User talk:Iridescent/Archive 7#Not work safe

The user: Yaneleksklus continues to revert the page Wonky (music) whenever I put a speed deletion notice on it since it is not a notable article, and I am wondering if you can put a stop to this John Collier (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:They're right & you're wrong. The article survived AfD less than two weeks ago; not only that, but you are the one being disruptive by re-adding a {{tl|prod}} notice to the article after it's (legitimately) been removed. Our deletion processes aren't shoot-till-you-win, and I count four speedy taggings and two prod taggings from you today. In any event, your speedy tag is clearly incorrect; WP:CSD#A9 is for recordings (it was brought in to fill the gap whereby a band could be speedy-deleted while their albums had to go through AFD/prod), and this is about a genre of music. You could try AfDing it again if you want it deleted, but unless something's radically changed in two weeks I can't see it being deleted. – iridescent 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Just so you know, I was careful. I looked at the award and found it was given to her by her school. I nice accomplishment; however, I would question its importance. BTW - the entire school population is less than 2500 students. There was little to indicate the true requirements of the award. From the website, "The Prize will be awarded to the student whose substantial work promotes understanding of different philosophies and cultures, and instills respect for people, their work, the environment, and the advancement of global harmony."

ttonyb1 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:To avoid speedy deletion the subject doesn't have to be notable, the article has to contain an assertion of notability. Basically, if you have to do any digging to decide whether or not it's a speedy candidate, it isn't. The article contained multiple assertions of notability ("She was the founder and head of the "Back to our Filipino Roots Project", which send medicines and used medical equipment to poverty-stricken hospitals in the Philippines", "She was awarded the 2004 ACS International Peace Prize"). Articles like this are the reason we have the proposed deletion process. – iridescent 03:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks...ttonyb1 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:::In fact, further to the above, you're completely misreading the award; although it's awarded by a foundation associated with a school, [http://www.acs-england.co.uk/student_life/peace_prize.htm students from the school are barred from entry]. (The fact that the school is in southern England and the subject lives in Florida is a clue…) – iridescent 03:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Yup, you are right about that, but I still have questions about the importance of the award. Thanks again...ttonyb1 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Oh, don't worry about it! As I say, this is what AFD is for – to get a broader consensus on just how notable it is. – iridescent 03:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, i can't really fault you on that decision. i really should have weighed in on the initial AfD but i was otherwise occupied. yanelekslus is an editor who wants to contribute, but he's either unable or unwilling to collaborate. that being said, perhaps you might offer an opinion on User:Z19AK3JH... seems a bit socky to me? --Kaini (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:Hmmm… Created right after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ARockandDiscoFanCZ&year=&month=-1 this block] and goes on to edit the same template. Probably enough there for an SSP, although I'm not sure how contentious the editing actually is – if nobody has a problem with the new account's contributions it might be easier for all involved to turn a blind eye. – iridescent 03:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

::well, you're a sysop (my condolences :P), and i'm telling you that the edit style/content of this account are very similar to yaneleksklus' - and this is an issue that caused a serious headache for other editors before. i have no direct involvement in most of the recent edits (as opposed to a similar revert-war this editor had before) but if this user is a sock, then (s)he shouldn't be allowed to edit, as it sets bad precedent. so possibly worth taking a look at. --Kaini (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:::If you think there's a case, go to WP:SSP and follow the instructions there – WP sysops have no checkuser powers so your word will be as good as mine, and you're familiar with the articles so are probably better placed to explain why they're similar. I'm about to go to sleep (it's 0345 here) so don't have time to do it myself, but if you need a hand ask any active admin to help out. (Useful tip; you can identify which admins are currently awake by watching the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 block log] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 deletion log].) Alternatively, if you post a general "please help me" notice on this page someone will almost certainly fix it for you before too long; as you may have noticed, this page is one of Wikipedia's highest-traffic talkpages. User:J.delanoy will probably be awake and willing to file the report for you at the moment, if need be. – iridescent 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

::::i did notice! your page sees a lot of traffic. and it's the same GMT here :). tell you what, i'll sleep on it too - if people have an objection, then knowing this editor i'll wake up to an edit-war :) --Kaini (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Blocked. – iridescent 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK that's the last time I try to view your talk page in the computer lab... just realized I hardly ever use edit summaries :( *runs away* -- Gurch (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:And I was so careful to make sure that picture wasn't actually porny, too… If it's any consolation, you only have a 1 in 25 chance of seeing her. – iridescent 14:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

::I suppose it's a risk worth taking (awww... you used an edit summary *hides rope*) -- Gurch (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Recently you have removed my perfectly suitable post and issued a warning to me even though it is you that is vandalising the page by removing content without good reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.69.225 (talk)

:You're absolutely right, I can't see how [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk+food?diff=255067598 this] could possibly be anything other than constructive. What was I thinking? – iridescent 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:: Thinking logically, of course :D I love it when they do this... Icy // ♫ 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Oh dear, now I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A212.32.69.225&diff=255082642&oldid=255075725 discriminating against him]. I'm just evil. – iridescent 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Why do people always write a book for their unblock reason? I wonder what they would do if I declined with the reason "tl;dr". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::A clear breach of his Human Rights if ever I've seen one...— Realist² 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Iri, how possibly have you avoided desysopping with this reckless use of your admin tools? Shameful. لennavecia 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm touched. (In the head, perhaps, but touched nonetheless.) Now, can you compose a sonnet incorporating the words "humorless", "beating a dead horse", "not important to at least 75% of Wikipedians", "seriously, go write an article or something," and "you're not going to paint anyone into that corner"? He's trying to get someone to say that attack pages in general are okay; nobody's going to jump off that bridge. And of course, if we go by the policy-based answer--no, they're not okay--then he's going to demand that one be deleted. Tiresome. GJC 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:Will Shakespearean blank verse do?

::WP:CIV was not handed down

::To Jimbo on stone tablets, and who said

::You could be head of the Civility

::Police, in a case that doesn't even

::Concern you? Now quit whining just because

::None of the others here agree with you.

:I tell you, I'm wasted here. – iridescent 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I was wondering to myself how to handle,

:::That common Wikipedia problem — the vandal

:::Iridescent says 'It seems like a chore

:::But just revert and ignore;

:::and I'll put them out like a sputtering candle.' HalfShadow 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::If you think I'm rude

::::And want to complain, piss off

::::I ignore all rules.  – iridescent 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're wasted, I'm offended; you didn't share. :)GJC 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:I might listen more politely to his proposed solutions

:If he had a more significant [http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=NoCal100 history of contributions].

:All editors are valued in the same amount

:But this looks suspiciously like [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=NoCal100&site=en.wikipedia.org a single purpose account]. – iridescent 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::LOL, this is more entertaining than last nights episode of X Factor with Britney Spears. — Realist² 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::That was a clear stitch-up on Saturday night

:::Ruth was fantastic and Diana was shite. – iridescent 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::I only watched the results section to see if Britney Spears could provide a coherent performance. I wasn't particularly impressed and I generally give the girl the benefit of the doubt. I watched the episodes paying tribute to Michael Jackson and Mariah Carey but I've been to busy with Wiki and Uni for television. — Realist² 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Britney on The X Factor was the least convincing mime

:::::That I've seen on TV for a very long time

:::::And while I appreciate she's only just back on the agenda

:::::Her new single sounds like a rook trapped in a blender. – iridescent 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:I realise this thread must seem really strange

:To any talk page watcher who stumbles on this

:It's all in response to this heated exchange

:Which even by ANI standards was goddamn ridiculous. – iridescent 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::A pity nobody saw fit to delete

::The ballad that was oh so clever

::Then we could take turns reverting

::And call it 'Dumbest edit-war ever.' HalfShadow 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::You would think everybody involved in this saga

:::Could go and find something more useful to do

:::The plain, simple fact is, no ANI drama

:::Will resolve the conflict between Arab and Jew

:::This is one field where all those involved harbour

:::Two thousand years of entrenched points of view

:::But at least this entire idiotic palaver

:::[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21357&hl= Provides entertainment] for the Wikipedia Review. ←(BADSITE link! Don't click it or you'll go to hell!) – iridescent 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::And for those who are thinking 'Why use verse?'

:::: 'This does not make understanding an ease!'

::::Just think dear friends, it could be much worse:

::::Morse code, Pig Latin, Klingonese.

::::The simple fact of the matter is that we take pleasure

::::Doing things differently, yes it's quite true,

::::If you think joy isn't part of a Wikipedian's measure,

::::We thank God and Heaven above that we're not you. HalfShadow 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Nishidani is or what the ins and outs of this content dispute are – and no, I don't want anyone explaining them to me – but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_7&oldid=255240513#Apropos this is the best "This user has retired from Wikipedia" notice of all time]. – iridescent 18:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:That is good, yes, Much better than those big black "Retired" boxes that children put on thir user pages for an hour or two every time someone upsets them. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, very good. Have you been voting in this arb com thing? I'm no sure I'm going to bother voting in this arb com thing myself. I think I will just observe. — Realist² 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's worth voting in Arbcom elections; because it wields so much clout, and so few people bother to participate, a vote cast in an Arbcom election is far more likely to affect your life than a vote cast in a real-world election. (If a dozen more people had bothered to vote last year, Giano would have made it onto Arbcom and the whole content-creators vs policy-wonks split on Wikipedia – and consequently, the entire future direction of the World's Eighth Most Powerful Website™ – would look very different today.) To save anyone digging through the histories – I have no intention of creating one of those "how I voted" tables – my supports (in alphabetical order) were Carcharoth, Casliber, Fish and karate, Gwen Gale, Jayvdb (weakly), Lifebaka, Risker, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back and Wizardman. If I had to pick one from that list, it would be Risker, with Gwen and Neil (Fish and karate) both running a close second. (Sorry, but I can't really find a metric to put any of the above in verse). – iridescent 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::By the way, for anyone wanting to know how it's going, Gurch has written one of his magic scripts that automatically gives running analysis of the results. To see who's ahead, click the little box next to "Net" to sort them; the top seven net votes are the winners (subject to Jimbo's arbitrary IDONTLIKEYOU veto, but let's not go there). – iridescent 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I voted. Only once. My reasons for support are along the lines of WTHN aka good interaction of other areas of the Wiki. Probably not good reasons to support for arb comm. My oppose won't matter, but it needed to be said. *shrug* StarM 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::(to ☆M) Am I the only person on Wikipedia who hasn't had a problem with her? I've always found her one of the most polite and helpful people here. – iridescent 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Oooh I'm a fancy symbol, how did you do that? I haven't had a 'problem' with her, per se, but I find her unwillingness to listen a bit frustrating especially when it comes to speedies. It has nothing to do with who's right but just a 'would it kill to see things other ways?' at times. I don't think a "this is what I said, go read this page" is a good mentality for an arb comm candidate. It's not even about who's right: once the article was restored and not challenged again, once it went to AfD and was deleted. It's more about the willingness to not see things in black and white. I don't follow every arb comm case, in fact, I try not to other than rulings, but I think the world is grey and I don't think she sees that. Not putting diffs here either, I really wish renames changed sigs. StarM 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Changing your old sigs is easy enough, although it won't affect the actual diffs. To add fancy symbols you can either fiddle about keying in Unicode, or cheat and just cut-and-paste them from the relevant Unicode plane. – iridescent 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::PC Only, I think? I'll have to look into it though. The diffs change, I think. My contribs show as StarM, but the sig link is my old name. StarM 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::It runs on my Mac, but you need to boot into Windows via Boot Camp to use it. It might be worth asking one of the semiautomation regulars like Gurch or Werdna whether there's any issue it would raise (I can't think what); otherwise it's just a case of importing Special:WhatLinksHere/OldUsername into AWB, setting it to "replace all", and robotically clicking "yes" for half an hour. (The original diffs won't change – it takes oversight powers to change the actually text of the diffs. However, they all show as being made under your "new" name. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keeper76&diff=prev&oldid=223573401 here] for an example of a signature diff from a renamed account.) – iridescent 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Oooh I'll look into that tomorrow. It's about bedtime for this crazy person. It's not so much the diffs that I care but rather I can't point to a situation, especially one related to the person bent on outing me (see deleted revs) without outing myself. It's just irritating that everything else changes over - including a page's history. Odd. StarM 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If I have a quiet watchlist I'll consider it, but I have another article to write soon. — Realist² 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish I'd submitted this question

But I was inhabiting my usual fogs;

"Potential ARBCOMmians, what would you do

About [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_dogs_(2nd_nomination) Lists of Fictional Dogs]?"

