This is an archive of past discussions about User:Iridescent. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Unreal. This one, you probably should contact Mike Godwin (mgodwinwikimedia.org) to notify him, since the Times is a significant enough paper that a potential copyvio/derivation from them needs to be looked into. (Aside from anything else, a Times article will become a Reliable Source, so any errors in the article will now be "set in stone"). – iridescent15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Another admin contacted him. It's also gone live on Jimbo's talk page and I have left an official statement on the MJ talk page obviously. First people were saying it isn't a copy but after I showed evidence they change their tune to "it's no big deal". I and Mr. Jackson himself have received person attacks on Jimbo's page. The Times is no longer a reliable source to use on wikipedia if it makes a direct mirror image of our work without crediting us. I could use their article on any other article relating to MJ. While in this case it's not an issue because the material is accurate, it might not be on other articles they copy and pass as their own. They have presented a mirror image, we might as well be sourcing wikipedia itself. It's also disappointing that they didn't credit us, a missed opportunity for some positive news from a mainstream publication. We get so much criticism, yet the Times thinks it's OK to copy us, they will slag us off in another article, you watch. This has also made me realize that the work I create might have a larger audience than I expected. It's weird. — Realist217:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
For background reference on a similar situation (again involving the Times), you might want to read this thread. On this occasion, an article with a hoax edit in it was used, and (until the Times published a retraction) it meant the hoax was "official" as it had been published in a reliable source. – iridescent16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi When working on the notability backlog, I noticed that you had previously marked Abigail Toyne as a copyright violation (see Talk:Abigail Toyne#Copyvio) while actually it's them who violate the GFDL by using Wikipedia material without properly attributing it. Since I didn't find anything in the FAQs myself, do you (or any of your talk page stalkers) know if the Wikimedia Foundation is actually pursuing these things, and if so where to report it? Thanks & Cheers, AmaltheaTalk23:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I've no idea, but someone reading this (probably Giggy) will know. Whether WMF would bother chasing down a violation on such a no-importance article is another matter. And well spotted! – iridescent15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact, if you want to chase this up legally (I'm not sure it's worth the effort on such a low-profile article) than follow the suggestion I give Realist2 in the thread above, as the cases are similar. – iridescent20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that thread. I think I will drop him a line, since all of the pornstar articles on that page seem to have originated here. They can still decide to drop it. Thanks & Cheers, AmaltheaTalk11:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, Mike said that the WMF can't take any action there since it doesn't hold the copyright to the articles in question. Which is true of course, I thought that they might still act as some kind of proxy. AmaltheaTalk15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please, do not delete my Bassboosa article. I know they're not a big name, but I got references to all data in their page and besides they are one of the biggest bands nowadays in Eastern Europe in terms of airplay. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandi669 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:BAND and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not Myspace or a web host, and it's not enough for you to say they're important – you need to include reliable sources to indicate why they're notable enough by Wikipedia standards to warrant their own article. – iridescent12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Blind reverts
If you disagree with information benig inserted into an article, please at least check to see what else has been done before doing a blind revert. Here you reverted a WP:DATE fix, and categorisation of the article. You might also want to note that Goal.com is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ5712:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough and apologies – although I still maintain that a €3.8M transfer is notable (that €10m figure is my error from the fee in Brazilian Reals). – iridescent12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Audio sample
Hi Irid, can you make audio samples for songs? I did ask someone else but after already making a number of them for me he didn't reply to this request. I would like one for a michael Jackson song obviously. — Realist221:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it was the nicest response I have ever given, most people would be off my christmas card list if they sent me that. — Realist200:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done with that... AGF sounds great in theory but when you've dealt with a dozen brand-new accounts adding the exact same unreferenced "fact" in a row, or someone posting over a megabyte of incoherent gibberish which somehow "proves" that you're the most evil thing on teh interwebs and/or the unwitting tool of the Cabal (not that I have anyone in particular in mind) assuming good faith can feel a bit like being ordered at gunpoint to change your religion. I seem to remember that you've been on the receiving end of my assuming bad faith (or at least, its close cousin) once or twice... – iridescent00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It goes with the territory of being a self confessed Jackson fan. Most people imagine me as naive, stupid or a child. I don't mind being one of the most hated people on wikipedia, (according to the ration of people I bump into). I usually start off really bad with someone then become friendly. I've declared war on a number of people, including admins, hehe, but it all works out. I try to assume good faith more these days, but I still have near zero respect for IP's, they are only a nuisance on the articles I work with. — Realist201:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Some IPs are very useful; most are not. Gurch did some analysis at one point that roughly 50% of IP edits are legitimate, but that 90% of vandalism comes from IPs. As I've said before, I see no reason IPs should still be allowed to edit; the 30 seconds it takes to create an account wouldn't create any delay to a genuine editor (even if they wanted to create a fresh account for each edit), while it would be enough to discourage many of the bored children and /b/ mass-attacks.
Not sure being an MJ fan really counts against you. Someone is buying those 750 million albums... If anything, I'd say it makes you less likely to be a child, not more, as he's totally disconnected from the youth market at the moment (anyone under 18-19 won't even remember him as a performer, just as "that weird looking baby-dangling guy who you wouldn't want babysitting your kids"). I think it goes with the territory of being on Wikipedia, not with you in particular; anyone who's ever worked in anything remotely controversial acquires a corona of fruitloops and fuckwits around them. – iridescent01:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Lol, indeed, someone is buying his records, it's funny how much the media portray him as finished yet his records still go to number one. The media want us to believe he has no fans left, but someone bought 3 million copies of a reissue in 12 weeks. I've been doing the figures, and its clear that Jackson's sales in this decade are very close, if not better, to the sales of Usher and Justin Timberlake. If you add in what his pre 2001 records are still selling he very easily outsells them. Of course sales are only seen from a US perspective, it's only a hit if it's a hit in America. But only 25% of his sales for the past 20 years come from the US. The US music industry amounts to 50% of the market. That means for the past 20 years Jackson has disproportionally been relying on international sales. Ultimately he is the only Western superstar that doesn't need America to generate huge sales. — Realist201:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a more interesting one to the list above is Gary Glitter, who despite being an indefensibly wretched specimen of humanity by any possible definition still earns millions in sales & royalties.Note to any outraged fans and/or lawyers – I am not equating or comparing Michael Jackson with Gary Glitter. – iridescent01:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the word "superstar" is flung around too easily. Your only a superstar when you start to break 100 million albums and most people in the world have heard your name. It makes me want to vomit when I hear people call "Rihanna" a superstar. I would call Rolling Stone, Cliff Richard and Julio Iglesias superstars I guess. I don't know what their US sales are like, probably a lot more than 25 percent. — Realist201:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd certainly add Oasis and Robbie Williams/Take That to that list; although neither caused even a ripple in the US, they'd both pass the "would be instantly recognised even by people who don't know their music" test in most of Europe. I've no idea how the Spice Girls's sales break down but I suspect they'd be in the "less than 25% of sales in the US" group as well - and certainly qualify as superstars (Madonna must grind her teeth to see Spicestill ahead of anything of hers by total sales). – iridescent02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Unbelievable sales of Spice. Still, MJ beat spice 3 times. 4 times if you count HIStory in unit sales. The days of 20+ million are long gone however. — Realist202:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
MJ would have to do something Bad like fake his own death on the day of the album release and hide for about 3 years to rack up the sales. Then at some point he would have to come out and admit it was all planned. Alternatively he could rack up the sales by fucking touring!, no chance of that though. — Realist202:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The really sensible thing would be an Asian tour - the mud never stuck there like it did in the US. A residency in Macau would probably generate more than a residency in Vegas now. – iridescent02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So far, she's remaining startlingly unvandalised. Incidentally, what's even more impressive about the sales of the Thriller reissue is that – given that it's the highest selling etc etc etc – presumably most of those purchasers already owned it and were buying it just for the bonus tracks. – iridescent15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Modest. I have 23,000 but I've only been here since the end of May 2007. I guess thats quite a lot for the time period. I use my sandbox a lot, I write whole articles in it sometimes. I mostly build articles and maintain WP:MJJ and WP:JANET (I created the second one). Then theres all the GA/FA/PR reviewing. I've started doing AfD's recently (cleaning out the bad articles in the wikiprojects), nominating rather than commenting. I'm not sure where im going next. Useight is going to coach me soon, isn't that scary. — Realist205:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're doing bulk AfDs and you have Firefox installed, then if you haven't already get on over to WP:TW and install Twinkle. The Twinkle XfD tool is one piece of Wikipedia automation that really does pay its way; just click on "xfd" at the top, select a topic, type the deletion reason into the box and press the button; the AfD set up, appropriately del-sorted, links to any previous AfDs on the topic automatically added to the discussion, the article creator notified and directed to the discussion, and the AfD discussion added to your watchlist, all with a single click. – iridescent16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Wait until you pass an RFA and find the Twinkle d-batch button winking seductively at you from the top of every page – it not only deletes the page you're currently on, but every page that page links to. A hundred bonus points to anyone who can think of a single legitimate use for this particular tool. – iridescent17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Now your suggesting that I might pass an RfA one day, lol, we have come a long way. Remember the good old days. Funny how things change, I think that's a good aspect of wikipedia. People are usually prepared to forget grudges. — Realist217:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
To a point. There are some people who don't get forgiven by The Cabal Community no matter what (see here for a particularly glaring example), and plenty of users between whom relations have broken down beyond repair (cue Malleus).
I would give my usual warning though; RFA doesn't give you any more status, and means that your talkpage always looks like, well, this. – iridescent17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
← Actually, there's one automated tool which I'll really endorse as the most useful non-specialist tool of all (as a specialised tool, Huggle undoubtedly is champion); the much-underrated AWB. It's not exactly friendly, but I keep finding new non-obvious uses for it. – iridescent19:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Risker's not a stalker, she's a visitor – her turning up on a talkpage is the Wikipedia equivalent of being adopted by next door's cat. – iridescent16:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)note: that was intended in the sense of "cute and fluffy thing coming to visit you", not "steals your food and pees on your chair" – iridescent
I'm sure you're very cute and fluffy. And possibly steal food and pee on the couch. (To briefly revive the "how editors picture each other" thread that graced WP:AN/K a couple of weeks ago, I picture you as a cross between Alanis Morrisette and John Lennon). – iridescent18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You'd be shocked how accurate that assessment is. Ermm...except for the peeing on the couch part, I don't usually do that. ;-) Risker (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hell, it could be notable for all I know... My instinct with anyone's first page, unless it's blatant spam, is always prod/AfD as opposed to speedy; that way, they have the chance to ask what was wrong with the article and think of ways to improve it, rather than go away with the "Wikipedia is run by a bunch of elitist assholes who delete articles without explanation" impression. (Which is, of course, true, but people can find that out for themselves after they've been recruited into the WikiCult). – iridescent17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Same here -- if I'd encountered it cold, I probably would have either just tagged for notability or possibly prodded after a gsearch. The only thing that put speedy in my mind was the improper removal of the prior speedy tag by the article creator. It just struck me as funny that you changed it to prod in less time than I spent waivering between prod and speedy. (When do we get our WikiRobes from the WikiCult? Or do the flowing robes only come when we reach elitist asshole rank? And should I sign your wikistalker section if I'm only watching your page for the duration of this conversation?)--Fabrictramp | talk to me17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, feel free to sign the stalker-thingy – my intention is to get a rough snapshot of the week or so until it auto-archives. Anyway, people "briefly" watchlisting this page have a habit of staying to watch the trainwrecks. (Where else do you get Nazi cats, Australian pornography, and a soundclip of User:Persian Poet Gal reading the text of WP:NOR?) BTW, not to direct people towards WP:BADSITES which are, obviously, a Very Bad Thing, but googling "Wikicult" throws up a remarkable soup of disgruntled ex-Arbs, trolls and loons. Which is which, I leave as an exercise for the reader. – iridescent18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Borderline – but I'm less than impressed by this offering. I don't think he warrants a warning – yet – but I suspect he'll be talking to us via {{unblock}} fairly soon if he doesn't calm down. – iridescent18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes I checked all his edits, I couldn't figure out if he was being anti Semitic or not so I just left it. I think his dubious votes should be removed. — Realist218:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact, if any TPSs want to go through his contributions there's some "unusual" stuff in there. Anyone who's ever interacted with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles will probably be as startled as he to discover that he's a member of the deletionist cabal.
