers drive. — iridescent 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we do let them edit the largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world though. Hmmm....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, do you really want to hear my rant about how even ED requires an account to edit and if Jimbo's so keen on anonymity he can load up Twinkle and help clean up the mess? — iridescent 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I really do. I'm saying this as someone that absolutely covets his privacy, and will not ever, at anytime, reveal his real identity by name or any other specific criterion. I don't even have email enabled for privacy reasons. That said, it becomes very obvious very early on when a user is a "minor" (usually because their first days' edits include setting up their "guestbook".) Being a minor is very different from being anonymous. (again, IMO). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting to see the effect Huggle has had on the speed with which vandalism is dealt with. I remember when I first developed and used it (15 months ago) it was faster than anything else (there were no anti-vandal bots at that time) so I had no problem finding vandalism to revert. As it's become more widely used, though, I have found that more difficult – just now, for example, I needed to test something in the new version and had to attempt eight reverts before I was not beaten by someone (usually you :D). It does concern me a little that perhaps there's a risk that by making things faster I've turned it into a race to fix vandalism (which it always has been, of course, though less so) which in turn encourages people to be more careless. Fixing vandalism more quickly is undeniably a good thing, though, as it reduces the chance a reader will actually see it, so I'm not sure what can be done about that – intentionally slowing it down seems a bit self-defeating. Good work anyway, though; I know dealing with vandalism is not really your thing – Gurchzilla (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I just leave something resting on the "Q" key, rollback everything and check by every half an hour to indefblock anyone who's complained... Takes less effort than opening new user contributions and hitting "rollback-batch". (note to all Outraged Users who are already formatting the RFC in their minds, that was a joke.) — iridescent 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. We were all newcomers once, you know :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't feel like it... My first edit was to add two links and my second was to clean up unsourced defamation, I think I was born to be on AWB. — iridescent 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rant about IP editing

OK, here we go. There is no good reason why IPs should be allowed to edit. It takes all of 30 seconds to set up an account, but (as Gurch can testify) at least 90% of blatant vandalism comes from IPs; that 30 seconds is enough to put the bored-kids off, while not significantly wasting anyone else's time; plus, it means the accounts can be indefblocked and avoid all the collateral damage resulting from schoolblocks, rangeblocks yadda yadda. The "but I don't want to use my username in this controversial area" argument Jimbo & co trot out doesn't apply; users with a genuine reason to want to remain anonymous can set up an SPA just as easily as editing under an IP. Download Huggle (it only takes 30 seconds or so), just keep pushing the spacebar to watch the changes from the IRC feed without making any reverts, and just look at the sheer volume of crap that's currently coming from IPs compared to the minimal amount of useful contributions. If a ban on IPs cut out even ten percent of that crap, then the "useful time saved" more than cancels out the "useful time lost" in forcing genuine users to create accounts. This policy is set by people at WMF who have barely edited since the early days, none of whom are ever willing to admit the problem exists, let alone put the rubber gloves on and help clean up the mess that's created by policies that were set up for an obscure website with 10,000 pages and are completely inappropriate for a website with 2 million pages and one of the highest profiles of any site in the world. — iridescent 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you were talking about IPs. I wasn't. I was talking about "anonymous editing" (via selected names like Iridescent and Keeper) vs. authenticated/real live human being names. I agree. Lots of problems could be solved if, upon clicking the "anyone can edit" button, the first window that pops up is a simple "select a username" button. No need for real world ID, no need for email or IRC authentication, just a generic username. In that case, I'm pretty sure I agree with you. (Although, I've seen stats somewhere about IP edits being a larger percentage of "good" than 10% -- not sure where though...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Good anonymous edits as a percentage of all good edits is higher, yes – it's about half, if I recall correctly. However, bad anonymous edits as a percentage of all bad edits is well over 95% – this is the problem. Gurchzilla (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In my defence, I didn't say at least 90% of IP edits were vandalism - I said at least 90% of vandalism comes from IPs... — iridescent 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I did misinterpret that. Thanks for the clarification. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just spit diet mountain dew

at your defintion of Moral Support. And I replied on the Wikispeak talkpage. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't mention Mountain Dew... MD & Cheerios are the only things I really miss since I moved to the Land of Dirty Streets & Expensive Trains. Oh, and Wild Cherry Life Savers. — iridescent 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No MD, eh? That would suck. Sorry. Although, a Brit friend of mine (you mean England there right?) who lives stateside brings me these wonderful little cookies called Digestives. Can't find them here, found them online once. Terrifically good little numbers. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
www.goodwoods.com — iridescent 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
HOLY SHIT!!!! That was the website! I obviously didn't look hard enough these are what the good bloke buys me whenever he goes home. AH DANG!!!! I'm adding that to favorites....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a more accurate definition of Moral Support would be "Ten other people already think you're an idiot and I want to be the one person here who doesn't get flamed". — iridescent 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Added it. And ordered Digestives. 2 weeks delivery, meh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Get HobNobs instead. They're much nicer. — iridescent 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oo! I will! I have a limitless supply of money, and obviously I have nothing but time on my hands....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