GJC 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:In answer to Q1 in my RFA

:I offered the solemn conviction

:My views are so out of line with the mob

:I won't comment on the deletion of fiction.

:Although at a quick glance it appears clear to me

:That this topic is better served by the existing category. – iridescent 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:: Srsly, you should write a poetry book. I'd buy it -- Gurch (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Nishidani [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_7&oldid=255243031#Honour:_A_Wiki_Ballad_in_13_Sonnets would be way] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_7&oldid=255240513#Apropos ahead of me]. – iridescent 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Wow. -- Gurch (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Unique, isn't it? – iridescent 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Ah, we have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=255288072 a literary critic] here. – iridescent 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:Are we ever going to rename that damn thing? RickK is indefblocked for God's sake. – iridescent 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::Eh maybe you should suggest it. I can't understand why a barnstar needs to be named after someone anyway... what's wrong with Anti-Vandalism Barnstar? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::It was named after "legendary vandal fighter" User:RickK. It later was alleged that RickK was in fact running a bad-hand account and reverting his own edits. Either way, RickK hasn't edited for three years, is indefblocked in any case, and I have no idea why we have a barnstar named after someone with fewer reverts in his entire career than a Huggler can rack up in a week when none of the others are named. – iridescent 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::You may be interested. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Woah what? I've never heard about him using a bad-hand sock, although I've heard plenty of other things. Do you have any more details? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/Archive3#The_Senior_Guardian_Barnstar_.2F_The_RickK_Award. either way (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19205&st=14] The source is Kelly Martin, who does have a very large chip on her shoulder (which is why I have to emphasise the "allegedly") - however, the time RickK was active was the time she was on Arbcom, and while I rarely agree with Kelly M I've never known her to lie. (NYB says something similar on the WR thread linked) – iridescent 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:: Someone write a script to figure out who has done the most vandal reverts and rename it after them -- Gurch (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I really don't think it necessary to name it after someone. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::::HDYTTO, please withdraw that TFD - all it will do is cause drama. – iridescent 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. We won't be seeing that account anymore. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:I dare say we'll see him in ten minutes under another name, though... – iridescent 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

I saw you reverted your own edits on template:EU regulation. Indeed, it's true, I'm not a vandal, but I am really a n00b when it comes to templates. I made a new template template:Infobox EU legislation, which is to be used by both template:EU regulation and template:EU directive.

The aim is to make a redirect of template:EU regulation to template:Infobox EU legislation, with one added parameter "regulation=1", to make Infobox EU legislation switch to a Regulation template. [Template:EU directive]] will be a redir to template:Infobox EU legislation, with added parameter "directive=1", which makes Infobox EU legislation a Directive template. That works perfectly fine, but somehow I don't know how to include the original parameters that are used when calling template:EU regulation in the redirect. Do you know how I should do that?

Thanks in advance,

Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:I don't know, but if you check back in about half an hour someone watching this page will almost certainly give you the answer. – iridescent 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::: Replace Template:EU regulation with

{{Infobox EU legislation|regulation=1|param1={{{param1|}}}|param2={{{param2|}}}}}

::: and so forth, replacing "param1", "param2" etc. with the names of the parameters that have to be passed through -- Gurch (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

other times, not so much. But those times you do, it's cathartic. ^Law _shoot! 12:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:Anything in particular bring that on? – iridescent 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

::Just simple curiosity. ^Law _shoot! 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shay Lynn.jpg

I was going to buy a lightbulb. THe gentlemen asked me if it was going to be Iridescent. I had no idea. He said it was 'green.' Apparently I was going to save the world. I don't care about trivial notion, but I was on the Internet tonight, and met a girl names Iridescent. Well, we are together now. The $300/hr doesn't cloud my judgment. She is cool. I think I love her. ^Law _shoot! 12:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:Somebody's drunk. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

::Ah, he hasn't realised I'm a sockpuppet of Runcorn yet. – iridescent 13:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:::It's understandable, you seem to be missing the obligatory stolen image of a cute girl on your user page. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

::::20pxY fixed. – iridescent 13:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and you're getting mixed up – lightbulbs are incandescent, not iridescent.  – iridescent 14:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Wow, seriously? She looks like a plastic mannequin. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

←I'm more interested in what the weird thing on her left hand is. OK, do you prefer any of these unique interpretations of the word "copyright"? – iridescent 15:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Model with glasses in white.jpg

Image:Martina Warren.jpg

Image:Brandy Talore at 2006 AVN.jpg

Image:Alejandra Díaz Palestini.jpg

Image:Cintia Dicker.jpg

Image:J-01 (1462640429).jpg

Image:Holly Brisley.jpg

Image:Air Force Amy 01.jpg

:All very lovely girls, no doubt (apart from the weather balloons; people honestly find that attractive?), but you certainly couldn't pretend to be any of them. That was the sick genius of Poetlister. She was the girl next door. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

::You do know that most of the "girls" in PoetTaxCorn's photos were – er – fitted with plugs rather than sockets, right? Incidentally, one of our Arbcom candidates would [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20081119145212&limit=20&contribs=user&target=NWA.Rep&namespace=0 disagree with you] about the weather balloons. – iridescent 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Haha, it wouldn't surprise me, considering the shenanigans he got up to. I only ever saw the one posted on Wikisource (Image:Poetlister_cant_enjoy_her_sandwich.jpg@ED <- her I think, though it's a different picture), so I don't feel compelled to run to the shower and scrub myself clean à la Ace Ventura. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

::::20pxN Male. Sorry if I've shattered an illusion here. – iridescent 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::No fucking way. Oh my god. I feel like a contestant at the end of There's Something About Miriam. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::[http://ypcommando.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/sbc0005.jpg Hello, and welcome to pseudonymous editing!] I hope you like the place and decide to stay. – iridescent 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I now finally understand the concept of too much knowledge. I need Dr. Mierzwiak to erase all knowledge of PoetTaxCorn from my brain {{=)|18}} --Closedmouth (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the only talk page to which I've thrown a beat. Brilliant. ^Law _shoot! 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your step #4 in your response here made me laugh. Thanks. ;) Rockfang (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:That reminds me, I was actually incorrect in my advice (runs over to fix it) – iridescent 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Some really strange and (to me at least) unexpected articles seem to be targets for repeated and long-term vandalism. Some time ago I did a review of Spanish Armada, and it has stayed on my watchlist since then. I can understand that articles about football teams, politicians and so on are targets, but a failed 16th-century military operation? Do you have any theories about what attracts vandals to certain article/types of articles? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:With something like that, my guess would be that this is the month in the National Curriculum that they study Elizabethan England so there are lots of bored kids reading it. [http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Spanish%20Armada Something very strange] happened in May as well, I wonder if it was on the Main Page (although there's no notice on the talkpage). – iridescent 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Iridescent! I'm Прон from Bulgarian Wikipedia. Please help me how pronounce the town name Yate and Yateley. 90.154.191.214 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:"Yate" would be pronounced "ee-ayt", rhyming with "Eight", "Weight" or "Fate"; "Yateley" "ee-ayt-lee" rhyming with "Greatly" (they would be written "Еит" and "Еитлий" in Russian, if that's any use). – iridescent 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::Not sure that's entirely correct; the "Y" is pronounced as in "you". So it's more like "y-ayt-lee". At least that's how a friend of mine who lives in Yateley pronounces it anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I'd agree with that. I think my Cyrillic transliterations are correct, though. "Think" being the important word, as I was last in Russia when it was still the USSR. – iridescent 20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::::You spies do get about, don't you. ;-) I'm just about to set off for Watford, about the most exotic busines trip I get these days. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Damn, my secret identity is out. I'm the secret CIA agent sent to infiltrate Wikipedia. (Note: [http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=198.81.129.0-255 we really did have one of those], back in the old days.) – iridescent 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:I understand. This IPA pronounce is near? "Jɛjt" for Yate and "Jɛjtliː" for Yatley. For town Yeadon, West Yorkshire IPA "Jɛjdən" is near? 90.154.191.214 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

::I believe so. Could someone who knows IPA better than me confirm that? – iridescent 15:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:OK, very thanks for the help! (Прон)90.154.191.214 (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

::[http://forvo.com/word/yate/ The internet really does contain everything]. – iridescent 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=255494470&oldid=255493687 "I am familiar with this editor and I trust their judgement"] - there are editors which nobody gets to know because they are so quiet, yet they are prolific. There are others who are prolific but for some reason are overlooked, like the recently-approved User:Dravecky. I see nothing wrong with going down lists of prolific editors, screening out those who aren't good candidates, studying those who look good, and if they still look good after study, nominating them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:If they're prolific, by definition someone will have heard of them since they'll regularly come up at GAN, FAC or AFD if they're content-driven or on the flameboards if they're a policy-wonk. Someone who hasn't come to any kind of notice is someone with no relevant experience and any RFA from them will either be snow-closed, or they'll post a good faith RFA, be ripped to shreds, and leave the project in disgust.

:Editcounts may have had some meaning in the old days, but I'm not sure you appreciate just how powerful Huggle is; the traditional editcount benchmark of 5000 edits can be reached from a standing start in a single day (If you think that's hyperbole, here's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20081001130037&limit=1000&target=Iridescent 1000 edits in two hours]) and that's not including the deletions, blocks etc. Seriously, treating WBE as some kind of high-score table is exactly what it shouldn't be used for; if you dig into the history of anyone with a high edit count who isn't an admin, chances are you'll find a very good reason why they're not. The only reason the page even exists is because there are enough people who do treat Wikipedia as an MMORPG that the MFD's close as "no consensus".

:Also, prolific quite often equals "disruptive"; have a look at the talkpages of any of those "high scorers" and count the warnings. Their block logs are often an eye-opener, as well. – iridescent 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

::You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Except in California of course, the spiritual home of the bizarre and inconsistently applied WP:CIVILITY. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I think you (Malleus) already know my views on civility; but of the non-admins with high edit counts (particularly if they reached that point pre-Huggle – [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest&oldid=211163438 this] is probably the last version that isn't distorted by Huggle), if you look at the history the issues generally aren't civility; it's either people who've been the subject of major controversy and know they have 100 people lined up to oppose them, people who don't want to run, former admins who've been desysopped or people who had such foul-tempered RFAs that they don't want to go through it again. WBE is a tree from which the low-hanging fruit has already been picked; we now need people with more common sense and less ability to spout the correct policy at every opportunity without quite understanding it. (Of the regulars on this page, you and R2 are probably the highest scorers in that regard, in that whether or not I agree with you on something, you're always able to justify it – which IMO counts far more than more admin-coached policy drones who can explain all the wording of WP:CIV without understanding why that wording is used and when it's appropriate to ignore it. Useight and Balloonman will no doubt turn up at some point to give the opposing point of view.) – iridescent 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Ow, thanx for the compo Irid, I can't believe Useight it running for RfB, he kept that quiet, I only found out after stalking your edit history. I supported obviously. Unfortunately, I've managed to somehow, over time, watchlist all the new articles to do with Britney Spears and my watchlist is going crazy. It's quite amazing how many new editors are naming themselves after our dear Spears. — Realist² 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I've turned up to give my opposing point of view. I still think coaching is good if done correctly. The trick is doing it correctly, and I'm still trying to figure that out. I see no problem with helping someone learn policies. Sure, I can't teach them clue or common sense, but some things can be taught, and since all I want to do is help, I'm going to do what I can. Also, I didn't give anyone advance notice of my RFB, so don't feel bad, Realist2, that you didn't have any warning. Thanks, though, for your support, both of you. Useight (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm wondering what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=BritneySpearsBur this one] was thinking. – iridescent 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Apparently she eats a lot of fast food. Rumor has it she also breaths air and sleeps at night, but this is still unconfirmed....— Realist² 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

::::What do you mean, I'll show up ;-) Actually, if you look at my coachee pages, you'll see that I encourage my coachees to express their opinion/position. (Spinnspark, one of my current coachees, has a very different view on User Names than me... but was able to defend it using policy, which is all I ask for.) Coaching ain't bad---when done right. Coaching is bad, when done with the apparent goal of passing RfA's---and I've opposed my share of coached candidates on that basis. If somebody wants a shortcut, it isn't going through *me* as a coach.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm psychic, I tell you… As I said somewhere (can't remember where) my personal view would be to give limited admin rights (delete articles less than a week old with under 10 revisions but without the ability to undelete, block accounts with less than 10 edits for a maximum of an hour, perhaps) automatically to anyone meeting some fairly basic criteria – probably 1000 edits and no block in the last three months plus a minimum of one GA/FA, to force people to get some experience in article-writing – these accounts would then automatically go to RFA after six months. This would take away the whole per nom/prima facie/not enough edits/"mommy that man was rude to me" arguing, and give something concrete to judge; e.g., "they've had these tools, did they use them and did they use them right". But what do I know?