I wouldn't worry too much about his disruptive voting - the closers will hopefully have the sense to disregard them. My instincts say /b/tard, but my AGF says "new user who doesn't know the ropes". – iridescent18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Holy shit though. I'm saving that diff. LG said delete and is accused of being a deletionist? Was that a pig that just flew by, on it's way to an ice skating party in Hades? Someone go speedy close that thing! It must be non-notable! Keeperǀ7618:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought he was a new user, but he spits out wikilinks to policy too well to be a newbie, unless I was just a retarded fish face when I started. — Realist218:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, he's not a new user. Only a matter of time before it's figured out which old user he is. And you're not a fish face. (zing!!!!!). Keeperǀ7618:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably not enough to warrant a checkuser yet – no Miami edits or sexual harassment – but see if Alison's in a good mood today. Not For Fishing and all that, but it's certainly someone. – iridescent19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The disruptive voting, drug reference and "dude" are enough for me. The only thing that I'm confused about is the account was registered Aug 8, it should've came up in the last CU. –xeno (talk)19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And I just sit back and watch? No fun, oh well I have pop corn in the cupboard and there aint nothing on TV. — Realist219:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This will seem rude, and it's not meant to be, but in my opinion a request for comment is superfluous; there is nothing to comment on. There is no conspiracy to suppress The Truth. There is no conspiracy to prevent you defending new users from being persecuted. You were not blocked in a last-ditch attempt by the Ancien Régime to hold back the inevitable triumph of your system for reordering Wikipedia.
You were warned that if you carried on making unfounded accusations you'd be blocked. You carried on making unfounded accusations. You were blocked.
If you want to waste yet more of your time with your "Juan Perón of Wikipedia" "only I can save the project from the forces of The Cabal and those who stand against me must be made to see the light" routine, go right ahead. I have no intention of wasting any more of mine. Should by some chance you, or any participant in this "discussion", make a valid point, I'm sure somebody will let me know. – iridescent18:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to comment here, Iridescent. I have no intention of arguing this here, this response is simply a reflection of the courtesy of your response to my invitation.
You have said that there is nothing to comment on. I don't think that's true, but I'm not ready to pursue WP:DR beyond preliminary examination in my own user space. You blocked me for one set of reasons, and in my unblock request, I addressed those specific reasons. However, I was warned for different behavior, and the RfC has started by addressing only the warning, first. Issues easily get mixed, impressions from one incident get mixed up with impressions from another, and so I'm just starting at the beginning. I was warned for making one edit. See User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block; there is enough there to quickly see it. A record of my relevant edits before the block is at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block/Evidence, but you don't need to look at that. As far as any question raised so far in this RfC, your block hasn't been examined. Just the warning on which you based your block when asked. I'm aware that there were other warnings, I'll get to them. But if that first warning was proper and correct, then the whole thing is over very quickly. I'll apologize for the fuss, and get on with whatever comes next, and mere technical objections to what happened later, I'd consider moot.
There is nothing in this RfC about a "conspiracy to suppress the truth." However, you have repeated above that I made "unfounded accusations." I don't think I made any accusations at all, beyond what was established to be true. I never "accused" Fritzpoll of being Fredrick day. From the beginning of my comment on the Fredrick day trolling, I wrote that the impression of sock puppetry could be Fredrick day doing his usual, so if there was an accusation there, it wasn't an ordinary one, it was simply noting the kind of suspicion that is normal when a sock appears and says "I'm so-and-so, registered editor" in the presence of any other reason to suspect it might be true. And there was another reason, the sudden and never-explained "retirement," which resembled a characteristic action of Fredrick day. There are other problems as well; for example, I had responded to warning, and edits which you cited as being accusations were the opposite. Presumably, all this will be examined, in detail and carefully, in the RfC. I only need the participation of one other experienced editor, for this to work. I might do much better than that. The purpose of the RfC is to advise me, but a consensus developed there will be a real consensus, assuming good faith. A real consensus among a relatively small number of editors. Do we have anything else around here? What happens then is up to these editors and the rest of the community. I am not Don Quixote, I prefer to let windmills do their work.
What I really think, not to put too fine a point on it, is that Wikipedia process, under some conditions, sucks. The topic ban from DYK for Wilhelmina Will was a very good example. I pointed it out. I pointed out how it could easily be resolved, no fuss. Eventually Fritzpoll did what I'd have done next, if he hadn't gone to AN over the matter, without any necessity. And eventually the community concluded, unanimously, that WW should be unbanned, though she hadn't really changed, she made one request for help, that's all. If I had not intervened, in several ways, to allow her to feel that the community cared, I think she'd be gone. We would have lost a quite good and productive editor, over a few mistakes, blown up by a quite new editor who seemed inclined to harass -- and who disappeared once all this started to come out.
There is no Cabal, as such. There is only the default condition of nature that will exist until the community wakes up. I can't change it, the most I can do is to catalyze it. You are quite right: I can't do it alone. Part of what I'm trying to do is to find out who is around who might be able to help. I have no prejudice about that, and, should you decide to do so, your participation in the RfC remains welcome. And you are also welcome to abstain, and I have no idea which is best for the project. I probably won't be back here to your Talk until I have some clear advice from the community. --Abd (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though I'm not watching your pseudo-RFC and have no intention of reading it, you appear to have spammed your "invitation" onto at least 20 pages on my watchlist. As far as I can see virtually all of the responders have given you this advice with varying degrees of politeness, but I'll give it again: the community is never going to wake up. You are here (I assume you don't deny) primarily to use Wikipedia as a proving ground for your pet electoral theory. If you go to WP:5 – those few policies which are universally accepted as minimum behaviour standards for editing here – and click on the very first link in the very first pillar, you'll come to Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. If you don't understand that, then this is not the site for you.
You are not going to change anyone's mind on this; you are only going to waste your own time and the time of the ever-shrinking circle who still read your posts. – iridescent20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a communist everybody=everybody concept, and delegable proxy=the politburo. Been there, done that comrades :) BMW(drive)17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any ideas how to get any more picks of MJ on the article then? We really need a Dangerous era picture and a recent picture. The free use thing just isn't happening. — Realist200:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said (somewhere, can't remember where) you could probably make a fair use case for images of him through his career as his change in appearance, clothing and surgery-wise, are both significant subjects of discussion. Something to do if you haven't already is post a request at fan-club mailing lists or Flickr to see if you can find someone who'll release copyright; because of Wikipedia's Google ranking, you can offer people the chance to have their (credited) photo being one of the most seen images on the net – and the top result on a Google Image search on MJ – which to an aspiring photographer could be valuable advertising as well as a boost to vanity. As Jimbo says, he's been one of the most photographed men on the planet for 30 years; the pictures are bound to be out there. – iridescent01:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've ransacked flickr twice already and I have a contact that runs a fan site, no luck there. Just gunno have to put up with that council house look as the main picture. Alternatively the statue could replace it. I don't care anyway, the free image thing is a joke at this point. I'm not of the opinion you can really understand Jackson's persona without pictures or video anyway. Most people probably read the article and still can't understand what all the fuss was/is about. I'm being coached by Useight by the way, I'm a little nerves to tell you the truth, but it's a learning experience. — Realist201:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought – and I know nothing about California copyright law – but are there any police photos of him from the trials that have been released into the public domain? – iridescent01:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Have no idea, you would think the fans would have photo's of that, but none have showed up. I wish I lived in America. He turns the big 50 in a few day's, I'm sure he would be out and about. — Realist201:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Would the White House one not be better? I know it's older, but it's far closer to what the average reader would consider "the typical Michael Jackson look". – iridescent02:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I had to look at that white house picture for 8 months straight, to be honest, when a vandal slipped his mugshot in the change in scenery was nice. I suppose I could think it over, I don't like the picture that's there now either. I always thought the super bowl what best, I think that was the height of his fame/power outside the US. Never to me though. — Realist202:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Theresa's right; /b/ vandalism is annoying but you just have to tune it out as background noise. Responding to them just encourages them. – iridescent15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask a a favour from you if you have the time. Can you please carry out a peer review of the British National Party article. as you are a disinterested party and know the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Many thanks Lucy-marie (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes but I can't promise when it will be. Note to anyone else watching this page; if anyone else uninvolved can take a look, so much the better, as a subject like this could probably do with as many eyes as possible on it. – iridescent12:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Every so often I type "huggle" into the search box and find what has been said about it recently, mainly because people seem to prefer discussing problems on each others' talk pages to reporting them to me. (So yeah, you can't utter the word 'huggle' around here without me hearing it). Thus I found this thread:
You've heard my opinion on the matter - I don't personally think Huggle should have any admin tools enabled (when I see pages speedy-deleted 30 seconds after creation I cringe) but I don't think Consensus agrees. – iridescent18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
...
Unless there's some bug I can't reproduce, Huggle defaults to a 24 hour block for anonymous users and an indefinite block for user accounts. The administrator is, however, able to change this before blocking, on the assumption that they know what they are doing. If you like, I could disallow "indefinite" as a block expiry time for anonymous users. (If it's any reassurance to you, Huggle's block function actually makes quite a few checks that MediaWiki doesn't do when you use Special:Blockip, so if anything it ought to be 'safer') -- Gurch (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what happened on this one (as I said in that thread, I knew from experience that it defaults to 24h for IPs). Unless it's a bug (in which case it's certainly no bug I ever saw) I assume the admin manually overtyped the block length. I don't see any reason to prevent it - there might be reasons for it. I deliberately didn't stick with that thread because I was already in "debate" with the admin in question over another rather trigger-happy block. At the end of the day, the bugs in Huggle do almost all seem to be ironed out; the problems now are caused by problem users not problem software. – iridescent23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, fair enough. Still, at least now I know you think Huggle's admin tools should be removed, something you neglected to mention before :) -- Gurch (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I promise, Idon't sit round thinking of problems with Huggle! (I think the original conversation between me and Useight on the subject was on Keeper's talkpage, so you probably missed it in the general chaos of that page). I don't really necessarily think they should be removed altogether - as with the incorrect reverts, it's a case of how many false positives one considers acceptable. I'd strongly endorse setting it to force admins to watch the talkpage of anyone they block, though. – iridescent14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to retract the part about my being opposed to blocking within Huggle, having just done a 200+ edit test-run and finding no problem at all with the block system. I do think forced watchlisting of anything blocked from within Huggle should be implemented, though. – iridescent20:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Fraserburgh article
Fit wye iv you ditched ma sma changes? Am fae the Broch an spik i doric ivry day, si a ken fit am spiken aboot! Can I ask ye to revert fit yiv deen?
Why have you deleted my small changes? I'm from Fraserburgh and speak doric every day, so I know what I'm speaking about! Can I ask you to revert what you have done?
You're right - entirely my fault. Grovelling apologies for that, it shouldn't have been reverted; you're quite right. – iridescent16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Huggle
You are responsible for you actions with Huggle. Please read all revisions you make, as your revision to Oil price increases since 2003 inserted a political ad with no relevance to the article as well as a list of US congressional bills which had nothing to do with market speculation. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As you're no doubt aware, I'm more than usually familiar with what is and isn't an appropriate use of Huggle and rollback. Reverting the unexplained deletion of content which is clearly not a "political advert" of any kind is, I can assure you, an appropriate use of both. The four other people who have also reverted your edits appear to agree. Your argument here, which I assume you're basing your edit-warring on, is your personal opinion and does not give you the right to revert everyone who disagrees with you. You're already well over the 3RR limit; if you carry on edit-warring over this I will block you. – iridescent18:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Huggle is for fighting vandalism. This isn't vandalism, and so reverting with no discussion is not the proper use of Huggle (from the Huggle page). The fact that this keeps getting redone by users who have never edit that page seconds after it is reverted proves that they aren't reading what's being done. And yes, some statement McCain said in a speech at some point which has no basis in economic theory (see financial speculation section earlier in the article) is most certainly a political advertisement. The remainder of the section is a list of bills having NOTHING to do with financial speculation... they were written a year before the public even knew that financial speculation existed in the petroleum market and have more to do with oil company profits and taxes. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you insist on playing wikilawyer... Huggle is an automation of the rollback process, and rollback is for "unproductive edits, including vandalism". The unexplained deletion of content against consensus is, as far as I'm concerned, clearly in that category. Your edit summary appeared – and still appears – to be misleading. Of the four paragraphs you removed, one was an uncontroversial mention that there had been government proposals to stabilise the market; one was a short quote from McCain; one was a list of US legislation that had been brought forward, all of which are, whatever you might say, directly relevant to the article, and one was about the passing of the NOPEC Act, again directly relevant. The only one of those four you could make a valid case for removing would be the McCain speech, although I personally would say that, given the political timing, any commitments McCain or Obama make will have direct impact on the markets.