I know you don't like breaking up conversations, I read so on the top of this page, but I don't like leaving comments on my own talk page and instead link to my reply. Anyway, I can see where you're coming from on the recent block idea. I've tried to get the community to nail down some specific criteria regarding inclusion at HAU, but the consensus has always come up that anyone who wants to add themselves can go ahead and do so. I have brought up the matter at the talk page so as to gauge the community consensus on this issue, so we'll see what happens. Useight (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied at WT:HAU — iridescent 22:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

I'm confused, what do you mean, what did I do wrong? iMatthew T.C. 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me my mistake, as I clearly have made one, and not realized such. iMatthew T.C. 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You've advised him to evade the 255 character restriction on signatures built into the MediaWiki software, by creating his sig as a template and transcluding it in the "raw sig" box. This is expressly forbidden (I linked to the relevant part of WP:SIG on your talkpage).
Apologies if my initial post seemed a bit rude; on re-reading it, I agree with CaribbeanHQ that it's a bit abrupt, and have toned it down. Most especially, note I wasn't threatening to block you (which CHQ seems to have inferred). — iridescent 23:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I was un-aware of this. I've never heard to that policy, so I apologize for instructing a user to do something against policy. I was, in no way, trying to get him into trouble, because like I said, I was un-aware of the policy. I'm glad you agree with Caribbean H.Q., because I felt as if you were not assuming good faith. No offense, but I think a better action would have been to question me on the matter, because automatically assuming I was doing something wrong, and giving me my only warning. I don't know, but that's what it felt like. Like I said, I was un-aware of that, and I promise I will never instruct a user to take such an action ever again. iMatthew T.C. 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and as I say, sorry if it seemed rude. As you can probably see if you've been following his talk page, the user in question appears to be fast-developing into a problem user, and I think you got a burst of the frustration that should have been directed at him. — iridescent 23:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll alright, I understand. Just make sure you explain this to him as well, thanks! Cheers! iMatthew T.C. 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

←With him, it's gone beyond the explaining stage (he's had it repeatedly explained to him by multiple editors and is refusing to listen); he's been given a couple of days to salvage any code he wants salvaged and then the templates are going to be deleted. — iridescent 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dean Martin

Yo bro, can u please verify the edit made to Dino AKA Dean Martin. I believe its Jerry Lewis not 'Jerome Lewis.' Thanks bro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabiggestestitaliano3 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Hello iridescent! Could you please make a copy of the deleted article LiquidApps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here?. User:LadyHawk89 wants to work on it Iunaw 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Userified to User:Iunaw/LiquidApps. Be aware that even in userspace, it's still deletable as advertising unless reliable sources are added to indicate notability (although IMO, it ought to go to MfD rather than be speedied if the situation arises).
I think/hope a MfD won't be necessary, it should be either rewritten to meet WP:NOTABILITY if it's notable enough or taken elsewhere if not (i'm not very optimistic after googling a bit, but i could be wrong). I don't know, but i'll be watching it.. Thank you iridescent! :) Iunaw 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe

I do believe that you believe that I am a good faith editor.(lol)Thanks,your warning wayyyy before about awb pissed me off but im wayyyyy over it.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Never doubted you were good faith - you just sometimes let your keenness get the better of you... Editcounting really is a meaningless exercise — a single edit can easily take a week of work, but for RFA, RFB and any other process where people look over your edits, will count for far more than 10,000 Huggle or Twinkle rollbacks. — iridescent 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewellery vs. Jewelery

I noticed that you used AWB to "correct" the typo. Note that the proper spelling in American English is Jewelery (see the lead paragraph on the Jewellery article). I'm sure that you know as well as I do that you shouldn't be changing an American article to the British English spelling, especially mass moves with a AWB. I have undone the change for Buffy Waltrip. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate since you come from the other side of the big pond. Royalbroil 04:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Read that lead section again... "Jewelery" is a typo in either American or British English; it's "Jewelry" in American and "Jewellery" in British. As "Jewellery" is the spelling of the Wikipedia article, that's the one that AWB defaults to when correcting "jewelery", although obviously "jewelry" (but not "jewelery") is acceptable if the article's in American English. The discussion that led to this decision is here if you need it. — iridescent 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:I just lost teh game

Seems we might have a compromise in the works; as I understand it, they're offering to transclude, rather than redirect, which I believe resolves most of the problems brought up at WP:AN. I've just posted at User talk:I just lost teh game#Protection saying I'd come here and ask you about releasing the protection. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem at all with that. The very reason I took it over to AN was because I wasn't at all sure if protection was appropriate and wanted second (and third) opinions. — iridescent 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

userboxes

Almost made me fall out of my chair. dorftrottel (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I deny all knowledge. It must have been Bad People sullying the good name of Wikipedia. Probably the Cabal. — iridescent 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez

I am aiming to nominate this article for GA and to be a FA on 21 June. If you can suggest any improvements to the article please let me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What I know about boxing pretty much stops at McGuigan, so I suspect anything I'd do would make more harm then good. I know this is usually my answer to everything, but it would probably be a good idea to ask User:Malleus Fatuarum to take a look - he's very good at getting almost-there articles over the line. — iridescent 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My username pronounciation

I responded at RyRy5's talk page, you can see my explanation here. Useight (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ User_talk:EdJogg
  2. ^ User_talk:Canterberry
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_2&oldid=1249258359"