:::::Incidentally, did you know that you are currently one of the most wretched articles we have? – iridescent 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::And apparently I have [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/Balloonman?action=profile a fan club]---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I have a copy of Balloon Man (CD) sitting on my shelf; I can turn that redlink blue if you'd like. – iridescent 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The above isn't meant as any kind of attack on Huggle which is a vital and necessary etc etc etc, but just an observation that it's possible to be totally proficient using it and totally clueless everywhere else. – iridescent 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

: Re. non-admins with high edit counts, that really goes back long before Huggle and the situation in that revision you post is little different from now. Vandalism got reverted back then too (and spellings got corrected, and minor formatting changes got made)... don't forget autowikibrowser has been around for nearly three years -- Gurch (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

: Oh, and 5000 edits in a day is probably stretching it a bit, despite me having more edits than sense I never managed more than 2000, and that took eight hours (interestingly it seems that account was still 290th in the list at the time of the version you linked, despite only 3 months of activity over a year previously, further proof that editcount is completely meaningless). BTW out of curiosity what's the "very good reason" I'm not an admin? :/ -- Gurch (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::5000 edits/day is unquestionably possible. According to [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=J.delanoy&l=all Wikichecker], I made 3452 edits on 8 October (3341 are left, now). And that was a school day, so I was at college a good portion of it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::show-off --Gurch (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::::5000 edits a day is definitely possible – that's why I posted the diff in the thread above to my making 1000 edits in two hours. I could easily imagine some of our more - er - singleminded editors spending 8-9-10 hours on Huggle. Unless you give yourself a bot flag or bypass the restrictions (which is a Bad Bad Thing and don't do it), even the most mindless AWB search-and-replace doesn't get above about 1000 edits per day since it runs quite slowly. (BHG made 100,000 AWB edits splitting :Category:Politicians, but she was either dedicated or nuts.) I agree the list was always distorted by AWB, Twinkle, people running bots on their main account etc, but Huggle took "editcount as a measure of value" from "distorted" over the line into "meaningless", unless you really believe I've made a more significant contribution than Cla68, Malleus, Giano and Hurricanehink combined. (Amusingly, on the latest update of WBE, Jimbo and Larry are both below the "significant number of edits" threshold.) – iridescent 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Well let's be honest, neither of them have contributed much in any form recently -- Gurch (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Jimbo did write an article once. If I recall correctly, there was [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=mzoli%27s+wikipedia+-site%3Awikipedia.org&btnG=Search&meta= some sort of fuss about it]. – iridescent 20:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Which was speedy deleted shortly after creation (thought sadly did not stay that way) -- Gurch (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The truly ironic thing, of course, is that the article doesn't mention the only reason anyone living more than a mile away has ever heard of the place. Must be a coincidence, since Wikipedia is not censored. – iridescent 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Actually, the policy only mentions "offensive or objectionable" content. I guess in theory you could appeal to the neutral point of view if you wanted to overturn the suppression of something that isn't either of those, though of course in this case that wouldn't work because of the two unwritten policies Wikipedia:Jimbo is always right and Wikipedia:If someone in the real world notices an article, the correct response is to panic and screw it up -- Gurch (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=255422763&oldid=255407493 In case you missed it]. The Wikimedia Foundation's equivalent of a total eclipse. – iridescent 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::does that mean we can delete the founder group now? -- Gurch (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::Rewrite your bot to give double votes to all the anti-Jimbo candidates. Lets face it, no-one is actually counting the votes themselves – look at the blind panic The Wikipedia Community went into when you dared to turn your bot off for a while. – iridescent 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Hmmm... if I started now, I could establish enough socks by next year's election to vote five copies of myself into ArbCom. That would be fun -- Gurch (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::And I didn't turn the bot off. My internet turned itself off. And I was asleep -- Gurch (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Jimbo [http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php?user=Jimbo+Wales started] several other articles but most were either stubs or fresh-start-stubs. He did start M16 rifle in 2001. It wasn't a stub but it wasn't sourced. He also started the unreferenced Urban heat island in 2001. It would be a stub by today's standards. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Of course, it's not so long ago that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horseshoe&oldid=2723049 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spacecraft_propulsion&oldid=2188052 were] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nude_celebrities_on_the_Internet&oldid=2277246 Featured] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leet&oldid=2199707 Articles]. Everyone who harps on about how much we've "degenerated" might like to bear that in mind. – iridescent 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

20px Set it to put Kurt in the top five for a while. See how long it takes for anyone to notice. – iridescent 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still progressing with my HIStory campaign. Got "Stranger in Moscow" to GA today, my favorite song BTW. At a push I would like to get it to a GA topic by January. Must take into account the huge GAN backlog however. — Realist² 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:As far as I can tell, everyone involved in GA assessment is currently self-destructing Polish parliament style. I may be oversimplifying. – iridescent 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::I'm going to review a few myself soon, help out a little bit, that backlog is fast approaching 300. — Realist² 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::I think there's some truth in that. I can't even remember the last time I reviewed a GAN, so good on ya Realist2. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Cheers Malleus :-) Also, Irid, an IP left a message atop your talk page, just incase you missed in in the recent activity. — Realist² 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Thanks - that one slipped through. Don't know if it's a school holiday or something, but the IPs are restless tonight. – iridescent 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I only ever did one GA review that didn't turn into a "how dare you say my article wasn't perfect!?!" spat (Sheerness, should you care); I tend to stay away from it now. I don't see how a green dot or yellow star makes the slightest difference to a single person actually reading the article, other than providing an unofficial flagged revision point. What being listed as GA/FA does achieve, is drawing every wannabe-copyeditor-but-doesn't-know-how, "helpful" bot, and Defender Of The Wiki MOS Enforcer to said article like moths to a flame. – iridescent 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::We've worked on a few GAs iridescent, and I like to think the end result was an improvement over the starting point. I have to ask though, which of your categories am I in? Wannabe-copyeditor-but-doesn't-know-how, "helpful" bot, or Defender Of The Wiki MOS Enforcer? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::None; with the articles you've worked on, it hasn't made a difference to you whether they have a GA/FA star or not (although you might have been trying to get them there). I'm referring to the motley crowd who periodically go through the FAs and GAs after they're promoted making minor edits; I don't know if it's to try to get themselves noticed, to try to get some kind of "this user has worked on x FAs kudos, or that they're the Wikipedia equivalent of groupies. (I'm not referring to people like Tony or Epbr who go through the candidate articles making minor edits, which is a potentially useful service, but the people who seem to think that despite having passed through the FAC crucible, the articles will nonetheless be "improved" by their meatheaded attempts at restructuring the layout, or the loving touch of their buggy link-formatting bot. Watchlist a bunch of articles that appear next to each other in WP:FA, and see how often you see one editor edit all of them, despite them being on totally unrelated topics. – iridescent 21:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Right. BTW, it's only fair to warn you that I've just made an edit to Broadwater Farm. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::IIRC, that isn't a GA or FA. There was some sort of minor dispute, I seem to recall… (I still maintain that every image there is MOS-compliant, even on the strictest reading). – iridescent 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I agree wih you about the images. The guidelines are quite clear, although hardly anyones seems to have read them. A bit like the blocking guidelines for administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I added new info(record) and fixed the descriptions of the box to look the same as other pages. Let me know what was vandalized.Sea888 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:You're absolutely right. Please accept my sincere apologies for that – I don't know quite what happened there. – iridescent 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that your image at the top of your talk page makes your talk page "not work safe."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:Which one? If you're talking about Edit Summary Girl, I was very careful to choose an image that wasn't pornographic. (You only have a 1 in 27 chance of seeing her; if you don't want her, just [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent?action=purge purge the page].) – iridescent 20:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, that's the one... you might not see it as problematic, but I can see some employers responding negatively towards it if they saw it on an employees desktop...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::I concur with Balloonman, :Image:Model in classic Hogtie.jpg may be cute but it can be dangerous for viewers in certain environments. Can you imagine the tempest-in-a-teapot this would cause if a local newspaper was doing a story on how elementary school students use Wikipedia for research and to collaborate with other editors, and they happened to be there when some kid hit the (un)-lucky lotto? Wikipedia is not censored, but.... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::: While true, statistically speaking they are far more likely to see it on Hogtie bondage (~18000 views last month) than on this page (~3500 views per month, only 1/27 of which would show the picture) -- Gurch (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Balloonman I can see the point from, although I disagree with it; while I'm not going to remove her on the basis of one user's request, if other regular users of this page see a problem I'll remove her. I somehow can't imagine the number of people likely to be reading my talkpage, from their place of work, often enough to produce her in the rotation, is going to be exactly huge – nor imagine what kind of workplace would care – but I can see the point, and I appreciate that American culture is more prudish than most of the world and that this is a US-hosted project.

::::Davidwr's point, if you'll forgive me, is just plain ridiculous.

::::#This is my user talk page, not History of Europe, it generally gets less than [http://stats.grok.se/en/200810/User_talk%3AIridescent 50 hits per day], and is not linked from anywhere said "elementary school student" is likely to reach it, unless the school project in question concerns derelict railway lines of south-east England, the usefulness vs drawbacks of semiautomated editing tools, or the validity of the spaced em-dash;

::::#any visitor to this page only has a 3% chance of seeing her, but has a 100% chance of seeing an offensively captioned image of the Virgin Mary, which to date has not generated a single complaint;

::::#For almost a year my user page featured a painting of the Prophet Muhammed in hell, which was replaced by an video loop of two cats having sex, neither of which generated a single complaint;

::::#User talk:Keeper76, which traditionally has ten times the traffic of my talk and often overtakes Jimbo's talk for hits, regularly included some extremely choice samples from Wikipedia's inexhaustible library of home-made porn, none of which ever generated a single complaint;

::::#Typing pretty much any "bad word" one chooses to name into the search bar will bring up articles including images from the Bad Image List (of which not a one of the images on this page is a member);

::::#Wikipedia itself is a spin-off of a poor-quality porn site "guy-orientated website";

::::#Any putative school project, on any topic one cares to name, is vanishingly unlikely to stumble on this talkpage. It is, however, virtually certain to stumble onto Commons and their unique contributions to the sum of all human knowledge. In the seven years of Wikipedia's existence, the scenario you describe has yet to happen, despite the best efforts of the Wikipedia Review.