This article has many problems, notably IMO too sharp a focus on the impact on US consumers and far too little on demand management, but the addition of these four paragraphs was not one of them. – iridescent18:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So, in effect, what you are saying is that you will accept a revert, if it is not from huggle? Since you are quoting rules, did you read the WP:3RR? No it is not covered in the exceptions either.I reverted it because you had deleted the section on 4 separate occasions. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You won't like this, but if this is the revert in question I think he's in the right; you seem to have based your rewrite on outdated books, and on official websites which are often deliberately (or accidentally) inaccurate. Some that are jumping out at me are:
Not all forces have a two year probation period and not all have a four year service requirement for firearms;
ARVs have no particular resemblance to a US SWAT team;
"Criminals are unlikely to carry firearms due to United Kingdom gun laws, and the presence of an armed officer can be enough to negotiate their surrender" is pure original research;
"A high ranking officer such as Chief Inspector or Superintendents can give the order for Authorised Firearms Officers to draw firearms from the secure cabinet in the boot of the Armed Response Vehicle" is outdated and incorrect – although this was procedure way-back-when it has not been the case for many years;
"In response to the 7 July 2005 London bombings the order was given that police firearms officers "shoot to kill" instead of aiming at the central mass to incapacitate" is not only untrue, it is a politically motivated statement which I assume you've taken from a campaign-group website; while there is a set of rules for dealing with possible person-borne explosive incidents (Operation Kratos/Operation Andromeda), they date from long before the 2005 bombings;
"Specialized" is an American-only spelling and inappropriate for an article in British English on a British topic.
When I write about the high ranking police officers... this is all about when this was the case. And I know it dont happens now, I will fixed the things concerned would that be better? Plus, I wasnt really hoping for any answer in particular its just that I am here to help Wikipedia not upset people or get upset by people, if that was my gole I would go to a place that helps people looking for that, I just thought I should sought your advice to you being pretty up on Wikipedias policy, plus I respect you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Please, don't think anyone's out to get you and apologies if I (or anyone) is coming across as patronising. As someone said on your talk, you both seem to have valid things to add to this one. Be at least slightly careful, though, as some of your additions are undoubtedly inaccurate, in particular, "shoot-to-kill" is a very sensitive topic. – iridescent20:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No not at all, the above passage was not relating to you. It was just a general thing about Haboken, I'm sorry if it was written in a way that seemed against you. Furthermore, I have deleted/tweaked what you brought up in an effort to keep everyone happy, based on your suggestions. If you wouldnt mind having a look that would be great, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺20:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look when I get the chance, but I won't get involved in editing; there's too much of a potential COI (not in terms of bias, but in terms of adding/removing content based on experience rather than sources). It's actually harder to write about what you do know than about what you don't. – iridescent20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In your personal opinion, do you actually think that character was an officer. Its just that my first insticnt told me no, because surely if you was a professional police officer, you would not use that in a petty discussion over the internet, unless you had been threatened by violence or something like that, what do you think if you dont mind me asking? Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺20:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's reasonably likely; they have a history of edits to Derbyshire Constabulary. A lot of police officers do edit Wikipedia (and often don't have the common sense to log on when vandalising Wikipedia or inserting biased material – see these fine offerings by the supposed "intelligence" unit that is the Central Communications Command, or these contributions from the Wandsworth Parks Police for example). Whether s/he is or isn't a police officer shouldn't make any difference as to how we judge their edits – "but I'm an expert in the subject" is generally said shortly before being blocked for edit-warring. – iridescent20:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, due to me wanting to join the Ministry of Defence Police I am think of writing to them and seeing if they'll have me for a day. I'd never thought of it before, but where I volunteer an ex-MDP officer come in and we was talking about all that, and he said 9/10 they'll let me. What do you think? Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Without knowing you I can't really judge. Military policing is a fairly thankless job – mostly Doors, Posts & Gates work – so you've probably a better chance with them than with a "normal" police force – but don't expect the variety or excitement. Obviously, if you're not 100% sure you'll pass security clearance, don't bother applying as they're vetted more thoroughly. The other thing you might want to consider is becoming a PCSO or Special – the entry procedure is a lot easier, and it gives you a "taste" of the job before you decide whether to commit to it. – iridescent21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Internap Network Services Corporation
Internap Network Services Corporation is a public Internet service company and it's fairly well known (eg among the NANOG crowd, which contains a lot of big names in that industry), and has been around since 1996. To avoid conflict of interest, I introduced it explicitly as a stub and was very careful not to place advert-style text on the article, allowing others to add to it. Could this deletion please be reversed?
The full text of that article read "Internap Network Services Corporation (informally Internap) is a public Internet-based product and service company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Internap's headquarters office occupies most of the Bridge level of the American Cancer Society Center." By all means feel free to recreate it – it's not protected against recreation – but that was deleted correctly as the article contained no assertion of notability. – iridescent20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
riot grrrl
i'm sorry you mistook my edits as vandalism. if you read the interview or search the article history, you'll find i was simply restoring the full quote.:)80.42.12.4 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! You reverted my edit here. I hope you to read Wikipedia:Removing warnings. "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. However, after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the vandal warning, is acceptable. Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings.". Thank you.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems it's not accepted to delete warnings. Ilyushka88 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as an addition: Sorry I made a mistake and accidentally added the warnings back before talking with you first. My mistake. Won't happen again. Ilyushka88 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually appreciate where you pointed me. I was just trying to add the official bio of one of the hosts of a Reelzchannel show. I'm not bothered if it's taken down as I'm still learning the process and appreciate your advice. Much enjoyed reading your pages. cheers!--Amyreelz (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you give me some help and advice in dealing with User:The Rambling Man as the user is currently doing my head in and making wikipedia not a place that edits are wanting to be made by myself.--Lucy-marie (talk)
What is he doing? (I can't see anything from him on your talkpage). I know him vaguely from Norwich City F.C. and haven't ever seen him doing anything I'd consider particularly out of line.
If he's doing something that's specifically enforcing policy, as opposed to pushing his particular view of how an article should look, then assume he's probably correct; he's one of the 12 bureaucrats on Wikipedia, which means that, while he's not necessarily any better at writing articles, he's broadly trusted when it comes to interpreting policy. – iridescent14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Have found the conversation I assume you mean in your archive; I won't have time to go over the whole thing today but I'll run through it tomorrow & see what's going on. – iridescent14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
With the strong disclaimer that I haven't read any of the discussions relating to the redirects that took place anywhere other than on User talk:Lucy-marie, if any; my take on the above points, in order, would be:
You were clearly wrong moving things to typos (fpptball etc) and I assume you don't object to TRM (or anyone) pulling you up on that particular issue.
I don't think it's unreasonable/stalking for TRM to have gone through your other moves once he'd noticed you making mistakes, to check you hadn't made any others – it's the same situation as when you were being attacked by Canterberry and his socks and EdJogg & I went through his contribution history checking if anything needed reverting.
This is where it gets into personal opinion, as to whether "football", "soccer" or "association football" is the best name to use. My personal opinion is that, although "football" is an ambiguous term (especially given that Wikipedia is an American website), there are enough people on Wikipedia who use it as a synonym for "association football" that it needed at the very least to be discussed at WikiProject Football, since any move would create such a huge number of double-redirects. There's a second issue here as well in that the positions (striker, midfielder) were terminology that isn't used in American football, rugby, Aussie rules etc so there wasn't a confusion to clear up – although I do agree with you that standardisation is generally a good thing and it would have been messy to move some positions but not others.
Neither of you seem to come out with much credit in the editwar afterwards. You both should have gone straight off to WT:FOOTY to discuss this rather than snipe at and threaten each other. In particular, TRM shouldn't have started threatening blocks quite so early, and LM should have gone off to get a third opinion on the matter far earlier.
This wasn't very helpful by TRM who at no point (that I can see) had actually explained to you properly what the problem with your edit summaries was.
My conclusion on the whole thing would be: yes I agree TRM seems to have acted a bit snappier than the situation warranted, and you probably deserve at least some kind of apology and "I'll be nicer". However, I don't think he was wrong in reverting you or asking you to stop. WP:BOLD is in general a good thing, but it cuts both ways; you're perfectly entitled to take bold actions, but other people are perfectly entitled to undo them.
As per your metrication of UK distances last year and the kerfluffle that caused, sometimes there are good reasons for things to be in a non-standard format, and for anything that's going to affect articles that are worked on by a large number of people, it's always good practice to discuss it with the people who will be most affected by the change. You (LM) do do a lot of good things, but you sometimes insist on what you consider to be the right view, even when most of those affected appear to disagree with you (WP:24, WP:UKT, WP:SKYSCR etc). It never hurts to ask other people, and sometimes there are good reasons for things to be the way they are, even when it's not obvious.
Hell, sometimes there isn't a good reason for things to be the way they are but people still insist on it; that's both the biggest problem with Wikipedia, and the reason Wikipedia is one of the most successful websites of all time, and the reason Wikipedia works while Citizendium, Knol, MyWikiBiz and all the other wannabees are failing; Wikipedia's structure does cause some arbitrary value-judgements to become set-in-stone policies for no good reason, but it also forces people to collaborate even when they don't agree.
(And just a quick resp to your point 5, I guess I over-reacted to the fact that the only edit summary that LM had provided during this was to have a dig at me... but you're right again, pointy and unhelpful as I'm sure it won't make any difference... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC))
A further suggestion
A further suggestion, only tangentially related to this particular issue; I think the root cause of the problems you (LM) have historically had on Wikipedia stem from the facts that you tend to do lots of little-bitty edits spread across a large number of articles, and that your interests tend to be shared by large numbers of other people, many of whom get very heated (politics, architecture, popular TV programmes etc). Something you might be better suited to is, instead of making strings of edits to high-traffic articles that then get reverted and land you in arguments, pick a few important-but-obscure subjects on which we either don't have articles or only have a low-quality stub, and work on expanding them. Doing this has a lot of benefits:
The obscure articles are where Wikipedia really shines. No matter how good our article on Michael Jackson gets, for example, people will always be able to find information about him of a comparable quality on the other encyclopedias; for someone wanting to find out who obscure early-80s punk singer Beki Bondage was, on the other hand, Wikipedia is the only significant source.
The less-trafficked articles tend to be more stable, and give you something to point at and say "I did that". Were I to do a total rewrite of Buckingham Palace, for example, within days it would be edited to shreds by a horde of others. My (much maligned) Broadwater Farm article, on the other hand, is now the primary online source for information about the area (and the only thing a Google search throws up that isn't either about events 20 years ago, or council vanispam). Even though BP gets 68000 hits a month while BWFE only gets 1700, there's a satisfaction in knowing that it's my article they're reading.
Obscure pages are generally easier to work on without being hassled and give more leeway to do things "your way". If you work on high-profile big articles, you have to put up with insanity like this all the time; if you work on relatively minor things, people tend to leave you alone. The aforementioned Broadwater Farm article is, fairly notoriously (read the talkpage) a living, breathing example of how to write an article whilst totally ignoring the Manual of Style; were one to apply WP:IAR and WP:BOLD to this extent on an article "owned" by a project I'd be ripped to shreds (as you've repeatedly found out), whereas here, people leave you alone if you can make a valid case for "I think it's better this way", and you're not constantly fending off the self-proclaimed style police and their "zOMG you put the footnotes before the punctuation!" and "oh noez you forced an image width to over 200 pixels!" screechings.
Article writing isn't anywhere near as hard as it looks. This expansion was done in about 25 minutes, entirely from a google search, to prove a point to someone who said Skipton railway station was too dull to ever be expanded into a viable article, despite my never having been there and knowing nothing of the subject.
The article writers do tend to give off an air of arrogance and sometimes give the impression that they look down on the formatters, vandal-fighters etc, but it really isn't anywhere near as hard as it looks. From experience, I know that you are a pretty good writer; you just tend to throw yourself into areas where other people come into conflict with you and revert you. My advice would be to ignore the "nuts and bolts" side of formatting, spellchecking etc – there are thousands of others doing that – and to work on getting a couple of substantive Good Articles under your belt. Aside from anything else, people will generally take any arguments you make far more seriously if you have a solid list of contributions you can point to – that's why you always used to lose the permanent arguments with One Night In Hackney, regardless of which of you was actually "right". If you haven't already, I'd urge you to read Giano's article-writing essay; although it's aimed at the Featured Article crowd (who I generally steer well clear of – I've never once worked on an FA and doubt I ever will), if you follow it in general you can't really go wrong. – iridescent15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The article writers do tend to give off an air of arrogance and sometimes give the impression that they look down on the formatters, vandal-fighters etc, but it really isn't anywhere near as hard as it looks. - Realist is taking his blood pressure pills. LOL. — Realist217:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it really isn't hard. Researching can be hard, weighing opposing sources can be very hard, and following the Holy Writ of the ever-more-arbitrary Manual of Style can be damn near impossible (for the ever-shrinking circle who still pay attention to it), but article writing really is just a case of "insert a after b". It's slow and it's tedious, but it's only as difficult as the topic you choose. As long as you're on an uncontroversial topic, it's perfectly possible to create a perfectly valid GA in a couple of hours. – iridescent17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
LM reversion
Okay, well I'm confused now. LM needs to know that reverting edits like this need explanation. But alright, I get the point, I'll just let her do whatever and you (if you want) can deal with the repercussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong; without an edit summary to explain why it was reverted, then at the very least she was being bitey in removing content without an edit summary – and she's certainly been here long enough to know that. All I was trying to say is that it wasn't necessarily a bad revert, just a badly done revert. Semantic difference I know, and she's an established enough editor that she should know better. L-m (I assume you're reading this), please take on board what people tell you, even when you don't like the way they tell it. – iridescent20:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess - although it's not really my thing; you've happened to come across me on the first day in two months that I've used any kind of automated tool other than Twinkle; I've been plowing through bunch of diffs with Huggle trying to replicate a bug (see the conversation with Gurch above), and any vandal-cleanup is collateral. (For the record, the indef-block isn't replicable but I've found that CSD A7 causes the program to crash.) – iridescent00:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ooops my fault – I did mean to post it at Huggle/Feedback & got sidetracked. I think it may have been a temporary glitch as I tried to replicate it yesterday and deletion worked five times in a row. Unless someone else mentions it, assume the fault is at my end. – iridescent21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't already, you should probably either tell Gurch or post at WP:Huggle/Feedback. I couldn't replicate the problem so don't have anything to add, and as Gurch says it's unreasonable to expect him to notice this here. – 무지개빛깔00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
At least I know who you are and how this page wound up on your watchlist - some of the signatures above I've never heard of.
Incidentally, have been re-trying HG today (I usually work from a mac so don't get the chance); I'm very impressed at how few of the bugs & niggles seem to remain. – iridescent21:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Alas the next version introduces a lot of features that were requested, and hence many bugs too. It is a long process fixing them -- Gurch (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
←Compared to a Certain Other Writer of Scripts, I think it's an outright miracle how well you've done with Huggle, given how many bells and whistles are tacked onto it. The worst Huggle gets is the occasional rude comment about some of its users and the odd "it crashed for no reason"; this is what comes of a genuinely buggy automated tool. – iridescent21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just waiting for the complaint... I had all the dead space at the top of the page, thought I may as well put something in it. – iridescent16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack and not assuming good fait by User:Emeraude
I don't really consider that a personal attack, more of a content dispute. I suppose technically, they are accusing you of forum-shopping, but they're not being particularly uncivil about it; the talk page does look fairly moribund. If it does carry on, the best thing to do is post at Wikiquette alerts as opposed to here; because I've dealt with you in the past I can be accused of bias (both pro and anti you).
I think the current version of the article in question looks fairly balanced and stable. For what it's worth, I think "far right" is more accurate than "fascist". I'd strongly suggest getting someone totally uninvolved – and ideally not based in Europe, let alone Britain, and with no strong political leanings of any kind, to have a look at it – as anyone in Britain is likely to have strong opinions on the BNP. I agree with the original reviewer that six {{citation needed}}'s in one article is too many, especially on an politically charged topic like this. One of my talk page stalkers may see this and take a look; otherwise, the names that spring to mind are Jclemens, Epbr123 or DGG. Don't be surprised if some or all of them want to stay away from a topic like that that's likely to lead to a flamewar, and be prepared for people to disagree with you. I'd also suggest BrownHairedGirl who writes a lot on British politics, but I know she's away until next month, and the most obvious peer-reviewer of all for an article like this is Jennavecia – however, while I'm sure she wouldn't object to your asking her, would probably decline as her talkpage has still fully to recover from the flamewar & backlash the last time she touched a "white pride" related topic.
Sorry I can't be more help... I'm not trying to wriggle out, but you really do need someone totally uninvolved for something this sensitive. – iridescent16:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As the user complained of, may I thank you for your decision above and also give some detail on the BNP article.
You are probably not aware that Lucy-marie has a long history with this article of opposing any mention of the word "fascist" as a descriptor of the BNP and, indeed, the word was constantly inserted and deleted over a long period until respected academic sources were cited to back up the use of this word. Lucy-marie then changed tack, and picked up on the fact that some of the references were three or four years old (not unusual when looking for information on a minor party which is, therefore, a somewhat specialist area for political science academics) and that the party has changed, but despite repeated requests from other editors neither she or ant of several others has posted any reliable contrary evidence. Now, I'm quite prepared to accept that some people do not think the BNP is fascist and am aware that the BNP has itself attempted to distance itself from its fascism, but, I repeat, no reliable sources have been produced to substantiate the objective view that the BNP is fascist. And believe me, as a political scientist by background, I have scoured the literature myself in vain. Incidentally, you will probably find that some of the "citations needed" tags are there because the BNP removed from its website things that were previously cited - a number of editors have been trying to track down alternative sources for these.
My annoyance with Lucy-Marie stems from what appears to me a blatant misuse of Wikipedia procedures in an attempt to have her own way when she has lost the argument. In this regard she has a history in other topics. If all else fails, she has a history too of reporting other users for personal attacks. It's a great pity - she has made some excellent contributions (and I have even praised her in the past for some of them) and has recently started a page on school uniform that not only looks extremely promising but one which I may be able to contribute to as well.
Believe me, I'm very, very aware of the issues Lucy-marie has on Wikipedia; I'm also very aware of her unwillingness to admit when she's wrong - or even right-but-outnumbered, and the extreme lengths she goes to to defend what she believes to be right. (I was the one who got her blocked last year, and see this conversation above on an unrelated issue she's currently involved in). However, I can also see her viewpoint; she is right in that the BNP has making a conscious attempt to distance itself from fascism, and I do believe this needs someone totally uninvolved to hold the ring, unless we're to have a revival of the "white pride"/"white power"/"white supremacy" debacle of a few months ago; I'm also unhappy at (and I'm not referring to you here) the way L-m sometimes turns into a general punchbag for broader issues around any article as soon as people see her name in the contribution history, in much the same way as SlimVirgin. As I say above, you desperately need someone who doesn't care to review that article or the same edit-wars will keep bouncing back and forth. – iridescent19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would like to directly quote Iridescent here (referring to me) "whatever she's done in the past is in the past and unless you can find evidence of any current abuse by her, stop making insinuations." I think that sums up entirely this whole issue.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes – that's what I'm trying to say. I think you still have a history of not admitting you're ever wrong, but I don't necessarily think you're wrong here. I do think you need to get someone totally uninvolved to have a look at this since it's obvious you two aren't going to agree – iridescent20:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the fence now; on the one hand, there does seem enough to possibly push him from "marginally non-notable" to "marginally notable"; on the other, I'm not competent to judge which of those awards are significant. It looks like it's headed for a "no consensus" come what may; if it starts to sway towards deletion, I'll revisit it. Quite frankly, the creator's behaviour is not exactly inspiring me to put any effort into defending it. – 무지개빛깔00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as everyone else seems to be doing this, let's have a go as well... I'm curious as to who's watching this page, as the oddest mix of people seem to periodically pop up with comments here, and quotes from this page seem to turn up on assorted policy discussions, badsites and blogs at the strangest times. For my curiosity's sake, would you please add #~~~~ below if you're reading this message? Thanks! As I believe I said once before in another context, think of it as Facebook for people who don't want to show their faces.
Note to banned users; I won't count it against you, and request that no-one else does, if you sign here even if it's a technical breach of your ban. I know that some of you are watching this page (waves to Canterberry) and I'd be interested to see who. If you're hardblocked or don't want to risk breaching your ban/revealing your IP, feel free to email me instead & I'll manually add you.
Note to everyone else; this is not a guestbook but a "snapshot" of this particular week – please don't "direct" people here unless they're actually reading this page.
Dear god, what have I started. I was merely trying to prove a point to Orangemarlin. Of course I watch this page. My paranoia won't allow me to unwatchlist. Keeperǀ7617:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Lucy-marie posted hers on Aug 19. I started mine, to prove a point to Orangemarlin, on Aug 18. I'm a bit terrified at the response, really. There are several names on their I've never seen or heard before. I know of at least one other editor (steve crossin) that is looking for the same ego boost :-) Keeperǀ7618:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I'm going senile... If you want your ego re-dented, slap one on Giggy and Lara's talkpages and watch them race to 500. – iridescent18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I would put one on giggy's, but by the time it reached 300 affirmatives, there would be 100 or more non-post posts that claim that he canvassed for those 300 through sultry blogs, missives, and email attacks. Keeperǀ7618:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Only watchlisted because we had conversations on the 11th and 13th, but it's an interesting read, I might forget to unlist it... JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Please sign my !guestbook!(Eco walks across the project from the AfD forums, stops, takes out a cigarette, flicks his lighter, inhales, puts his lighter in his pocket, looks around at his surroundings, sees a list of TPS names, exhales, walks over to the list, takes out a Swiss Army knife, opens the blade, inhales again while humming "Pata Pata" to himself, carves his name on the list, closes the knife, exhales, puts his hands in his jacket pockets, walks off in the direction of WikiProject agriculture, inhaling...) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You know I wasn't, I'd just occasionally end up dropping by to read from links on the Keeper-pedia and elsewhere, but when I commented below, I never took it off my watchlist so I guess I'm here now. That makes a total of I think three watched user talks. TravellingCari12:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, TravellingCari, and welcome to User talk:Iridescent! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Um. As I believe I may have mentioned once or twice, Huggle is one of the most useful tools we have, in the hands of people who understand what it's for and what it's not for. Not all of its users meet those criteria. (And the current version is starting to look like it was designed by a committee).
Nothing on my say-so; I'm not one of those using it, so go by what the actual users are saying. It seems to me to be gradually starting to go the way of other automated tools down "the MS Word route" in bundling together so many "additional features" that casual/occasional users don't really understand them but still have an "it's there so I may as well use it" mentality. "Tagging for speedy deletion, importance/significance not asserted (HG)" 10 seconds after an obvious draft is uploaded is Huggle's equivalent of "Typo fixed: Maurice Feild → Maurice Field (AWB)" or "Deleting redlinks (TW)". It's not a fault with Huggle (or AWB, or Twinkle) but an unavoidable collision between WP:AGF and WP:ASS, since all three are software written by someone who knows policy inside out, but now used mostly by relatively new users, who often don't. – iridescent20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with going by what the users say is that they say "it's nice but can I please have feature X" thus leading to the problem you describe. So I should cut back on features that aren't directly concerned with vandalism? -- Gurch (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not and don't think I'm criticising HG, just some of its users. In an ideal world, I'd see a "lite" version that anyone with rollback gets and a "full" implementation that requires a demonstrably high clue-quotient – but quite aside from generating a huge amount of work for all those involved, it would lead to constant arguments. At the end of the day, the issue has been problem users not a problem program; the "if users misuse it it gets taken away" solution seems to be working just fine. Hell, I've done my share of "why don't you add feature X"-ing. – iridescent21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thinking off the top of my head (this is not something I've put a lot of thought into)
Huggle Lite: Revert, warn, report to AIV; monitor mainspace and userpages only;
Huggle Pro: Ability to monitor other userspaces; ability to csd/afd/prod pages, delete and block (for admin accounts)
I don't know if it currently exists, but the ability to revert pagemoves would be a very useful degrawping tool.
Don't act on anything I say here! I'm not your target market or representative of the community consensus; someone like J.delanoy would be far better placed to make a value-judgement on Huggle features. – iridescent20:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that administrators can all be considered experienced enough to have access all of Huggle's tools (otherwise, they perhaps shouldn't be administrators). I should point out that Twinkle can also tag pages for deletion, and that doesn't even require rollback, so chances are that removing it from Huggle would merely shift any inappropriate tagging that does happen to a different tool.
At the moment it is possible to revert pagemoves through Huggle by selecting "Move" and manually entering the old name of the page, but I agree that a more efficient method is needed -- Gurch (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree (and please, don't think I'm badgering you to change HG – I'm not using it, so listen to those who are). I think where Twinkle differs in the way it tags is that (unless you mess around with the settings) it auto-watchlists the talkpages of the creator of any article you tag, so at least there's a fighting chance you'll see any reply. I know HG does have this as an option, but I'd love to see it made a forced setting (although it would cause howls of protest from all your users as their watchlists doubled in size).
(outdent) I could possibly make notifications to talk pages watch the page by default. Since there tend to be relatively few of those, there shouldn't be too much problem -- it's watching talk pages of warned users that might lead to severe watchlist bloat. One problem at the moment is that Huggle only has an option for watching "notifications", which includes other things like block notifications (though one could argue that it's a good idea for administrators to watch talk pages of users they blocked, as well).