::::And with all due respect to the Wide Community Of Wikipedia's Users, the prudishness of the recipients of repeat-vandalism warnings – the only elementary school students likely to ever wind up on this page – is not among my top priorities. – iridescent 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I probably wouldn't have said anything if it wasn't for the fact that it was front and center. If it hits the lotto, it is the first and most glaring thing a person sees on the website. My boss won't notice that it is wikipedia, nor will they care. If it were on History of Europe, then you could explain it as being an image of the article, but it is harder to rationalize on a "friends talk page." The reason it caught my attention was because I will often click on pages on multiple tabs, and while they are loading click back to work or do soemthing else. Then, when I need a break or I'm waiting for code to run, I come back to a page only to discover that it has loaded to an image I would be aghast if my boss saw. If I happen to see something on Keeper's talk page or another page, I will leave the page in a condition where the image isn't visible when I click back to the page. Similarly, when it is on Keeper's page, it is generally there temporarily, as part of your header, there is the indication that it will be there indefinitely.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Plus, I think I'm the lucky one, I get it a lot more frequently than 1 in 27 times... I'd say 2 out of 3 times!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT2: In other words, if the image were to appear at the bottom of your header, *I* probably wouldn't have a problem with it... it would depend on the actual appearance, but it is the fact that it shows up when I load the page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Removed from the rotation as that's a valid reason and there's no point causing potential harm with something that doesn't do a corresponding good. I still stand by every point in my reply to the "zomg think of the children!" argument. – iridescent 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::So, if Iridescent was an RfA candidate, would you have voted oppose on the basis of that image, and told him/her to come back in three months? just asking. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::If I were an RFA candidate now, I wouldn't have a hope in hell of passing, and neither would all but the most "be nice to everyone" conflict-avoiders. While IMO I've never performed a "wrong" action - and I think the only admin action of mine anyone could seriously even try to build a case against was my block of Abd, which I'd still contend was both desirable and correct (not the same thing on Wikipedia), 2500 deletions and 800 blocks makes for a lot of angry socks, not to mention the assorted toes I've stepped on down the years. A drawback of the Wikipedia environment is that it's a lot easier to make enemies than friends. I somehow suspect you have noticed this. – iridescent 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I had noticed that, yes. I've also noticed that enemies pay little attention to the truth, whereas friends try to be more even-handed, which makes for a pretty distorted environment in the absence of any other checks and balances. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The "be nice to everyone" conflict-avoiders also fail due to lack of experience handling conflict. You can't win -- Gurch (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::No they don't. In fact they do rather well. I don't want to draw attention to any one recently promoted admnistrator, but just look through the list of recent promotions. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm 99.999% certain I know who you are talking about... particularly considering that the two of you are still engaging in discourse all over creation!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::And just to pre-empt anyone else pointing it out, I'm perfectly aware of the irony of a WP:CIV "oppose" coming from me, but in that particular instance I stand by it. FWIW, even Jimbo Wales poked his head out of the bunker [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=256045193&oldid=256041013 to] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=256106941&oldid=256106420 endorse] the original comment which sparked off that particular shit-storm. – iridescent 17:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Most admins, myself included, would probably get an oppose from me if they ran again. But no, I would not have opposed her for that image. I might have brought it up and used her response to sway me one way or another...eg did she remove it when a reason was provided or not? Since she removed it, it might have moved me to "support" if I was on the bench ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Create account; write a valid stub article with incorrect formatting (if it's correctly formatted, everyone will think you're a sock);
2. Go somewhere that will rack up your edit quickly. Twinkle is always good, but you run the risk of messing up; stub sorting or link disambiguation are slower but steadier;
3. Write a long article with sources. Find someone active at both GAC and RFA and ask them to help you with it. This gets you seen by those people who will vote (sorry, !vote); and give you a reputation as an article writer. Agree with every suggestion made by anyone who appears popular, and always agree with everyone female; remember that most RFA voters are 14 year old boys who automatically follow anything a Hot Chick says, in the hope that if they always agree with her she'll show them her boobies;
4. Repeat step 3;
5. Once you have the two long articles under your belt - and only then - request rollback and install Huggle;
6. Set Huggle to show you your reversions after you make them (you don't want a "rollback removed for misuse" sitting in your log), and rack your edit count to 10,000;
7. Repeat step 3;
8. Ask someone (preferably a Hot Chick) if they think you're ready for RFA, but only if you're sure they'll say yes;
9. Wait until a high-grade flamewar is raging (hint: watch Giano's and Sandy's talkpages) to distract the usual dramamongers and RFA trolls;
10. Transclude RFA. On one relatively trivial question give an answer that's against policy with a long explanation as to why you don't support policy - this will prove to the freethinkers that you're not a Cabalist. On everything else, spout the party line faithfully - this will prove to the Cabalists that you're one of them. As long as you haven't pissed people off, in a community that thrives on little-tin-gods and petty-empire-building, people see what they want to see in you.

You're welcome. – iridescent 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:just one clarification... do you count as a Hot Chick for the purposes of the above? -- Gurch (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::See above – iridescent 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside, I have often thought about abandoning "Malleus Fatuorum" and starting all over again. I'm quite certain that I could become an admin in six months or so under another name, and then I'd least be able to unblock Malleus ...after a few suitably sanctimonious comments, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:What's stopping you? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::How do you know he hasn't?

::The above method isn't even a joke; it's exactly the method Dereks1x/Archtransit uses. I'm totally certain that some of our regular admins are socks; I'd even go so far as to point fingers. Where I differ from policy is that I don't really see it as a problem as long as they behave themselves. – iridescent 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I dunno, judging by his edit rate, it would probably be rather difficult. Then again, I am fully aware of this user... – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Who's edit rate, Malleus's? D1x managed to operate 120 confirmed accounts plus lots we haven't caught, while writing one of our highest-traffic FAs. Socking really isn't hard; the main reason people don't do it more is that there's generally no reason to. – iridescent 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Malleus Fatuorum obviously doesn't have much time left on this site, but I hope enough to leave on my own terms when and why I choose, rather that at the whim of some trigger-happy admin. In the meantime, I may or may not prove my point by becoming an administrator under another username. All I'll say for now is that if I do, I'll immediately own up and relinquish the bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Most of us aren't actually trigger-happy, even when we appear to be. I'd challenge you to build a case for the defence regarding any of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=5000&user=iridescent&type=block these characters] (with the exception of Abd, where it's at least possible to make a case). There's a lot to be said for running a "clean" account side-by-side with your main account, and using one account for arguing, and another to carry out your actual work unhassled by all the assorted opponents you've managed to gather. There is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ACatherine_de_Burgh a clear precedent for this and an overwhelming consensus that it's a legitimate use of an alternative account]. – iridescent 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I haven't used huggle before, so you know I'm definitely not at point 6 yet. :-O — Realist² 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::There are many phrases people could use to describe you, but ""be nice to everyone conflict-avoider" is unlikely to be one of them. You're on what might be called the Gwen Gale Path. – iridescent 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Battle scarce some might call them, still some good has come of it, I have stronger skin now and can deal with pressure and personal attacks that I couldn't deal with 4 months ago. Only today I was accused of being anti Muslim (check top of my talk page) over the Michael Jackson issue. Of course it's not nice but I can deal with it. If we were all "be nice to everyone conflict-avoiders" some things wouldn't get done around here. — Realist² 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Things get done around here? 35px – iridescent 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I think we give ourselves too much grief, we have achieved so much here, I'm just gutted I wasn't around to see the early days. Wikipedia has it's faults yes, but if anything it's become a victim of it's own success, nothing to be upset about. My user page say's I'm proud to be a Wikipedian and I mean it. :-) 35px. — Realist² 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::You really didn't miss anything; it can't be overstated just how bad Wikipedia was until about 2005-06, when the Seigenthaler incident shook the Cabal out of their total grip on power. In a collection of links regular readers of this page may have seen before, since nothing so graphically demonstrates how bad things were, it's only four years since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_Noah&oldid=2277492 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&oldid=2284269 were] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugene_Wigner&oldid=2312944 considered] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mortimer_Adler&oldid=2671361 to] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horseshoe&oldid=2723049 be] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spacecraft_propulsion&oldid=2188052 our] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nude_celebrities_on_the_Internet&oldid=2277246 best] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leet&oldid=2199707 articles] (yes, they were all FAs in 2004). For those who look back to the golden age of Nupedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donegal_fiddle_tradition&oldid=246520 this] was what a peer-reviewed, expert-assessed etc Nupedia article looked like. – iridescent 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we've come a long way, anyway I'm off to bed, early morning and a long day tomorrow. — Realist² 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:Hey Realist, you asked me for a review... I was going to do it this weekend, but if you haven't reached point 6 yet, then do I need to go further ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:This page gets more surreal by the day. – iridescent 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::OOh, your second one in three days! – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::That was a bit of an in joke and there's no reason you should know Wikipedia internal politics. You may not be aware that not only am I an extremely vocal opponent of that particular barnstar, which was named by The Cabal after a rather obnoxious editor from Wikipedia's early days - I provided the link above for a reason - but that "my regulars" were among the driving forces behind the successful deletion of the Award Center (and most of the participants above were involved in a very foultempered discussion last week about the devaluation of barnstars). I appreciate the sentiment (and I mean that), but I'm probably not the best person to be giving barnstars to. – iridescent 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Wait what? Why did you vote to keep it on the TFD if you are an extremely vocal opponent of it? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Uh... did you read the TFD? – iridescent 00:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yes, you said "Strong keep". You did agree to a rename, but there's already a plain barnstar for vandal fighters in existence. We don't need two, one is redundant. And besides, strong keep, not just keep. I'm confused. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Deleting one of Wikipedia's most frequently used templates and back-door replacing it with a totally unused one is not an appropriate use of TFD. This is why we have talkpages. – iridescent 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::OK. But I doubt many people look at the talk page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::To be honest I doubt anyone does. But you have to go through the motions or the Consensus Zombies will eat your brains.20px Image:Consensus zombies.png

:::::::::How to change Wikipedia policy the cynical way; start discussion on a talkpage that's undoubtedly appropriate; give it a month; when nobody's complained, you have one vote in favour and none against. This is a clear majority of 100%; you then change it unilaterally and see if anyone complains. – iridescent 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::(If a certain Retired Editor or one of his socks is still watching this page – and I'm sure you are – you will no doubt see the irony in my giving this advice. You will also, however, note that "your" versions are still in place.) – iridescent 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the {{tl|prod}} tag from Arthas: Rise of the Lich King, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{tl|prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Kanaru (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:Fine, we'll do it the slow way. – iridescent 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

{{talkback|Neurologic}}

Forgot to talkback to you last night. Neuro√Logic 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIridescent&diff=255979779&oldid=255979629 ROFLMAO!]---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I saw this on my watchlist:

Iridescent (Talk | contribs) deleted "Roman Caholic Bishop of Gibraltar" (Speedy deleted per CSD G3, was a redirect created during cleanup of page move vandalism.)