As for the version number, yes, it will go to 0.8 when things I'm currently working on are all finished (mostly concerning customization of edit queues) -- and eventually even to 1.0, though that is a long way off as several major things (e.g. interface localization, cross-platform compatibility) need to be in place before that happens -- Gurch (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to see it watchlisting anyone notified of deletions if it's possible (but again, I'm not your typical etc etc etc). When I was running it back in July I actually set it to autowatchlist even the vandals, and found that I wasn't getting an unworkably bloated watchlist, while there were a couple of cases where "vandals" I'd warned came up with legitimate explanations for their edits; the one which sticks in my mind was the IP who was adding "fat pig" to dozens of TV actress BLPs; it turned out that they had indeed all recently appeared in Fat Pig... I know my opinion of the "acceptable level of collateral damage" is lower than the "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" attitude that seems to be the consensus at WP:Huggle/Feedback – but without watchlisting, that would have been an active good-faith user blocked and driven off the project. – iridescent23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC) — Why do conversations here about Huggle always end up looking like something from User talk:Abd?
Actually, going back to the "problem is the users not the software" I said earlier – this offering on your talkpage sums that one up perfectly. "I just revert vandalism without paying any attention to the article I'm reverting" ought to be the official motto of WP:WBE. (For the record, you'll be unsurprised to know I agree totally with your reply). – iridescent23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really, that tool has never been useful for finding sockpuppets; there were people dealing with vandalism long before Huggle -- Gurch (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It's OK. I feel badly for him, and hate that the project might lose a productive editor. While I think it could have had a good end, sometimes just cutting it off is the best and I respect his decision. As I said re: Dusti and just repeated to Eco, "better to walk away than crash and burn." Have a good night! E/C. I feel like we're on Keeper's page! TravellingCari02:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I get what you're saying. It's sad. In some ways wiki is/becomes a popularity contest. I told Keeper that if I hadn't passed, I'd have stayed. I'd likely not have run again because there's little beenfit that I see to going through that multiple times but it is possible to take commentors suggestions under thought and use them to be a better contributor. *yawn* this is why I love museums, no drama there :) That was a comment somewhere. Someone hadn't edited in controversial areas. For me personally, why would I. I like quiet and not things like Real Life Ministries. TravellingCari03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's why I like railway stations and historic buildings; not that I have any particular interest in either, but they have an automatic presumption of notability (so you can bat away the idiotic attempts to CSD them), and they rarely get the deranged fanboys other articles seem to attract. Now, if we could only find a way to clear out the idiots who tag articles like this as "spam"...
I don't understand the people who leave Wikipedia when they fail RFA. Yes, it's annoying, but "30 people don't like me out of 10,000 active editors" could be said about anyone; it's just a lottery of who turns up. Unfortunately, some people don't seem to realise that. – iridescent03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. To some extent I don't understand NPP. Other than in cases of blatant vandalism or other bad-faith edits how can anyone tell in <3 min whether topic x is notable. Sometimes I swear it would take less work to say, "Oh wait, here's some basic info. Let me add it and leave it for someone more familiar. I do not understand the every article must be perfect or deleted now sentiment. While I do agree with removing those articles that don't belong, and there are some that should be speedied, I don't think it has to be done right now. Right this second or the world will implode. Plus I have fun working on the odd ones like Museum of Counterfeit Goods.
I was surprised with my RFA at the turnout simply because I didn't know that many editors. I was amused by people who independently looked at others' contribs and voted. I've never been much of an RFA contrib, though I tend to peek at RFA daily. I think RfA can be a good learning experience, or it can be a train wreck i.e. Giggy's. What I don't get is the "need" to be an admin. Is the world really incomplete without the bit? I'm not talking recent here but others, and I don't get it. I honestly never thought about RfA before Keeper and Rudget brought it up to me, followed by DDG and Wizardman. I said WTHN and went for it. Happy I did, but my world wouldn't be much different without it. OK, bedtime here now. Have a good day! TravellingCari03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I was much the same. At the risk of beingzOMG ageist, I think a substantial proportion (by no means all) of our younger contingent do see adminship as "levelling up" and get upset when they fail to win at the game; also, a lot of said younger contingent don't understand what real problems are, so put way more weight on Wikipedia than it deserves. Anyone who's been fired from a job, had a marriage break-up, dreaded the arrival of a Final Reminder or even just failed a driving test, tends to keep Wikipedia in a better perspective. Except those who go the other way and treat Wikipedia as the solution and/or unpaid therapist for said problems... – 虹色12:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's an ageism issue so much as a younger editors need to prove they're the exception to the norm. While most people would expect editors > 25 or so to be mature and be surprised by the immature one. Whereas with teens or pre-teens the expectation is that they'll be immature and we can be pleasantly surprised if they trurn out to be mature. It's not to say they can't be but the onus is on hthem and most of the teen and pre-teen editors I've seen here have not shown that. I think RfA can be good but I think there are weaknesses in the current system. Here in the US we have something called "Senior Superlatives" in high school. So and so has the prettiest eyes, most popular, nicest, etc. As I said to someone else, can't remember who or where right now, there's no perfect person and I don't understand those who go looking for one at RfA. That said I think there are poeple on both sides who go overboard and it becomes the trainwreck that it is in general. Off hand in recent months I think of Giggy, TPH, the one that eventually led to Majorly's RFC, the one that led to the cabal above.... It's pathetic that it has to turn into that when it could be a constructive discussion of editors strengths and weaknesses but people in nu,bers sadly=drama. Want a laugh? Talk:Real Life Ministries. Such drama over a church. I hope Eco comes back because he was a wonderful content contributor. Me, I'm going to go watch Rafa whose just taken the court at 11:30 pm here. Oy! TravellingCari03:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree re Eco, and hopefully he'll come back. If Malleus had left following the barrage of abuse at his RFA I could have understood it, but Eco's opposes were all "You're generally fine aside from foo" criticism. Ironically, if he'd left it open it almost certainly would have passed. – iridescent16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I was a little shocked at some of the nonsense I saw in my own RfA, and that one editor in particular who seems to have made it his mission to drive me off the project in any way he can, basically did his best to scupper it. No names, no pack drill. So I can fully understand if Eco found the experience a little upsetting. It's not the nicest thing in the world to be told that you're not to be trusted, particularly when looking at some of the characters who manage to get through the trial. Like you, I think that Eco could well have passed had his RfA been kept open, but I respect and understand his decision to withdraw. I'd have done exactly the same thing, for the same reason. It'll be sad if that decison results in the loss of a good editor though. RfA reall ought to come with a health warning. The prospect of failure doesn't seem so bad at the start, but as the personal comments start to accumulate it can begin to become a little more hurtful than was bargained for. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my apology for disappointing you in my train wreck of an RfA (there is a scrap metal sale going on now, if you're interested). I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I hope it doesn't drive you away (see the thread immediately above this one). While I do believe there is a benefit to the current "trial by ordeal" nature of RFA, in that it sifts out people who will react badly to the barrage of criticism that every admin here is subjected to, it is invariably a foul experience for all those involved (except a small group who make a hobby of opposing for spurious reasons and/or arguing on trivial points). All the (legitimate) criticism in your particular case was in the form of "things to work on" rather than "zOMG I hate him" – do try not to take it personally, even if you don't agree with any of the particular criticism. – iridescent15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand the point you're making; if you can't stand up to an RfA then maybe you can't stand up to the abuse that you'll receive if you pass the RfA. The fact is though that the only way to see how someone stands up to abuse is to see how they stand up to abuse. So here's an idea: every RfA candidate must have been involved in at least one acrimonious dispute before presenting themselves for the community's approval. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not at all a bad idea; indeed, I suspect that's what the thinking behind Q3 was. Anyone can say "I blocked a vandal and he told me to fuck off"; someone who can point out where they stood their ground in a dispute and where they backed down despite "knowing" they were in the right is harder to find. I'm convinced that the reason my RFA had so few opposes is because my talkpage at the time contained this and this. – iridescent23:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point... Come to that, if he's blocked, he can't tell anyone to fuck off. Sorry, the combination of trying to make Bruce Castle sound interesting, batting away what is frankly a talkpage gone crazy, and a sense of extreme frustration that a group of high-profile alleged sockpuppets I spent a large chunk of the past year defending have turned out to be (apparently) a gaggle of abusive infiltrators with some kind of weird hidden agenda which nobody can quite figure out, about which Arbcom's sooper-sekret evidence has apparently transpired to be 100% right, means I'm not quite thinking straight. – iridescent01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
= MFD
Iridescent - I got your message. I've also nominated it for deletion. I was just blowing off some steam in my userspace. No one's gotten that "award", nor would they.
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Hey Iri. Not to trouble you, but I think this person deserves an unblock.
I'm on Base was blocked for sockpuppetry for basically the same reason as me (immaturity related to being mad at Wikipedia). I would like to point out that i have since been unblocked, and have become a good-faith contributor.
Yes, i have had some bumps in the road, as has he. He edits the Simple English wikipedia, and is a good-faith contributor there. He had created a new account here, but someone found out that he was who he is (he revealed his identity to me on Simple). He was presumptively blocked, even though the account he was using.
Yes please give me another chanse {I'm On Base 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.182.155 (talk)
Absolutely not. A user whose talkpage looks like this is not someone I want "helping" us. Anyway, why are you asking me? User:Netsnipe was the blocking admin, AFAIK I've never even heard of this character before. The fact that both of you have "independently" found your way to my talkpage is not exactly endearing IRC to me, either. – iridescent20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The blocking admin's talkpage is here; I had nothing whatsoever to do with this block, although looking at the confirmed socks (I'm guessing this should probably go on that list...) I'm not exactly filled with confidence. I'd still be fascinated to know how someone I've never dealt with before manages to find my talkpage at exactly the moment you post a comment about him – and an explanation for this wouldn't go amiss, either. Would I be wildly off if I guessed that you'd already asked your adopter to unblock, she told you no, so now you're forum-shopping? – iridescent21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I told him that i had faith in him, and that i would try to get him unblocked. I'm sorry that I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know how to go about these types of things. Other people post on AN/K about AFDs and such, why would this be any different? Shapiros10contact meMy work22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries... The issue here isn't you're asking me (that's wrong, but it's an understandable mistake), but IOB's appearance here immediately afterwards. I'll assume good faith and put it down to coincidence. – iridescent22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
Graphic in top right corner of your talk page...
Blinkin' 'eck, d'you know how trippy that thing is? I've just spent the better part of 15 minutes gazing at it pointlessly. Granted, I'm half asleep, but still... :P TalkIslander21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This thread is already 70kb long and still growing.
It's broken into archive-collapse boxes because I have no desire to have a talkpage measured in metres, and not because I'm "declaring it closed". If anyone does really feel the need to make it any longer, please add any new comments at the bottom, outside the collapse box as otherwise it will get even more incoherent and confusing.
I'm not retracting my comment, if that's what you're after. The text of your email was neutral enough; what I aimed the "frankly loopy" at was the link you provided to a long, rambling pseudo-RFC which appeared (and still appears) to be nothing but a long series of personal attacks on anyone who dared to oppose your RFA (from me to Majorly, which is about as broad a spectrum as could be had), mixed with self-indulgent whining ("I would like the community to acknowledge the extraordinary effort I have invested", "I would like the community to praise my forthrightness", "A list of a hundred users signing a statement saying "We forgive Shalom Yechiel" would really make me cry, I hope that's not too much to ask for"). I do feel the need to point out that every single person posting on that "RFC" other than yourself – including people like Ryan who rarely agree with me on anything was echoing this view in one way or another. You're welcome to post as many personal attacks as you like against me on your blog or on Wikipedia Review; when you start posting lengthy attacks against people on-wiki, don't be surprised when those people complain.
And please don't edit talk archives; they're called "archives" for a reason. I've reverted your edit; should you (or anyone) need to see your addition, your version is here. – iridescent22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Response by Shalom Yechiel
I'm going to write a long essay here. I expect to save edits incrementally as I review the entire conflict between us and try to move toward a resolution.
Preamble
I have decided to invest several hours into researching and reviewing my actions and your talk page history in order to understand what happened. Writing my thoughts will require at least another hour, and if you choose to read them, it will take you ten minutes or more. Why is it worth my time to do this? What do I expect to gain from it, or how will you benefit from reading it? This is an important question. I am certain that the anger expressed in my RFC blinded you to the substance of what I was saying. I want a second chance to communicate with you and reach an understanding. I would have preferred to do this by email, but since you responded to me on-wiki, I'm coming back on your turf. I want three things: one for myself, one for you, and one for the "talk page stalkers" who will read this conversation.
For myself, I want to leave Wikipedia without feeling anger in my heart. I know you don't like to hear me quote religious texts, but this one is completely relevant and agreeable even to a secular individual: והסר כעס מלבך, "you should remove anger from your heart" (Ecclesiastes, end of chapter 11). I gave a lot of time and effort to this project. I wish to depart on my own terms, without feeling ostracized by other editors.
For you, I want you to improve your behavior. You may not realize it, but your remarks on my RFA contributed substantially to making me feel unwelcome as an editor. If you think this happened only because I am thin-skinned and not because of any provocation on your part, I will try to convince you that you played a role in this, and you could have prevented me from leaving Wikipedia - which, for the encyclopedia, was a significant loss.
For the "talk page stalkers," I want to salvage what little of my reputation I have left. I cannot expect to be trusted or even forgiven after what I did in 2007. What I can expect is that people know the truth about what I did and did not do. If you choose to ignore the truth, I cannot stop you, but I want the truth to be known and available to any reader who wishes to understand my point of view. I don't expect a reward for my hours of time spent writing hundreds of articles from scratch, but please don't remember me as "that guy who did such terrible things" - I hope to be thought of better than that.
Analysis of the RFA comments
I'm going to try again to explain why I take issue with your comments on my RFA. It is not simply that I disagree with your opposition to my RFA. I disagree with virtually everyone's opposition to my RFA. That's what it means to run for RFA: if I thought the predictable concerns about trust disqualified me from RFA, I don't think I would have applied. Rather, I disagree with what you said in your opposition. For lack of a better method, I'm going to quote your entire comment and explain where I agree and disagree, and if I disagree, what my opinion is, and why does the difference matter.
Oppose. This stretches "please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning" to the limits, but I hope it qualifies (as per Barneca's comments) as "a well thought out no, not a knee-jerk never!" – this is not a simple "yes, punish him for the past" oppose, but the longest RFA argument I've ever written (and hopefully, the longest I'll ever write; if anyone still wants evidence that the RFA process has problems, a single discussion comment longer thanfive old-style RFAs combined is surely it).
I'll grant that, but you could have chosen to keep your comment shorter.
In my opinion, if we were to apply policy with anything approaching consistency this user would never have been allowed to come back as an editor, let alone be being considered at RFA for the fourth time, and I don't really understand why he isn't community banned given that people have been banned for far less.
I was never in a position where a community ban was seriously considered. It may surprise you, but I have never been blocked on my main account, and I have never been subject to a publicly disclosed checkuser request. It is wrong to suggest "this user would never have been allowed to come back as an editor" because I was never removed as an editor. From January 2006 to July 2007, I probably did not go a week without editing Wikipedia either on my main account or as a legitimate alternate account or IP address. If you don't understand why I'm not community banned, I can try to explain it to you, but the full story is too long to fit on this page. The short version is that, the moment I got caught sockpuppeting, I immediately admitted my guilt and apologized, and resolved henceforward not to vandalize anymore and to limit myself to one account. I have kept my word on the vandalism front, and I am editing from an alternate account. I am using my old account only to attend briefly to some issues relating to my previous identity (Everyking's RFA, Majorly's RFC, and this discussion). Even if you think I really should have been banned, despite the mitigating circumstances, please consider that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," and in retrospect, it was Wikipedia's benefit that I continued my editing until recently, racking up 25,000+ edits and 300+ new articles.
(Yes, he could have started a fresh account. If he had, then either he'd be an editor in good standing now with nobody aware of his past and none of this would have arisen, or we'd have another Archtransit on our hands. But, he didn't, and we can only judge any case by what evidence we have.)
I'll ignore this.
However, be all that as it may; since consensus seems to be that he's "served his time", I'll judge purely on his behaviour since the last RFA.
Again, I never served any time. I was never blocked on my main account. You can argue until the sun rises in the west that I should have been blocked, but I was not blocked. I think this is relevant to understanding the history.
Unfortunately, I don't think SY has been a model contributor even since he cleaned up his act. While he may no longer be actively vandalising and trolling, I do not trust with a delete button someone who thinks "I have not actually read the article but I think it might be autobiographical" is a valid deletion reason.
I responded to this at the RFC. I'll expand my comments so that you understand exactly what I was doing. I was reviewing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff, where Delicious carbuncle reported that "All accounts listed have edited Jeremy Issacharoff, presumably the autobio of this user." Having experience answering queries at the conflict of interest noticeboard, I inferred that, if the COI accusation was correct, it warranted a review and possible deletion of an article. I am more than aware that COI alone does not justify deleting an article, but if the article is bad or marginal anyway, it is a factor to consider in supporting the deletion. I skimmed the article - it was four or five paragraphs, as best I recall, and I did not care to read every word - and notice insufficient references, so I began my nomination statement with the words "This is a poorly referenced biography." Again, poorly referenced biographies are not automatically deleted, but it's a legitimate concern (especially in light of the biographies of living persons policy), and if references to establish notability cannot be found, the article should be deleted. At the time, I was busy working through WP:SSP, and did not wish to divert my attention to try to clean up this article, so I passed the potential deletion of the article to AFD, noting that I had not read it in full, and implicitly inviting others to review it more carefully. AFD is nothing if not an invitation for other users to offer their opinions. I would never in a million years have tagged that article as a speedy deletion candidate, but I am certain that my AFD nomination was entirely legitimate and should not have been grounds for opposition at an RFA. I will add that the article was actually deleted (for a different reason). I will also add that I have nominated a few hundred articles for deletion, and some of my nominations (especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vote for the Worst) were far worse than the Issacharoff instance.
Most deal-breakingly for me, it's only a short time since heunilaterally invented a "policy" and then, despite the only other contributor to the "debate" disagreeing with him, set about unilaterally enforcing it with no discussion and no serious attempt at discussion (unless he really thinks that typical users routinely watchlist Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)). Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular decision (I personally think it's wrong, but can see valid reasons to agree with it) there's a difference between being bold and being disruptive – as a regular at WikiProject Trains I can vouch for the fact that he never even attempted to discuss the matter with the project working with the articles in question. In an admin, particularly someone who intends to work in a sensitive field like SSP, unilateral "I think it's better this way" actions generally cause problems. (Note: This isn't a case of me WP:OWNing articles – none of the articles affected were articles I've ever worked on.)
I responded to this at the RFC. You will recall that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel was the second RFC I ever started. The first RFC I started was an attempt to discuss my proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events) to resolve inconsistencies in the names of articles about rail accidents and other events. I spent about two hours preparing the RFC in my userspace. I then posted it to Template:RFCstyle and waited for responses to arrive. Four days later, I had received no response, and I honestly thought nobody objected to me taking what I thought was a noncontroversial series of page-moves. I did not notify the WikiProject because, as best I recall, either I did not think of it, or maybe I did think of it but thought I was not obligated to notify them because anyone who would wish to object would see an RFC posted for almost a week. On my talk page, Simply south commented on one of my page moves, and I asked him about my general series of actions but he did not have a problem with it. Aside from the reasonable expectation that articles about similar incidents should have similar titles, I simply cannot see how my actions could be interpreted as disruptive even by the most Draconian standards. Renaming "Chase, Maryland train wreck" to "Chase, Maryland rail accident" does not change the substantive meaning of the title, and does not confuse the reader. (Renaming "Chase, Maryland train wreck" to "HAGGER???" would be disruptive, but that's not what I did.) My actions fall within the reasonable boundaries of BOLD, revert, discuss, especially because I made a reasonable attempt to discuss my intended action before I took that action. If I could do it over, I would have notified the WikiProject Trains talk page, but opposing my RFA on the basis that my page-moves were "disruptive" seems like a disproportionate response to a good-faith attempt at fixing a problem. I stand by my actions.
Whilst I do appreciate the eloquence and obvious effort that's gone into SY's acceptance statement, I think most of his points are irrelevant. While I appreciate that Mosaic law is important to SY in his private life, an argument based upon it in the context of Wikipedia has no more relevance than an argument based on the Starfleet Directives or the Laws of Ælfred; even were I to believe it, a system of arbitrary, dictated, non-negotiable rules doesn't, in my opinion, have any relevance to a system founded on consensus and ignoring rules.
JoshuaZ raised the same issue in different wording, and I understand it. I was trying to make an a fortiori argument: namely, if in a formal legal system, where a witness can substantively harm an innocent person by lying, the legal system grants trust to someone who has previously acted dishonestly after demonstrated rehabilitation, then surely in an informal social structure such as Wikipedia, which is inherently based on trust, it should be possible to regain trust by demonstrated rehabilitation. I consider this issue a legitimate difference of opinion, so I take no issue with your opinion that an a fortiori argument does not hold water.
The RFA process isn't about "has he served his time", but a question of trust. In this particular case, I'm sorry to say that I while I appreciate that plenty of people whose opinions I respect do appear to trust him, I still don't.
No problem.
It's not, as he says in his statement, that I necessarily expect him to repeat his misconduct; it's that I believe the possibility (I don't like to use the word "probability", which in this context carries negative connotations) that he'll "turn rogue" again is unacceptably high. It may be over a year since the last bout of outright vandalism, but it's only a couple of months since the last bout of "I've had enough and I'm never coming back" sulking.
It's a small point, but I find my decision to depart Wikipedia in protest to how User:CreepyCrawly was mistreated by administrators to be a legitimate response. If you had spent seven hours trying to prove his innocence, you might have been a little upset, too. Comparing my response there to "turning rogue" or vandalizing Wikipedia doesn't hold water, and I hope you didn't intend otherwise. Honestly, a lot of users, including administrators, take breaks in protest of various things that bother them. I recall on the same day I left Wikipedia in March, Majorly and Alison also announced their respective departures, though each of them returned less than a week later. Also, it's another small point, but "the last bout of 'I've had enough and I'm never coming back'" implies that there was an earlier bout, when in fact March 2008 was the first time I felt that way. Again, I don't think you intended otherwise, but the reader should be aware of details.
Although in most cases, quite rightly, off-wiki activity shouldn't be considered relevant to Wikipedia, in my opinion this is one of those cases where that consideration doesn't apply. SY maintains a blog which functions as a de facto attack site (reading this post in particular took away any chance I had of taking this candidate seriously).
I responded to the allegation my blog was a "de facto attack site" at the RFC. I have removed all Wikipedia-related posts from my blog, and I wish not to discuss my blog anymore.
Also, on too many occasions his response to anyone disagreeing with him has been to post at great length on the matter to WR.
I'll be blunt, since the RFC didn't make this clear enough. I don't think this ever happened. How many occasions is "too many"? One? Two? If I ever posted at great length to Wikipedia Review regarding a dispute with another user on-wiki as of when you wrote that statement, please let me know.
I'm well aware that a number of editors (including me) post occasionally at WR and don't get in any trouble for doing so. However, there's a qualitative difference between occasionally explaining policy and how particular decisions were reached or discussing concerns about a particular editor's behaviour away from the "pressure cooker" of highly watched talkpages whilst keeping it on a site that anyone can read, and SY's posts, which include accusations of sockpuppetry against Arbcom members, repeated attacks on anyone who agrees with anyone he sees as part of "the cabal", and so on.
I responded to the "sockpuppeptry against ArbCom members" (specifically FT2) at the RFC. I was responding to someone else who claimed that TBP was a sockpuppet of FT2. I analyzed the matter, and my results were inconclusive. I currently believe, based on recent postings by FT2 to WR and private communication by email, that FT2 and TBP are two different people. I never said otherwise.
I still reject the allegation that I made "repeated attacks" on WR. I think you confused a blog post of mine as if I had made it on WR. In my blog post concerning CreepyCrawly in March, I wrote, "I took on the cabal, and I won." It was a long post, which accounts for "at great length." But it was on my blog, not Wikipedia Review. A small difference, perhaps, but it's still a factual inaccuracy, and you should be willing to correct it.
Over the last few months, there have been a number of decent, hardworking editors who've failed RFA because of a few relatively minor, historical, transgressions or personality clashes. Given that, I see no reason whatsoever why we should bend precedent to breaking point to give sysop rights to a user who's idea of building an encyclopedia is to follow Badlydrawnjeff around changing his signature to BadlyDrawnJoke, and who (less than three months ago) said that his goal on Wikipedia was to "start the biggest arbitration case in the history of Wikipedia, involving dozens of users and administrators, to atone for the accumulated guilt of administrators". – iridescent19:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Badlydrawnjeff: Yes, I did that, and I apologized to Bdj and to the community. However, I wish you wouldn't say that my "idea of building an encyclopedia" is to vandalize. My idea of building an encyclopedia is to write and improve articles. I have a Good Article (endgame tablebase) and five DYK articles, to say nothing of 300+ new articles and cleanup jobs on numerous others. If nothing else, I want the reader to understand that I left a legacy on this encyclopedia that will outlive the behavioral issues, and I hope will outlive my entire existence on this earth.