I'm just wondering why you say this was vandalism? When I started the article Roman Catholic Bishop of Gibraltar I made a typographical error on the title so I moved it to the corrected title and tagged the redirect for deletion, that's all. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 18:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that it's just a typo; the appropriate speedy criteria for that is R3, rather than G3. Besides, it's not as if the deletion statement reflects poorly on you; nobody's going to think you're a vandal. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

::I was just wondering why, incase I'd made a mistake with the deletion tag without realising or something... --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:::What EVula said – the combination of "page move", "3", and "lack of sleep" – because of a Certain Problem User I regularly deal with, G3 is my usual reason for deleting pagemove redirects. Don't worry, nobody's going to think you're a vandal because of it! – iridescent 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

::::No worries. ;o) --Gibmetal 77^talk 00:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Irid, I know you've been interested in the past but I was wondering/hoping if the offer is still open. Would you still care to be involved in my RfA nomination? All the best, — Realist² 12:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRealist2&diff=256451597&oldid=256439590 ✓ Done]. This should be an interestingly bumpy ride. – iridescent 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::Appreciated. As I already said to Balloonman, it won't be going live until Saturday. I have a shed load of work to hand in to Uni before X-mas and these Britney Spears articles are being editing incorrectly every three minutes. I can dedicate my full attention to it on the Weekend when my holidays finally begin. Thank you Irid. — Realist² 18:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am but a worthless well of ignorance. I'm sorry to make a whole topic of this, but what is TPS? And based on your understanding I don't know what that acronym is, also explain a few other acronyms you believe I would not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bieser (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:You mean you didn't put the new cover letter on your TPS report? Didn't you get the memo? Tan | 39 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::I am not a dictionary, and we have (literally) thousands of abbreviations here. To find out what any of them mean, just enter them in the search box with "WP:" in front of them (e.g. WP:TPS, WP:RS, WP:FOOTYN). – iridescent 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, somebody wrote a longer statement than me!!!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:Something gives me the feeling this one's going to get a lot of long statements… – iridescent 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::Hmm. — Realist² 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:I have my oppose ready for when this RfA gets transcluded, on the basis of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Realist2§ion=11#People_who_hate_me_-_Lol_this_will_grow_with_time]. I think everyone ought to know by now what a stickler I am for the strictest possible observance of WP:CIVIL. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::Realist, make sure you tell us 20 minutes before your RfA goes live, that way we can block MF for a week ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I'd take it as a compliment to be ranked above the user below you in the "troll" ratings. Or at least, an achievement. – iridescent 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::My (admittedly small) army of sockpuppets is already on the alert, and at least one of them would be able to unblock me anyway. Am I kidding? Who knows. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::::How do you spell Myspace?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::These days I'm actually on reasonably friendly terms with all those people on the list. As you will see from the links on Balloonmans nomination of me, I've recently been helping Ynot4tony. I often find it's the people I have the strongest disagreements with that I go on to become friendly with. — Realist² 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::It seems a bit unfair that you get things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Realist2&diff=221598195&oldid=221572166 this] while I just get [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=243231243 this]. (If you're really friends with Jeanne, I wouldn't boast about it.) – iridescent 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::How gay.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Seemed like a well-reasoned pov to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Which? Or both? – iridescent 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Neither actually, I was just being ironic. Or failing to be ironic. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, just to say I wish Realist2 well in his (her?) upcoming RfA. To anyone who may have been inclined to take the the above discussion seriously I hardly ever bother voting in RfAs, and I certainly won't be voting in this one either – even though Realist2 did sink my last RfA, almost single-handedly. I don't bear grudges, I just have a belief that what comes around goes around; some call it karma. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was on the other side of this point the other day at RfA. I fully agree that we should expect adminship candidates (and ArbCom candidates, too) to be able to tolerate and cope with incivil, personal attacks. Even though they can survive the experience, it doesn't mean that we should ignore or tolerate such conduct.

Kelly appears to be here – after a year of non-participation – to leave a nasty little 'fuck you all' for the community. The tenor of her remarks makes it clear that she's not interested in contributing to the Arb election process, nor that she wants the election to have a useful or productive outcome. While there are other votes at (for example) Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat which criticize the candidate (and I agree that a couple of those are shading into personal attacks), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/White_Cat&diff=prev&oldid=256480988 Kelly Martin's vote] is certainly among the least constructive. Calling him a "nationalistic edit warrior" and suggesting that that uniquely qualifies him to be an Arbitrator is just wasting everyone's time. Other participants who leave negative remarks are at least interested in choosing candidates who (in their estimation) will serve competently and effectively.

I'm not going to comment further on Kelly's talk page, because it's obvious in retrospect that I'd just be feeding the trolls. However, if she decides to do anything else that's pointy, I'm going to block her until after the elections. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:I'm no fan of Kelly's (to say the least) – although I do have a pithy quote from her on my userpage, and I do think that she makes the occasional good point amongst the chaff – and I do agree that bothering to comment on her talkpage just fans the flames. That said, I'd strongly disagree with any block, unless she gets really disruptive; quite aside from giving her and her buddies another martyr, she'll instantly retaliate, with some justification, by pointing out that none of the other abusive opposers are being blocked. (She's by no means even the most obnoxious "oppose" voter – that would have to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008%2FVote%2FKmweber&diff=255212897&oldid=255212301 this blatant personal attack].) When all's said and done, she is a piece of Wikipedia history (and former Arb), and there are a lot more disruptive than her still freely editing away. – iridescent 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:That's the spirit, TOAT; bugger this new-fangled freedom of speech. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Never had free speech here; never will. That's what blogs are for. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Curious that you equate anarchy with free speech, although not entirely surprsing in an environment apparently designed and run by 10-year-old children. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::::I thought that the plain language of

:::::"Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia."

::::was sufficiently straightforward. Kelly's actions don't have anything to do with improving the encyclopedia; indeed they explicitly aim for the opposite. They're gratuitously insulting, to boot. Malleus, I don't know you from Adam, and as far as I know I never ran over your puppy dog — why are you trying so hard to get a rise out of me? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Kelly wasn't posting to the encyclopedia; she was making a comment at some daft election that hardly anyone cares about. If you find that hard to understand then you and I had better simply avoid each other in the future, because my tolerance for idiots is notoriously low. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::#User talk:Kelly Martin#Your 'votes'

::::::#Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008

::::::#[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21362&st=202 Wikipedia Review]

::::::#Somewhere else

::::::All much more suitable places to carry on this debate. I now know how Keeper feels. We're electing a bunch of people to discuss the appropriate method of sourcing Franco-Mongol alliance and whether 24, 27 or 31 hours is the appropriate time for a vandal-block, not electing the Long Parliament. – iridescent 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Iri. I was wondering if you'd mind giving me a quick editor review if you have the time, as I seem to see you around in several places where I hang out too. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing your views on how I act at RfAs, since I've heard that some people disagree with the way I've brought myself to the table there. No worries if you can't, just an idea :) Cheers! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:(Shameless cut and pasting a reply from last week)

:Balloonman or Useight are usually the best ones to ask regarding editor reviews. If they aren't able to do it themselves, they should be able to suggest someone who can. I don't generally do ERs (aside from a few "specialised" situations such as this), as I don't really agree with the whole ER/coaching setup – in my opinion, "consensus" is something that can't be taught, while you are generally better placed to judge your own problems and issues than any external observer. (If you make a lot of edits, and don't have any warnings on your talkpage, chances are you're doing it right.) Besides, I disagree with (and ignore) large chunks of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, whereas ER is about "doing things by the book". – iridescent 23:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:(adding) Despite my reputation, I don't actually have that many dealings with RFA; my reputation there I think largely stems from my Very Long Opposes on John254, Elonka and Shalom Yechiel, and the consequent fallout from them. Someone like Balloonman, Useight or EVula is probably far better placed to advise on the "right" way to comment at RFA. – iridescent 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not sure you got what I meant by what I was asking, but hey, you might have been, but I'll try to clarify. I'm not looking for a "right way" or anything like that, this isn't so I can go out and pass an RfA; instead, this is so I can help understand my behavior their better because I really don't want to come across as some mardy teenager. I was just wondering if you'd ever thought something I said there was out of line in particular, and if so, if you could raise it at my editor review page. No pressure, though! Going to bed so I'll reply in the morning. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:::As I say, I don't believe in a "right way"; I think a number of our core policies, notably WP:CIV, WP:COI and WP:SOCK, are hopelessly unworkable and steadfastly ignore them. In my opinion, you should be able to say whatever you like at RFA up to and including a torrent of personal abuse, providing you can demonstrate that it's in some way relevant, and providing you don't then object to people then holding it against you. This is so far removed from "policy" – which in practice means "whatever the gaggle of 14-year-olds that constitute the Civility Police believe that particular week" – that I don't think it's appropriate for me to be giving advice on "correct" conduct at RFA. – iridescent 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am largely not here due to being really busy (last year of university) but I still pop in occasionally. Anyway I was wondering if you (or any TPS) would look over this situation or provide advice as COI to this extent isn't my area of expertise, not sure if it's yours but I figure you have enough stalkers somebody will. Situation: user {{user|Gaitherws311}} has a potential COI with William S. Gaither, a former president of Drexel U. I reverted once and posted on the COI noticeboard. After that he posted on his talk page saying that he talked with the creator of the article, {{user|DrexelArchives}} (COI there too possibly?), and a new version using the info he added will be posted on such date, blah blah blah. I can revert and warn ad nauseum but since this involves recruiting other people who I have dealt with/will possibly deal with for my senior year research thesis I'd rather not get involved and don't know what to do besides what I have already. Thank you muchly, --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

:My personal opinion, thrashed out during the MyWikiBiz wars – which I know is not what policy says – is that WP:COI and WMF:Privacy policy are fundamentally incompatible, and that non-disruptive COI accounts like this are better off left in place as long as they don't actively start censoring articles. In my opinion, it's better for someone reading the history of the article to be aware that the author has a potential COI; all that blocking the accounts would do is cause the editor in question to return as User:BritneySpearsFan6325 or whatever, continue making the exact same edits, but this time without the unofficial "warning: possibly non-neutral" flag that a clearly identified role account gives.

:Because of this (and also because I know nothing about Drexel U other than what's on the article, so can't judge what is and isn't valid) I'm going to recuse myself from this one; as you say, no doubt someone who does understand and agree with the COI policy (EVula and Balloonman, I'm looking at you…) will see this and give him a nudge in the right direction.

:Incidentally, have you noticed that your favorite editor has reappeared? – iridescent 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::Rather agree with your opinion. I probably jumped the gun on this honestly. Since part of the users rewrite was editing info about an alleged sexual harassment incident my brain jumped from COI to NPOV and CENSOR. Not the best thing ever, but it seems to be resolving itself with the help of another user (a TPS perhaps?). I did see that he's back. I wonder, how did I ever get so lucky? :P Since I don't feel like bashing my brains out against that brick wall and school I'm just leaving that whole thing alone. Honestly wouldn't !vote keep for the whole mess right now even if I had to.. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Anheuser Busch & Campbell Taggart is being AfD'd. It's said to be based on a Harvard Business School case study. I did a Google search in case it's a copyvio and I found a cached version of Marriott Corporation Case which you speedied as an attack page, presumably because it's unreferenced and is highly critical of the companies named in it. But it's almost identical to Anheuser Busch & Campbell Taggart so I'm unsure what to do. So should Marriott Corporation Case be restored or should Anheuser Busch & Campbell Taggart be speedied or what? Any advice? andy (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

:If I'd come across that, I'd have speedied it as an attack page as well; without sources, it's unsourced defamation of a major corporation. Given that there's already an AFD running, we may as well let the discussion run its course; someone might be able to rescue it, and if not if gives a precedent for G4 deletion should they be reposted. – iridescent 16:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey I am a person who was accused of editing articles that I have never seen before. Recently I edited The Government of France just because I was accused of doing so before. I had never looked at that article before a few minutes ago. I would like to know why you or Wikipedia would accuse me of doing these things when I never have. The only changes I have made to article are the ones I made to Knitting and the article I mentioned before, but I have many warnings telling me to stop editing articles. Articles that I have never seen mostly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyisme (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

:If [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_of_France&diff=256710365&oldid=253465133 this] was you, then go find somewhere else to do your editing tests. If it wasn't, then create an account; when you edit without an account, you share your IP with sometimes thousands of other users so you're all blamed - and blocked if necessary - for anything anyone else using your IP does. – iridescent 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite early. I'm a little confused why the Viscape page is being flagged for deletion. It it very similar to the Travelocity and Hotwire pages. (I used these as a model.) This Web site has been mentioned by many credible magazines as the place to go for inauguration rentals. This site seems to be everywhere now, and I really enjoy using it. It's not already in Wikipedia, and the language is very formal, without a hint of self-promotion. Why would this page be deleted? Dcarlow (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)DCarlow

:I've declined my own speedy-deletion request on this, and have started a procedural Articles for Deletion discussion, to get a broader consensus as to whether it warrants deletion. The most important thing missing is that you need to provide reliable sources to prove that it's notable by Wikipedia standards; e.g., computer magazines, significant independent websites etc saying that they think it's important. The decision is now out of my hands, so you should raise any points you want to make on the deletion debate. – iridescent 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you were quoting me as claiming the article had "no content" from. But, I nominated it under CSD A1 - "a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. "Which is what it is, a 1 line article which doesn't actually explain who the person is, or why he's notable. Tatarian (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:Er… The claim to notability is in the title. Peer (pre 1998) → Member of the House of Lords → Member of a national legislature → automatically notable. – iridescent 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:: Yeah... Again, I nominated the article because it was a "short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" - Directly meeting CSD A1 criteria, not because of a lack of notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatarian (talk • contribs)