Regarding the "biggest arbitration case," I already explained on the RFC that my blog post expressed a "fantasy", not a "goal." Had I wished to bring an arbitration case between April 2008, when I wrote that post, and July 2008, when I applied for RFA, I certainly had the time to do it. Since the RFA I became aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, where the motive for starting the arbitration case was that Vanished user blocked Matthew Hoffman on a false accusation of sockpuppetry. That ArbCom case was a tragic embarrassment, and I would not wish to repeat it for other administrators, but it illustrates my point that blocking new or established users on a false accusation of sockpuppetry is a misuse of admin tools, and if done intentionally or negligently may be grounds for a removal of those tools.
Analysis of the other RFA comment
So far, so good. I think I've avoided making any personal attacks until now. Let's see if I can continue.
Your other RFA comment, in the discussion section, responded to Sarcasticidealists question on what was wrong with my blog posts. I'll note here that Sarc told me he reviewed my blog before the nomination and didn't see a problem with it. You quoted a paragraph that I regret writing, but you conclude, "In his most recent post, he calls Wikipedia "a pseudo religious cult", incidentally." In the RFC, I emphasized that I did not actually call Wikipedia a pseudo-religious cult. You glossed over the difference, but you left yourself open to a basic question of consistency:
You wrote on your talk page, 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC), "Wikipedia's Hive mind1 has sometimes been referred to as the "wikicult", and it does share some of the fanaticism of a religious movement in that there are a lot of people who will not be persuaded that their version of The Truth is wrong." Just one week later, you implied that for me to compare Wikipedia to a "pseudo-religious cult" (in the context of taking a wikibreak!) was a Bad Thing. Did you suddenly change your mind in less than a week? Or is there some other way you can resolve this apparent contradiction?
I will reply to this idiocy properly when I have the opportunity to do it on something other than an iPhone. However any reply will be on-wiki; I have no intention of replying to your (IMO frankly loopy) email. – iridescent13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You have acknowledged that the email itself was not loopy, but the RFC was. That doesn't explain one way or the other why an on-wiki response is preferable to an email response.
OK, here goes
I think others have already said most of what I'd have said, and probably more politely, so I'll keep this short. I don't retract a single word of what I said.
You don't retract a single word, even though you know that some statements were factually inaccurate.
As far as I'm concerned, your attacks on me on and off wiki have voided the usual limitations of WP:CIV, so I'll respond exactly as I see it.
I object to this in the strongest possible terms. "The usual limitations of WP:CIV" still apply. I have not waived them, and Wikipedia policy does not excuse uncivil attacks even in response to provocation. There's even an essay: Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals, and I'm not a vandal. Furthermore, even if WP:CIV does not apply, WP:HONESTY does apply.
Your juvenile Wiki-lawyering ('How dare you say I called Wikipedia a pseudo-religious cult, I actually compared it to a pseudo-religious cult', 'I did not say "I have not actually read the article but I think it might be autobiographical", I said "I have not actually read the article in full, but given the valid COI concerns it needs to be determined whether Wikipedia should have this article" etc etc etc) is precisely why this site - or any other - should never be trusting you with admin powers;
Whoa there! This is not "juvenile Wiki-lawyering" at all. These allegedly minor differences are precisely what separates a valid argument from an invalid one against my RFA candidacy. If I had actually said "I think it might be autobiographical" was a valid deletion reason, and had not provided any other reason, that would be grounds for questioning my judgment on AFDs. However, I did provide another reason, and I did express my uncertainty in opening an AFD for others to examine. This is not a small difference. Your version of events depicts gross carelessness and disregard for policy on my part, where in fact, I acted carefully and within policy. It's not Wikilawyering to dwell on a seemingly small point if that seemingly small point makes all the difference between an acceptable decision and a bad decision. Likewise with the "pseudo-religious cult" comment: if it makes no difference whether I call Wikipedia a cult or compare it to one, why did you compare Wikipedia to a cult on your own talk page?
I have railed against the notion of never being trustworthy elsewhere, and will not rehash that here. I take exception to the misguided conception that behavior on English Wikipedia should disqualify me (even morally) from adminship on other projects. Poetlister became a bureaucrat on Wikiquote and admin on Wikisource while she was banned here. I am told that Jeff Merkey is banned from English Wikipedia but a bureaucrat on the Cherokee version. Do you believe these people could be trusted, but I can't be? Keep in mind that different projects have different social norms, and the behaviors you find problematic here might not raise a stir elsewhere, or conversely, there would be fewer stresses upon me in other projects.
your obsessive fascination with "the letter of the law" over common sense and your apparent determination that anyone disagreeing with you must be part of some kind of conspiracy are both the hallmarks of our worst admins and we certainly don't need another like it.
I don't think I have an "obsessive fascination with 'the letter of the law' over common sense." If anything, it took me some time to rein in my excessive adherence to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. My improper non-admin closures earned me two ANI reports and some opposition at my second and third RFAs. Still, after my third RFA, I closed a series of ten AFDs when an unusual backlog was announced at the noticeboard, noting the exceptional circumstance in my closing comment, and violating the non-admin closure guidelines because common sense called for an extra pair of hands to help in a temporary situation of need.
"Your apparent determination that anyone disagreeing with you must be part of some kind of conspiracy" - that's a completely baseless accusation. I never alleged on the RFC that you were part of a "conspiracy" to sink my RFA. You will not find the word "conspiracy" anywhere in the RFC.
The next comment will probably make you angry.
I discovered evidence on your talk page that there might indeed have been a conspiracy to sink my RFA. I don't make this allegation lightly, but you will need to explain this exchange:
Incidentally, those who watch RFA for the entertainment value of the lame flamewars may want to keep it watchlisted a bit longer. While it wouldn't be fair to name names, a much-watched redlink has recently turned blue; I confidently predict that once it's transcluded it'll make H2O5 and TTT3 look like polite chit-chats. Although my RFA "confident predictions" have occasionally turned out to be slightly inaccurate – iridescent20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll know it if you see it. I suspect that by the end of day one support and oppose will both reach WP:100 and by the time it closes it will be larger than ANI. Although I'm not one of them, I believe people are trying to dissuade the candidate from running via off-wiki means (in my view, a legitimate use of email in this case), so with luck it will never happen. – iridescent21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If it helps in any way Keeper, you didn't participate in his last RfA. And I nominated. Have fun searching through my contribs ;-) —Giggy06:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now would be a good time to read my first public reaction to the failure of my RFA: Preemptively watchlisting RFAs. I ask you now the same questions I ask of Kathyrn NicDhana regarding my third RFA:
If you were so opposed to me applying at RFA that you preemptively watchlisted the RFA page, why didn't you just leave me a nice note on my talk page at some point and say, "Hey Yechiel, I'd advise you not to apply for RFA again because if you do, I'll oppose." That might have led to a productive discussion instead of the anguish of a failed RFA. (I didn't seriously expect that RFA to succeed, but I thought it was worth trying.) I find Kathryn's secretive tactics a little troubling. Why didn't she speak openly with me about a problem she knew about? Why did she have to wait for me to apply for RFA before she could trip me up?
Based on your comments above, I'll go further than with Kathyrn. I am nearly certain, but cannot prove, that you prepared to oppose my RFA days before I posted it. You amassed several items of concern to post at my RFA. If you wished to resolve those problems - such as the naming conventions RFC or the blog posts - you could have left me a message or emailed me. You expressed a hope that someone would convince me by email not to stand, but I never received an email message on this matter. Furthermore, I solicited advice on WT:RFA (archive links available on request) as to whether I should run again, precisely to avoid this kind of debacle. Yet you eagerly awaited the "entertainment value of the lame flamewars" despite knowing, or being able to know, that it might cause me emotional distress. Why did you not speak directly to me? Why did you tell your friends about my impending doomed RFA but didn't tell me? If you will argue that I should have known it would fail, see below - I had reason to believe it might pass.
(I love the fact that your reaction to being accused of posting to WR every time anyone upsets you was to, er, post at WR about how the accusation had upset you...)
This is moving the goalpoasts. You said at the RFA that I posted to WR "at great length" every time someone disagrees with me. Please read the thread at Wikipedia Review: [3]. I admit that linking to my RFC on WR was "forum-shopping," but it doesn't prove the point you think it does.
You seem to have got it into your head that Finalnight & myself between us derailed your RFA. Do you think that, just perhaps, the fact that your RFA closed with 14 supports (three of which were moral supports) and 32 opposes means it just might have failed anyway?
I am not saying that any one individual is responsible for derailing my RFA. Many people caused it to fail. However, I am saying that false statements derailed my RFA, and you made false statements, so you played a role. Other users who made false statements or assumed bad faith (e.g. how do we know he's not socking now? etc.) also played a role. You played the most substantial role because you were the first to oppose, you wrote a lot of things, and let's face it, you're well-liked among the RFA crowd. Numerous users opposed in part "per Iridescent." You do this on many RFAs. I checked and found you among the first few commenters on other RFAs. Voting early gives your vote more influence among later voters. It's more than likely that the majority of users did not question that my nomination of Issacharoff for deletion was inappropriate because you said so. I didn't question it myself until after the RFA. So much was going on in just 12 hours, even though it was a Sunday afternoon, that I didn't have the mind to check immediately for inconsistencies. You cannot infer anything from the final result: your initial vote influenced what followed. If you had not showed up, the result might have been substantially different. I projected the RFA to pass or come close to passing. My rationale was simple: my previous RFA failed at (35/45/10) eight months earlier, but since then I expanded my admission of sockpuppetry from 2007, continued a good record of editing especially by creating new articles, and helped in admin areas, and generally showed competence without violating any policies that I was aware of. People told me at my third RFA that they might support me in a few months. I believed them. I felt nearly certain that my RFA would earn at least 50% support.
I reiterate what I wrote on the RFC: "It should be obvious to everyone that, if users had written only true facts about me, my RFA would still have failed, but not nearly as badly."
Regarding your demand for me to be desysopped, my admin logs are open information (the links are in the header of this page). Feel free to browse them; if you can find a single abusive admin action, then by all means raise it. If you can't, then shut up and stop whining.
"Regarding your demand for me to be desysopped,..." - Whoa, stop right there. I did not (and will not) demand for you to be desysopped. I quote from the RFC: "I'll stop short of calling for Iridescent to be desysopped...".
And I just love the insinuation of collusion between myself and Majorly, given that we famously have diametrically opposed views of the purpose of Wikipedia, and your RFA is possibly the first time we've ever agreed on anything. – iridescent13:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I object yet again. I made no "insinuation of collusion between [you] and Majorly." That is a gross misrepresentation, and you know it. Both of you said on my RFA that I should have been banned in 2007. I assume you and Majorly each reached this conclusion independently.
You continued to make false statements about what I said in your discussion of my RFA with your wiki-friends. You wrote, "To be honest, even if he'd had the cleanest history imaginable, the moment he started quoting the bible as Wikipedia policy he lost me instantly.
I quoted the Talmud, not the Bible. It makes a big difference. Also, I did not quote it as Wikipedia policy. Again, you know, or ought to know, that I was making an a fortiori argument. You are free to disagree with my argument, but you are not (morally) free to misrepresent what I said.
I'll quote this gem to illustrate my point:
I do actually support more RFAs than I oppose – it's just that my people seem to remember my opposes for some reason. – iridescent 16:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's the diffs :-). Your opposes use lots of diffs. Nobody reads them, but there are so many, they must be accurate :-). <snip> - Keeper76
That's precisely the point! Everyone read your diffs on my RFA and thought to themselves, "Iridescent said it, so it must be true." Now I can say with no hesitation: not everything you say is true. The facts speak for themselves.
Personal attacks
I read the policy on personal attacks. I am confident that nothing in the RFC technically violates the policy. Here's where the "wikilawyering" starts (and I read that page, too): probably the worst thing I said about you is that you "lied." I tried to maintain neutral language, viz. "made false statements" (which is objectively correct), but in my anger I enhanced that allegation to "lied" - a legitimate possibility based on the evidence. It doesn't make you happy to be called a liar, understandably, but if it's supported by evidence and is relevant to the discussion, I don't see how it's a personal attack. I quote from "Responding to personal attacks":
Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.