:::No it didn't. I could identify the subject of the article easily. It said 1) name 2) year of death 3) peerage, which is more than enough to identify it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::::↑ What he said. There is no way this possibly fails our notability criteria, let alone met any speedy criteria. – iridescent 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I had to come here to tell you off for having annoyingly garish signatures---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:Annoyingly garish signature? Oh, surely not? – 500x20px 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::OMG, that is truly painful viewing. — Realist² 19:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::How could you say such a thing? – 500x20px 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh no, there's more...— Realist² 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I can keep this up all day... – 500x35px 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Now I actually like that one. You should have that atop your user page, like I have my user name. Very warm. — Realist² 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Your username → [http://cooltext.com/ http://cooltext.com/] → Special:Upload. Fill your boots. – iridescent 20:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Note to any Myspacers watching; if you use a gif file as an actual signature, you're violating WP:SIG and can expect to be blocked until you change it back – iridescent 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:I doan has garish sig. What u talkin about? - iridescent 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::What block evasion!!! I'm going to have to double the faux block!!!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

{{tl|pp-meta

|type=full

|small={{{small|}}}

|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

|expiry={{{expiry|}}}

|dispute=no

|icon-text=This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

|reason= {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}. If you wish to edit it, please ask an administrator to do so on your behalf, or request unprotection| in a (probably futile) attempt to prevent {{vandal-m|{{{user|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}} from using it to fry our eyeballs out}}

|explanation-text=If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it may mean the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.}}

Hello; regarding your comment in the above linked debate, could you provide a link to where the candidate claims credit for a GA? Thanks, Skomorokh 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:He links it himself in his answer to Q3: User:NuclearWarfare/Accomplishments. – iridescent 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks, and sorry to bother you. Skomorokh 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Ahmet Maruf, an IP added in that name to the roster for that team. There is no Ahmet Maruf on the team as far as they are concerned. Here is the link to the "Under 18s" roster [http://www.wolves.co.uk/page/AcademyProfiles/0,,10307,00.html] -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

: Also, the first edit by {{user|Ahmet190790}} was to blank Alexsandro de Souza and add the information that would eventually end up at Ahmet Maruf -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::In which case it's {{tl|prod}}dable as a hoax, but – given that it's not blatant misinformation – IMO doesn't fall under G3. (I agree that it almost certainly is a hoax; having looked on the WWFC website there's no mention of him.) – iridescent 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you can email the mobiThinking page that was speedily deleted.

Thought this one had merit, actually.

Any advice gratefully received.

Doug Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwinnk (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

:Er – you don't have email enabled… – iridescent 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I had started writing my comment when the candidate had not yet withdrawn, and didn't notice that he had when I finished. -kotra (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

:Oh, no problem… Seeing the length of it, I assumed it was something along those lines. The whole thing came and went at blink-and-you'll-miss-it speed. – iridescent 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is only fair that I tell you that I blamed you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

:Someone needs to get blamed, and I'm as good a one as any. I don't know quite what happened there, and am not sure I want to know. Situations like this are where the current RFA model fails utterly. I believe you may have been in a similar situation once before... – iridescent 23:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

::This is only my third failed RfA candidate. The first one failed because of me... I failed the candidate, not the system. The second one failed because I overlooked some flaws and the candidate wasn't ready. This one failed... I'm not a hundred percent sure as to why. I suspect that there was some stuff on IRC---and by IRC, I am not sure if there was a concerted conspiracy, as was presented to me. I suspect that there is a lot of history on IRC that I am unaware of. In other words, I think Realist spends time there, and has a history there, and that history is what I do not know. I suspect that something happened there, because he did send me an email about how he was feeling good about the RfA, and then literally minutes later, he withdrew. Something happened... I don't know what... but something happened that scared/angered/discouraged him. I have been growing more and more disillusioned with how off wiki impacts wiki. (BTW, I do hope you saw the link that I was referencing when I blamed ya;-))---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I wish this "IRC killed Realist's RFA" meme would go away. AFAIK, Realist has never used IRC, at least I've never seen him. There was, I repeat, nothing said on IRC about him. If this was something to do with off-wiki, it wasn't IRC. Please stop speculating. Majorly ^talk 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm glad to hear that he hasn't been there... I trust you that there was no conspiracy... thanks for your input.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I can confirm what Majorly's saying; there was nothing on wikipedia-en or en-admins about this, and I'm reliably informed there was nothing on -es, either. That's not to say an IRC conspiracy didn't happen – R2 has come under attack from ED etc in the past, and obviously we have no control (and not much knowledge) about what happens there, or what people say in private IRC conversations – but it didn't happen on any of the "official" channels.

:::::I'd suggest it would be better for all concerned if we all let this drop unless R2 gives further background. We don't know all the details, and there's no point fanning flames between the pro and anti IRC groups. – iridescent 11:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me that it's notable. Any idea how I'd go about creating a new kit design for them? They have a rather distinct design, which certainly doesn't exist already. Stuartpgardner (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:I don't know, but if you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football there's almost certain to be be someone who'll know how. It would probably help if you went to [http://html-color-codes.info/ the HTML colour picker] and worked out the exact HTML codes (e.g., Arsenal red is #C40303) so they can just be dropped into the template. – iridescent 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::Much appreciated for pointing me in the right direction! Though I know all about HTML colour codes... *shudders* Stuartpgardner (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::It occurs to me that if it's not possible to do it the "correct" way in the template, you could always just take the image for Spurs, draw the hoops onto it in Paint, and upload it as an image. – iridescent 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Iridescent - Why did you decide this page was notable and remove the deletion template? You put in your summary that clubs that play at Levels 1-10 in English football are notable, which is of course correct - however Royal Marines play at Level 11 and obviously have never played higher as this is their first season. This page should surely be deleted asap? Sarumio (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Ah, you're right – South West Peninsula League Division One East is at step 7 in the pyramid (tier 11); I was looking at the Premier Division at tier 10. That said, although that doesn't mean they're automatically notable, it doesn't mean they're automatically deletable either, and this is a sourced and referenced article on a viable topic (plenty of other clubs in this league have their own articles). It does no harm to keep it, is potentially useful (which, as I never tire of saying, is Wikipedia's primary purpose; not "sticking to arbitrary notability criteria"), and nothing would be gained by deleting it. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you really insist, but I'll be arguing strongly in favour of keeping it; that "top 10 levels only" rule is mainly to stop us being flooded with one-line stubs on Sunday League and school teams, which this isn't. – iridescent 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Yes there are plenty of other clubs in the SWP League Divisions One East and One West who have articles but there's a good reason for this - those clubs who still have articles have played in FA Competitions (Cup or Vase in this instance). All clubs in these two divisions had articles until a while back, the ones deleted were in the same category as Royal Marines AFC - they had never played at step 6 or above and had never been involved in the FA Cup or Vase. I shall indeed be suggesting that Royal Marines AFC be deleted asap. Sarumio (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::(To Stuartpgardner and Sarumio) If you're not aware, its potential deletion is now being discussed here. – iridescent 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

? I don't see Young Artist Award as "a major award"; nor do I think of Pacific Palisades as "a major soap opera". Still, I will respect your judgment. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

:Produced by Aaron Spelling, starring Joan Collins and Kimberley Davies – it may have been a shitty show that got cancelled after one season, but it was certainly a significant one. Like I say, feel free to AFD it if you think it warrants it, but I don't see how that could possibly have been an A7. – iridescent 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

::I've declined your {{tl|prod}} on her as well. She's appeared in two major film franchises (Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre) as well as Pacific Palisades. Her roles were mostly pre-internet so she's not well documented online (although does get a respectable [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22jennifer+banko%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= 12,700 ghits] under her stage name), but there's a reasonable chance a horror-movie fan can source this one up to standard. (Article at Jennifer Banko-Stewart if any passing TPS wants to have a go – it should probably be moved to Jennifer Banko given that that's the name she's known under.) – iridescent 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In connection with the articles we've been de-speedying, you might want to take a look at the advice I have just given the author, User:Dlrpfan & see if you want to add or modify. I see some problems here, though he has very professionally avoided copyvio. DGG (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

:I think you've pretty much covered it; when it comes to this kind of thing, I generally defer to you. I suspect they won't survive an AFD debate - or retagging and one of our heavier-handed admins coming across it - but as far as I'm concerned, quite aside from the WP:BITE issues of deleting a newcomer's entire history, these seem to be perfectly valid articles. I'm particularly impressed with how closely the author has avoided copyright violation. – iridescent 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Balloonman&diff=prev&oldid=258515285 What I said to Balloonman applies to you too], thank you. — Realist² 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

:I don't know what happened and doubt you want people knowing, but sorry it went so awry.. I doubt even the most die-hard opposers hold anything against you under the circumstances. While I disagree with both of them about the remedy, I'm coming to agree with Majorly and Kurt that the way this site runs itself is suffering from a serious systemic failure, of which this is just another sign; the only place I really differ from the WR hardliners is that I believe we need the replacement framework in place before the revolution, not afterwards. (Call them Mensheviks and me a Bolshevik if you want an analogy – I'm sure Kurt in particular would be delighted by the comparison.) I know I sound like a broken record on the topic, but what was appropriate for [http://web.archive.org/web/20030210072635/www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics a site with 1,000 editors, mostly highly-qualified technorati, and 50,000 articles] does not scale up to a site with 8,519,289 editors, with a disproportionate number of children, not to mention carrying the dead weight of seven years of petty grudges. – iridescent 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Star_Mississippi&curid=20057561&diff=259703425&oldid=258730148 the nerve!] Never mind the fact that WTF does non-proper name mean? Hope you have a good holiday, whichever one you may be celebrating StarM 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

:I think they're trying to say "I have just found out at school that the Japanese call it a Shuriken, so am going to go round search-and-replacing every instance of Ninja Star until I run into someone like TonyTheTiger who actually is a genuine expert and will tell me to shut up". At a rough guess. – iridescent 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

::Dissecting the possible motives of an IP editor -- and your brain hasn't gone splodey. I'm impressed StarM 00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you supply details of why this article was speedily deleted and what can be done about it. It was not a new article and I intended adding to it, but received information only today of its imminent deletion and it was already gone when I checked. Thanks, Hohenloh ⁺ 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

:This is the full text of the article. It was deleted under CSDA7 (biography with no assertion of notability); although he may well have had notable children and a notable father, unless he was himself a peer (and thus a member of the House of Lords) there's nothing to suggest that he himself was notable by Wikipedia's somewhat specific standards. If he was notable, feel free to recreate the article with references to demonstrate notability, but this was a correct deletion. ("Not a new article" was an argument in favour of deletion, incidentally; with new articles, we try to give the benefit of the doubt in the assumption that it's being worked on, but this hadn't been touched for a month.)

:Hope that helps! – iridescent 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&curid=8704260&diff=257911785&oldid=257905625 That's] you told. Now turn that music down, punk. لennavecia 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

:I like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=J._delanoy_sux×tamp=20081214210354 this guy], personally. "Horde faggot pansy ass blood elf faggot" goes above and beyond the usual "waah you deleted my band". – iridescent 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::Man, I've been deleting crappy articles for a couple weeks solid now, and no one has bothered defacing my talk page. I feel left out! ;-) Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

:::You just have to piss off the right sort of person. It doesn't have as much to do with what you do so much as who you do it to. For example, I got [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=J._Delanoy×tamp=20080320184735 this gem] back in March. I had been using Huggle for less than a month, and I had been fighting vandalism period for less than two. And (probably obviously) I was not even an admin. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Stupid links I can't read. — Realist² 18:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I assure you they're very dull {{mono|;)}} Majorly ^talk 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Rollbackers can see deleted pages now?

::::::J.d, those are some jacked up messages, for real. I get some pretty colorful vandalism, but those pretty much take the cake. I stopped half way through the first one for fear I would be left stupiderer for having read it. لennavecia 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

←Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles is always happy to oblige:

The best "you bastard, you deleted my article" is still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex.muller&diff=prev&oldid=220387352 I see no reason why to delete it, as no person whould accidentaly look up something so specific], though. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_floor_sign&oldid=210943969 Wet Floor Sign] is still the standard against which all vandalism needs to be measured. – iridescent 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:With regard to the first one, "U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day". My English skills must be deteriorating, I read it 4 times and still have no idea what that discussion was about. What ever happened to spell check, I use it all the time. — Realist² 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

::Dork language Internet culture and slang. A rough translation:

:::

::Glad to be of service. If you are still having trouble picturing TIMBERFALLSFAN (talk · contribs), [http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp312/pumpkinmuffin2008/Selina_in_RL.jpg this] (courtesy of Wikipedia Review) is roughly what you should imagine. – iridescent 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

:::OMG, you so should have warned me before pressing that link. Thanx for the translation...still very odd stuff. — Realist² 20:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the ridiculous one! Beside not being civil you are arrogant enough to think you can say those things just because someone finds out that an actress just with a few appearances isn't notable enough!... Who do you think you are? You don't speak like that to other editors! Beside that, you're an ignorant, Jaime Ann Allman's page had much more films and appearances and she was deleted because most of appearances were just one episode per show!... SavetheArchduke (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

:First, go read CSD A7 and see what it actually says. Pay particular attention to the part where it says speedy deletion is not appropriate if there's an assertion of notability in the article. Then, stop edit-warring to re-add the {{tl|db-bio}} tag; if you want it deleted, take it to AFD. I am getting fed up reverting your tag-team's edit-warring over this; if you continue disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, you will be blocked from editing. – iridescent 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::First, I don't know every detail about deletion, second I doubt that such a small article can be asserted as notable, it's chriteria is too abstract for my taste, and third I don't have to take your lack of civility and much less the threat of blocking, as if you as an editor could block or order someone to block. Who are you? What authority do you have for that? I could suggest your blocking too: your challenging of an obvious deletion reason is the real disruptive work. Why don't they block you? You're the warring one, allways deleting my deletion requests! If you think there is a war, do like everybody else and call for a third part!... SavetheArchduke (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Iridescent is an admin, and can block you. He can also delete things and decline speedies (which anybody can do, actually). That's probably why he's not blocked. Apart from the fact he hasn't broken any rules or anything. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh! Since I didn't see any mention on his personal page I assumed he was just another editor!... SavetheArchduke (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

←Was

not enough of a clue? Or the fact that there are links to my block, deletion, protection and rights-management logs at the top of this page in quarter-inch-high dayglo letters? Besides, whether someone's an admin or not doesn't give you the right to descend on their talkpage and start spouting abuse just because someone does something you don't agree with. – iridescent 17:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Realist2#Editing_genres Could you take a look at this?], I gave him a warning for systemically altering genres in the infobox of music articles. His reply shows that he has no clue when it comes to policy, that's not the concern, it's the link to Godhatesfag's.com that alarms me. — Realist² 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

:I would hope that he thought he was pasting a link to something else but accidentally hit ctrl-c on the wrong page and pasted the wrong link in (I've certainly done that in my time). My first thought when I saw that was {{tl|voa}}, but a look over his history shows that he's generally making legitimate edits. See if he gives a legitimate explanation. – iridescent 17:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

::His explanation thus far is I felt like adding a source, I just took the notion, and that was the first website I thought of. Really random, he doesn't have a history of being a troll as far as I can see. However it seems he did want to add the link and follows up with "god bless you". A really bad joke or something more sinister, who knows...We should give him more chance to expand upon his explanation though. — Realist² 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Either way, to Iridescent's reply, he still might have been surfing through the page, and as much as I doubt God is a Mac gamer, I doubt he hates fags. As a matter of fact, gay men and women have been found to have longer cerebellums, which actually make them think to be homosexual, and God made them that way. Not implying that I believe in Christian beliefs that God made every person before conception, just that if that were so, He would not hate 'fags'. Alex Bieser (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

::::File:STOP_nuvola.svg There may be a suitable place for this. My talkpage is not it. – iridescent 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, my intention when bringing this to Irids talk page was not to start some religion/political/social debate. Please don't. — Realist² 00:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent. I was drawn here by your reduced-font-size metacomment on FACs within Tony's splendid let's-machine-gun-the-admins conspiracy page.

I too am dismayed on the (very rare) occasion when I receive a generic wikilurv template or similar. They make my flesh creep and I certainly can't bring myself either to respond as I presume is hoped or to pass on or spread the lurv. So I'd like to have a warning similar to that under which I am now typing my eminently boring and deletable etc. Pardon my iggernance, but how's it done? (Just give me the link to a page that explains.)

Secondly, your CSS or other hocus pocus results in any reply to any question posted here coming out in a typeface that (at least on the computer I happen to be using right now) is peculiarly unattractive and difficult to read. (More likely this computer is not rendering the intended face because it lacks it, and is substituting something horrible). Of course I could cavalierly override all your settings, but that seems a pity: I'd lose the going-livid-with-rage background color and the other delights of your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:User talk:Hoary/Editnotice --Closedmouth (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::Neat-o. Thank you. And as for the irritation, I'm now using my main machine (set up two years ago as opposed to eight) and everything's in the same very legible typeface. -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::What font are you seeing? It should be displaying in Tahoma – which was deliberately chosen as (a) it's more "compact" than the variations of Arial/Helvetica/Univers that most browsers default to and (b) it's part of the basic font-set for all versions of Windows, all Apple products and is automatically installed with MS Word, so should display correctly on anything from Win 3.1 to an iPod; in the (unlikely) event you don't have Tahoma installed, it should just default to whatever your default proportional browser font is. Is anyone else having problems with this? If so, let me know – it's a matter of seconds to change it. – iridescent 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::I'll take a look later. That first machine is the only one I use that has Windows; it's Win2k, which refuses to die or even (probably because it's only connected to the net for short periods) to get infected with malware. The article here on Tahoma says that it comes with Win2k and even is the default sans-serif font; all I can say offhand is that it's not my setting for default s-s font within Firefox, which is my main browser on that machine. This (second, main) machine is running Kubuntu and I've never bothered to install Tahoma on it. I suppose you're doing this with CSS, and Tahoma as first choice and unspecified sans serif as last choice; if so, I fear that the problem (for my one machine) is Tahoma rather than its absence. -- Hoary (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Tahoma it is. I'm now using my Windows antique. (Gratuitous plug for the pricier Toshiba machines, or at least the older ones: this Toshiba "Portégé 7200" has outlasted two or three computers used by the missus -- one of them a Toshiba "Satellite" -- and one of my own floortops. About half a square centimetre at each corner of the screen is dingy and little hairs poke up from between the keys; otherwise, it seems as good as new. Even the white lettering is fully legible on all but two of the keytops. When this one eventually dies, I'd happily buy a replacement from Toshiba -- except that I'd have great difficulty paying money for some MS OS that I'd replace with Debian.) The computer has "Tahoma (OpenType) Version 2.80. Typeface and data © 1995-1999 Microsoft Corporation". I created a little "web" file of my own with CSS directing that all should be in Tahoma as the first choice and generic serif (no, not sans-serif) as the second. The result is similar to my view of your page, though at a greater point size. Many letter pairs (e.g. "ur") almost touch, and "th" and "tb" actually do touch. Simply, this screen font (or anyway this version of it) has so great a contrast of letter widths, and so little space between letters, that it's a lot worse than the default. -- Hoary (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I've experimentally changed it to Verdana, which is the most "generic" font family there is; what are you seeing now? I prefer keeping it as "Tahoma first choice, default font as second choice" – I think the Tahoma and Trebuchet families are the most legible for lengthy on-screen reading, but a lot of computers don't have Trebuchet installed. I'm wondering whether someone somewhere has a fiddly sig that's confusing your browser, if it's one of the old ones with a "maximum number of font changes per page" setup. – iridescent 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm now seeing text which is easy to read. Thank you! (I've never heard of a browser that gets tired of font changes, though some browsers of course have a limited tolerance for the tag soup that's pandemic in web pages.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::On second thoughts, let's take out the font altogether. That way people can specify what they want it to be. Hell, there might be someone who likes the MediaWiki defaults. – iridescent 16:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Can't argue with that! -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, since you participated in the AfD debate on this article, I'm contacting you in case you might like to comment on a move I've requested to Québécois (word). You can comment at Talk:Québécois#Requested move. Joeldl (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:That was two years ago!!!. No strong opinion, but whatever you propose be prepared to be shouted at by angry Canadians. – iridescent 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware already that this was an incorrect rollback.

Unfortunatly the grammer differences between alumni and alumnus through me off a little.

I have already apologised to the user who made the edit.

Also i do not belive that all ip edits are vandals. However i do find that most vandal edits are made by anonymous users. This however does not effect the way i treat edits. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:No problem… As a rule, if you're not sure something is vandalism, don't revert it. If it's vandalism, someone else will spot it (particularly once Flagged revisions goes live). – iridescent 18:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, the latest story is, Jackson has a rare lung condition, is near blind in one eye and on the verge of death. Again, one newspaper is reporting it and other sources are reporting on the primary sources claim. Jackson's people have not commented. This could be another nightmare in the waiting. — Realist² 17:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:Is the newspaper reliable? If it's the New York Times, it probably at least warrants an "in December 2008, it was reported…"; if it's a supermarket tabloid, MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Michael Jackson may need to come out of retirement. – iridescent 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::Aah, it's Rolling Stone, which might actually be an RS on music-related issues. Anyone watching this talkpage have an opinion on this? – iridescent 17:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Is it Rolling Stone or not, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It's coming from someone who used to work for Rolling Stone, but he's writing a book on Michael Jackson and is making these allegations which will appear in the upcoming book. I can hear the cash register now. — Realist² 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Ian Halperin is writing it, he looks like he has some good credentials behind him...but seems to have gone...down market in recent years. Anyone who has anything to do with Court TV should come under scrutiny, they made a lot of money out of portraying Jackson as a beast during the trial. — Realist² 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm really not sure about this one. A couple of threads up from this you have virtually the whole of WP:FAC, so one of them may be able to advise as to the reliability of sourcing on something like this, or Lara might be able to advise. My gut instinct is to fall back on WP:NOTNEWS and leave it for a couple of days; either he'll issue a press statement (or be photographed in hospital etc) or he won't, or an indisputably reliable source (by Wikipedia's standards; having watched one of their crews fabricate a story when nobody would speak to them, certainly not mine) like the BBC will pick it up. Unfortunately, the IPs are not always so patient. – iridescent 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::And neither are all of the reliable sources ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Having had the unfortunate experience of having the BLP-hell that is Mary Lou Lord on my watchlist, I'm inclined to discount anything coming from the author of a book called Love & Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain. (If anyone wants to take up watching MLL, do feel free; I've long ago washed my hands of that one.) – iridescent 18:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: I'd say... wait and see. If it's just ONE person saying this, it starts smelling of rumor mongering. If Rolling Stone or someone else had picked it up, you could do the "According to ..." route, but a single author, with no backup, calls for "wait and see". (See! Being talkpagemonitored by FAC is paying off!) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have hesitation whenever someone tries to profit financially, which is almost always the case with Jackson. Hopefully he will issue a statement soon, he's usually upfront and open when it comes to his past health issues. Frankly I'm gutted if it is the truth. I've watched this guy overcome almost unimaginable person issues; child abuse, drug addition, vitiligo (yes there's photographic proof for the haters), certain depression, other mental health issues, weight problems, 2 allegations of child molestation, one trial played out before billions of people, 20 years of tabloid crap (for the most part). None of that got him! Yet some lung illness that he can't control might get him? Darn, it was fun watching him stick two fingers up to every obstacle. He makes Elvis's and Kurt Cobain's problems look insignificant (all due respect to them guys BTW). — Realist² 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:Well, I think Elvis and Kurt Cobain would happily trade with him on the "not being dead" part… – iridescent 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, true. Oh well, we will soon find out. This could be a long Christmas and I'm hoping I get a PS3 for Christmas and won't want to be writing about this over the festive season. :-( — Realist² 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::It would solve the BLP problem, though – iridescent 19:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::I've always believed that most BLP issues should extend to dead people actually... — Realist² 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Dead people can't sue. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b74523_michael_jackson_medical.html Doesn't seem anyone believes the guy], is this story so nut's? So extreme? That even Fox News won't touch it? Geez. — Realist² 23:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:[http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/12/22/biographer-claims-michael-jackson-seriously-ill/ And even Rolling Stone don't want anything to do with this creep]. — Realist² 23:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

::FWIW, there was a story in the paper today of his taking possession of his new house, which doesn't seem the action of someone at death's door. – iridescent 20:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I was in the shops today and noticed a story about his new house in the sun. They called it "Thriller Villa" and said it was worth £25-ish. Not that I believe anything from that tabloid. Just glad he's OK, that would have put the breaks on a new record. — Realist² 22:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTRS says "The contents of e-mails handled by OTRS members are confidential." Unless you are actually privy to the information leading up to the agreements made ... One can certainly question, whether your recent posts are productive and/or professional. --Law Lord (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:Shoo. Just because I disagree with Sheffield Steel's and Baseball Bugs's over-egging the drama doesn't mean I support your trolling. Take it to someone who'll listen. – iridescent 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::This dif [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=259424141&oldid=259423621] means you are making a comment on something you have no knowledge of. Therefore, I think you do not quite act in a way befitting an administrator here. Obviously, you do not care for such feedback. Oh well. This, because you had already been made aware, when you posted, that the matter was handled by OTRS. Yet, you continued on a course for which you have no map. --Law Lord (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::That very well may be the case. Are you saying "[http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brugerdiskussion:Law_Lord Du er blevet blokeret i i al evighed på grund af.]" does not mean "you have been permanently banned from editing"? ([http://www.tranexp.com:2000/Translate/result.shtml Intertran] rather more poetically translates it as "you have been utterly banned for the aeons"). If you want to complain, feel free to go to RFC, RFAR, RFC/U – I'm sure you're more than familiar with the way to all three. Hell, take it to AdminWatch and I can be their test case; Tony and Malleus are both probably watching this page anyway. "This user has been banned from editing" means "This user has been banned from editing", whether or not "the matter was handled by OTRS". – iridescent 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Your statement: "This user has been banned from editing" means "This user has been banned from editing", whether or not "the matter was handled by OTRS". is not correct. I am not going to explain your error to you. Posting here was a mistake, since I thought you would be able to fathom that some things are beyond your wiki-knowledge. My apologies. --Law Lord (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I just sent you an e-mail on this matter, or at least I tried to; we'll see if it works. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:Replied. – iridescent 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What in the world would persuade otherwise apparently sane editors to become administrators? Is the pay good? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::Ah, so you've found out about the secret stash of gold bullion they pay out when you reach 2000 blocks? Why, what did you think they were raising that $6million for? – iridescent 23:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Err, think I'd better pass on that one. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, aside from the donation to the "Carolyn Bothwell Doran is innocent" appeal, obviously… – iridescent 00:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::My dream girl. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:It doubles every year. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::I enjoy getting things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=258150681 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&curid=8704260&diff=257911785&oldid=257905625 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=243231243 this] and, well, this on my talkpage. It makes me feel all warm inside. – iridescent 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::That's your acid reflux kicking in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about the Law Lord on User talk:Seicer makes for some interesting reading, especially the embittered comments by the Danish administrator. The Law Lord states that he's a cynic and misanthrope, and accordingly he spreads joy wherever he goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:Sorry to hear that you are also apparently a bad admin. Happy Christmas anyway! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

::And a merry Christmas to you. Aren't you glad that RFA passed? – iridescent 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

:Well, since the last Christmas thread got derailed rather spectacularly, lets try this again – Merry Xmas Everybody. (BTW Ecoleetage, you know that symbol means something rather different in Britain?) – iridescent 01:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

::Oh, if you want to derail the holidays, nothing beats Lucille Ball singing (?) "We Need a Little Christmas" from the 1974 atrocity "Mame": [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PT-3SrIQgM] Ecoleetage (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

:::You've just shown which side you're on in the great divide between those who've heard [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU8IQqcq270 Santa Claus Has Got The Aids] and those who haven't. – iridescent 01:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

:My eyes! The goggles do nothing! --Closedmouth (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Buccoo1.jpg (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]]

{{clear}}

Merry Christmas, Iridescent! (I just hope you celebrate Christmas, :D) VX!^~~~ 13:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

timestamp for bot User:Prom3th3an 17:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

:Merry Christmas to you, Iridescent! I hope you have a wonderful New Year! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Erm....incidentally, you wouldn't happen to be working on this at Christmas, would you? Risker (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

::::No, I don't get anything so glamorous – I spent Christmas bored out of my skull watching the aforementioned colored dots move around assorted screens, occasionally interrupted by listening to a scratchy tape. Oh, the excitement. – iridescent 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you have a wonderful winter holiday. — Realist² 16:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

:Nice to see you back. — Realist² 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

::You probably won't see much of me – my disillusionment with constant arguing with the Civility Police on one side, and dealing with Defenders Of The Wiki like this on the other, are very rapidly exhausting what little patience I had left.

::This place lately seems to be being run by a gaggle of 12 year olds acting like bouncers in a suburban nightclub on ladies night; what really brought it home was the realisation that my last significant content contribution was at the beginning of October and since then I've done nothing but mediate in playground arguments, take abuse from complete strangers, and dole out and listen to patronising advice in equal measures.

::My archive indexing, topping-and-tailing of discussions, etcetera are all part of a general "liquidation process", of putting my affairs in order to allow whoever comes after me to piece together anything that needs piecing together. I will probably still stay on Wikipedia, but the way things are going, probably not under this account. Writing articles was fun; taking incoherent abuse day after day and constantly cleaning up other people's messes is not. – iridescent 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

::: ;-(, please don't change account. Why not just change your user name like Laralove. Stop using the tools (but keep them for when your ready) and write some articles for now. — Realist² 21:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Not as easy as that; renaming would still cause the problem of everything I say being taken to have some kind of exaggerated significance and either taken as proof of The Evil Cabal's Involvement in whatever topic is being discussed, or jumped on by every IP and 12 year old as "proof" that The Rulers Of Wikipedia agree with whatever point of view happens to be up for debate. Lara's talkpage is a case in point; you only have to look at the mess it degenerates into when she's not archiving it every day, or look at the months-old flamewars that periodically sputter back to life there. Renaming isn't (I believe) an option, as renaming an account with 100k+ edits would probably fry the servers; creating a new account is also not, apparently, an option, as any account created by me is apparently now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AThe+Girl+Who+Couldn%27t+Fly&year=&month=-1 grounds] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AAccident+Waiting+to+Happen&year=&month=-1 for] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AThe+Boy+Who+Couldn%27t+Stop+Dreaming&year=&month=-1 blocking] for "abuse of multiple accounts" despite the fact that not a single one of these accounts had made a single edit, let alone a single vandal edit, prior to the Wikipedia Police blocking them – and I can't imagine any of them wanting to come back after this "you're not on the guest list, you're not coming in" routine. Seeing something like that drives home that Kurt had a point; this kind of "Kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality is as perfect an example of "power hunger" – in the sense that Kurt meant it – as could be imagined. I didn't sign up to be part of an exclusive club run by psychopaths and schoolchildren. – iridescent 22:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Well whatever you do, I hope you still edit Wiki in one form or another. — Realist² 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABalloonman&diff=260420176&oldid=260357879 this] is a hoot. Too true, too true. Not the part about BM being against consensus, but the rest. OK, maybe it's not literally true that people actually delete stuff for those reasons but you just know that people wish they could, and for that reason it's something that needs to be watched out for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:Oh, they really do believe it – "the subject of the article already has a website so doesn't need a Wikipedia page as well" was a genuine quote. Or look up to this thread (the article under discussion is Jennifer Banko-Stewart). – iridescent 02:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the oddest thing I've seen all week. So glad I have this page watchedlisted :O --Closedmouth (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:All I can think of is (a) my taking out the line breaks in the bot template somehow confused it ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIridescent&diff=260493111&oldid=260492995 now reverted] so we'll see if that makes a difference – although I can't see why it should) or (b) the very long "problems with the FA process" thread somehow confused the bot. We shall see – I've changed the archive period so as not to include the long thread on its next pass, to see if it successfully archives the "minnow" threads at the top of the page. – iridescent 15:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::I just thought it was hilarious to imagine MiszaBot panicking when its instructions weren't entirely clear and deciding, oh the hell with it, I'll just chuck it all into the bin and hope nobody notices. Crazy bots. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I understand how it feels. – iridescent 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I admit it, the peeking jimbo cracked me up. And don't read too much into my edit (though I am certain it is true), I've done the same thing to a lot of userpages -- Gurch (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't notice me slipping him in and spend ages working out where he'd appeared from… You'll have to forgive any odd behaviour today, I think reading some of the dubious sources found while sourcing Biscuit sex has warped my brain. – iridescent 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::OMG you actually wrote it. Awesome -- Gurch (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::That image is my current favourite piece of weird Commons stuff. I really don't know where they find them. – iridescent 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Commons has everything. From dead cats to lawn flamingos, truly the sum of human knowledge -- Gurch (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Rope bondage-020914-2896-24.jpg

:::::And mustn't forget Susan, Angela and their phone (see right). I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation of what this could possibly have been uploaded to illustrate. – iridescent 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Especially as there was already one of the same model except without her answering the phone for no apparent reason -- Gurch (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Well, what's the point of a model without a phone? Honestly, don't these people think? – iridescent 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::On a tangentially related note, I nominate :File:Recovered JPEG Digital Camera 159.jpg (NSFW) as the Commons image with the most misleadingly innocent-sounding name -- Gurch (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh dear lord. At least with Shankbone he puts the clue in the name so you can't say you weren't warned. – iridescent 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::AGH MY EYES! GlassCobra 21:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

25px Hello! {{#ifeq:yes|no|Your article {{#if:Biscuit sex|Biscuit sex }}was recently nominated at Did you know to be featured on the main page. The nomination has now been reviewed, and}}{{#ifeq:yes|yes|Your submission {{#if:Biscuit sex|of Biscuit sex{{#if:| and {{{extra}}}}}}} at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and}} there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath {{#if:Biscuit sex|Template talk:DYK#Biscuit sex{{#if:{{#if:|Template talk:DYK#Articles created/expanded on {{{date}}}}}|your nomination's entry}} and respond there as soon as possible. {{#if:|
{{{2}}}|Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!}} {{#ifeq:yes|yes|Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)}}

:Replied there. I don't think it's a BLP issue – it's extremely well sourced (I only included two cites as there's no point overciting, but there are literally hundreds of sources), is based on a direct quote from one of the parties concerned, has at no point been disputed by either party and was some time prior to their divorce, not "part of a post-divorce squabble" as you claim. "Should be avoided" isn't the same thing as "must be avoided"; provided a BLP is verifiable and sourced and the LP involved makes no claim to privacy and doesn't dispute the facts, I don't see the issue. – iridescent 20:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked out your userpage because I vaguely remember we interacted before, but I can't place it. Anyway, I could not help but to smile when I played the cat video of the Admin AGF editor. Nice page. Incidentally... I think those cats are mating. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:As the file name's Domestic cats breeding.ogg, I certainly hope so. God forbid Commons would ever have a misleadingly titled image. – iridescent 11:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Irridescent, I got your message, that "Editnotice" was for the Dwight Lauderdale talk page and it was to serve as a reminder only. I don't agree with the delete, but, it's not like the page absolutley has to have it or anything. :)

Thanks for the notice

— Kosh ^Jumpgate 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:I think you're missing the point – you can only create an editnotice for your own userpage or user talk page. What you did was create a mainspace article called "Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice". – iridescent 11:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bleeding el! I jumped out of my skin when Jimbo's face appeared...it's really creepy. — Realist² 02:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:{{subst:User:Krimpet/peek}}, if you want to share the joy. – iridescent 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)