I sure gave you a beating in that RFC, but there was a definite purpose to it. My point was, "If you're going to ban me then ban me, but don't lie about me." I was defending myself against your attacks by showing, using evidence of facts, that your statements about me were not true. If it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to defend myself against your attacks, then I don't really have any reason to stay here anyway. It may sound childish to say this, but it matters - you started it, and you escalated it. Every "attack" I have made against you is a defense against an attack you made against me. If you don't want me posting a 10-kilobyte essay on your talk page, don't insult me. You picked the wrong person to bully. I decided to defend myself. If you can't support your false statements about me, maybe you should not have made them in the first place. That's the closest I'll come to attacking you in this thread. I think I'm still on solid ground.
Conclusion
I repeat what I said in the beginning: I want to leave Wikipedia on my own terms. Graduate school classes start for me in the morning: with that I begin a new stage of my life. I will continue to edit Wikipedia under an alternate account, but it will not occupy the same place in my life as previously.
I am not interested in becoming an administrator. I won't say that I'll never apply again, but I don't care if I become an administrator or not. You can be certain that my posting of the RFC and this essay was not an attempt to garner support for a future RFA because I know it would have the opposite effect. I have a different purpose with my comments here. If I calm down enough to move on, and if you learn to improve your behavior, and if the talk page stalkers leave a few nice goodbye messages on my talk page for a job well done over 2 1/2 years, I'll consider this effort a success. I don't require an apology or even a retraction. I was hoping you would retract your statement in order to spare me the effort of refuting it, but as it stands now, your false statements are meaningless to me regardless of whether you continue to defend them. The only thing that remains is my feeling that I prefer not to edit here anymore under my known name. For someone who cares so much about improving the encyclopedia, you could have been a little more careful to protect a bona fide encyclopedia writer from shame and humiliation. You may not approve of my reaction, but you almost anticipated it. For that, more than for the false statements as such, I request an explanation and a resolution not to engage in similar behavior toward other editors.
If you've read this far, congratulations. I can't promise that I won't come back under this username for some other reason, but for now I consider this matter resolved. However, I will respond further if you continue your pattern of incivility from your previous response. If you can't say anything nice to me, I suggest you swallow your pride and move on. Yechiel (Shalom) 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
No I'm not
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Have you ever met Abd and FT2? I think you three would get on famously... Ironically, in all your collation of my apparent recent Evil Disruption On The Part Of The Cabal, you've managed to miss my one genuinely controversial action, my block of Abd for allegedly trumped up reasons (the full fallout is here). Where you differ from those two is that their tl;dr posts are all with the intention of improving Wikipedia. In Abd's case in particular, I strongly disagree with what he's saying, but I've no doubt he writes everything he writes with the intention of improving Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, appear to be treating my talk page as some kind of therapy session ("if the talk page stalkers leave a few nice goodbye messages on my talk page for a job well done over 2 1/2 years, I'll consider this effort a success").
There is no "conflict between us", there is nothing to "resolve". I don't know quite why you think there is. As far as I know, your RFA was the only time we've ever even posted on the same thread and we've never worked on the same article.
Quite honestly, I don't care what you think of me. You can think I'm the greatest thing in the world or the most evil cabalist yet. It affects neither me nor you in any way. There are many people on Wikipedia whose opinions I respect (including many I fundamentally disagree with, such as Elonka and DGG). You are not one of them. You shouldn't care what I think of you either, and I don't understand exactly why you're singling me out here.
You can leave Wikipedia with as much or as little "anger in your heart" as you want, if you're leaving. IMO, "leaving Wikipedia with anger in my heart" is a more flowery way of saying "if we're not using my ball I don't wanna play", but it's obviously important to you. What you don't seem to realise is that your thoughts are not important to anyone except you, and that everyone else only cares about your actions. You're no more "ostracised by other editors" than anyone else who's gone through the hellweek of RFA.
If you "want me to improve my behaviour", this is definitely not the way to go about it. Feel free to file an RFC if you want, and you have my express consent to canvass Abd and Majorly for anything negative they might have to say about me as well. 7,765,912 people are not always going to agree. I understand this; I'm not convinced you do.
You may well prefer to do this by email, but I don't. I keep my email enabled because there are a few occasions where sensitive topics are under discussion where it's inappropriate for them to be visible to the public (of which more later). If there's no legitimate reason for keeping something off-wiki, as far as I'm concerned it stays on.
You seem to have an insanely inflated opinion of me if you think "my talk page stalkers" are going to make a difference. This is not Wikipedia Review with its "only visible to users with 300 posts" forums, noindexed members-only threads and invitation only sections. Whatever you and your WR buddies may think, Jimbo doesn't issue you with the keys to the Cabal's executive washroom on the occasion of your 300th block or 1000th deletion; I have no more influence than any other editor here. By coincidence, you happen to have posted here just after I've done a "census" of exactly who my "talk page stalkers" are. With the possible exception of Jennavecia and Gurch, is there a single person on that list you've ever worked with or who has ever impacted on you in any way? If not, why do you care what their opinions are?
I'm not going to bother dissecting your opposition-to-my-opposition at your RFA. The first one or two opposes on any RFA are almost always the longest, as they're the ones that have to contain the diffs and evidence. (The nom statement fulfills the role for support, so the first support can just be a tick). There's nothing I said that someone else wouldn't have said if I hadn't. You might not agree with it, but I was hardly alone; your RFA was open for 12 hours and by that point had racked up 12 supports and 32 opposes. Even if I were to grant you everything you allege and assume that 50% of opposers were unduly swayed by my malicious falsehoods against you and would otherwise have supported, that would have left you with 28 supports and 16 opposes – a 63% support rate which would still have failed.
Many, many RFAs fail for unfair or irrational reasons. Yours was not one of them. If I said something factually incorrect on your RFA, the place to point that out is on the RFA, and not to be so contemptuous of other editors (not to mention the closing crat) to think that every other participant is incapable of checking out any allegation for themselves.
On the "pseudo religious cult" thing, I plead at least half-guilty of hypocrisy. Ever since Kelly Martin's "Kicked out of the WikiCult" parting shot, it's become easy shorthand for the tendency of some people to have a "Jimbo's always right" mentality. While you've removed the statement from your site so I can't see the original context, yes, I agree that criticising you for using the phrase when it's one I regularly use myself was unfair. (While I know you're already aware, I do need to point out for the benefit of anyone else reading this that this wasn't used as part of my oppose to your RFA).
Your allegation that this conversation was "a conspiracy to sink this RFA" is laughable. Not only was I very careful not to mention which RFA we were discussing at any point, there were only three participants in that conversation. One was me, one took no part in your RFA and AFAIK has never had any dealings with you whatsoever, and one was your own nominator. If this is what constitutes a "Wikipedia conspiracy", then Brandt and Kohs may as well pack up and go home, since I doubt they've anything to worry about.
Regarding preemptively watchlisting RFAs and "I am nearly certain, but cannot prove, that you prepared to oppose my RFA days before I posted it" – what exactly is your point? (I have to point out that you do have proof, as the conversation you cite in the "conspiracy to oppose" point discussed in the paragraph above was my discussing it with Giggy). As I don't generally read WP:RFA, if I see an RFanything being discussed somewhere which I know I'm going to have an opinion on (for or against), I watchlist it so I can see when it goes live. When I posted my oppose, it already had three supports. Naerii's comment sums up my views on this issue perfectly so I won't try to rephrase it: To be honest, I have quite a lot of people on my mental hitlist to oppose if they ever bother running an RfA, and I would never presume to turn up at their talk page telling them what I think of them without my opinion being asked for. And you know, thinking about it, I don't want people turning up at my talkpage telling me that I'm a blithering idiot or that they don't like x, y, z, a, b, c, (insert long list of diffs here) edits I did. I like living in my state of blissful ignorance about myself. When someone runs an RfA they're inviting scrutiny. Outside of RfA I don't think it's as appropriate, unless the thing you're bringing up is significant. I don't think that the whole Googlebomb thing you did would have been solved by her bringing it up on your talk page. It was a pretty egregrious thing to have done. The examples you mention aren't, to me, evidence of secretive behaviour. Sometimes when someone does something that I think is really stupid or nasty or whatever then that's just it, no amount of nice talk page messages isn't going to cut it, that person just sucks. I guess most other people would feel the same. There's redemption and there's... I don't know, something else. I wouldn't bother going to their talkpage and hassling them about it some time later, especially if they've already rectified it. Sometimes people do things that are so stupid or so mean that even when they say sorry later they're still not going to be trusted properly for a long while. If something can be fixed by just making a nice talk page note then it's probably not something that people would bother opposing for in an RfA anyway.
And (while I would not presume to tell someone not to run for RFA), I did indeed contact your nominator warning them of the concerns I was going to raise. As I understand things, at least one of your nominators did try to dissuade you from running and warn you what the likely result of any RFA from you would be.
If you think my comment here that "even if he'd had the cleanest history imaginable, the moment he started quoting the bible as Wikipedia policy he lost me instantly" was some kind of attack, then so be it since I'm certainly not retracting it. "I was making an a fortiori argument" doesn't wash; that "a fortiori" is meaningless in a Wikipedia context. A fortiori compares the strength of arguments, and on Wikipedia "God told me to do it" is an argument with no strength whatsoever. To set up an (I think valid) strawman, "Jewish law explicitly allows a previously dishonest person to testify with full force after the witness has undergone a reformative process; a fortiori, the Wikipedia community should allow a previously dishonest user to acquire the tools of trust after that user has reformed" is no more valid an argument than "Singaporean law authorises the authorities to beat vandals 24 times on the bare bottom with a rattan cane, a fortiori Wikipedia admins should be entitled to beat you 24 times on the bare bottom with a rattan cane".
I have no idea where you get the idea you seem to have that I lurk round RFA jumping on them to oppose as soon as they open comes from. I almost never comment on RFAs of people I don't know, oppose less than half the time, and the only other RFAs I can think of where I posted a lengthy opening oppose were Elonka's third RFA and RyRy's recent RFA. You seem to have a very inflated view of me if you think there's a crowd of people who follow me around "me-too"-ing. If you seriously think I'm "well-liked among the RFA crowd", then I don't know what I can say, since I'm neither a RFA regular, nor "well-liked".
If you think "some people opposed my RFA" equates to "unacceptable shame and humiliation", then quite frankly you weren't fit to be an administrator and, even if every oppose argument I made was wrong, it's a good thing you didn't pass. Wikipedia adminship isn't like being a moderator on other sites, or even a sysop on other WMF projects. It gives you no special status, and means you're subjected to an endless barrage of criticism from assorted WP:BADSITES, your every action is stalked and jumped on by a huge variety of people, and should you dare to upset any of the self-proclaimed Defenders Of The Wiki, your talkpage ends up looking like this, this or, well, this. If you're going to lash out like this at an "oppose" vote on an RFA, I wouldn't want to see how you'd react to having a 50kb rant dumped on your talk page overnight. – iridescent16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
WP:DONTPUTRADISHESUPYOURBUTT and other divergences from the topic
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Arbitrary break: on tl;dr, trolls, and traditional uses of the radish
One might think our friend Iridescent was a tad put out on finding half a talk page archive on the screen this morning. ;-) Risker (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to my talkpage! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
For anyone who doesn't remember (or chooses to forget) what Wikipedia was like in the days of Awbrey & Kohs, imagine this thread or something like it on every talkpage you visited. Every day. – 虹色16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, Raphanidoô is still a redlink. Talk Page Stalkers, you know what to do. (Googling without the circumflex brings up a second batch of sources). There's a bona fide indisputable-reliable-source-and-assertion-of-notability here; do a ctrl-f search on "radish" and it's the second appearance. – 무지개빛깔17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking perhaps you should write it. It will help "spice up" your otherwise dreadfully boring trainstation articles, or whatever the hell they are. :-) Keeperǀ7617:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
←I will do if nobody else has by the time Bruce Castle is finished. If it ever is. The phrase "Suppose your pupil, following your advice, gets the radish rammed up his arse and then is depilated with a hot coal; how are you going to prove to him that he is not a broad-arse?" needs wider circulation one way or another. Anyway, I do hope you're not suggesting that Railway stations in Cromer was boring? Next thing, you'll be saying Hypnodog lacks notability. – iridescent 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC) – iridescent17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A rare glimpse of Miszabot at work sorting archived posts
In the past, I have been archiving monthly. Now that I'm an admin, I'm getting a lot more correspondence, so that doesn't go so well. I was going to wait until I got a few threads for this month, do one last manual archive, and then set up auto archiving. I guess now is as good a time as any. Thanks for reminding me. J.delanoygabsadds01:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep this really short. Feel free to stuff it in the archive box.
I'll respond to only one sentence from your essay. You write: "There's nothing I said that someone else wouldn't have said if I hadn't." I honestly hope that's not true. I may have gone too far in citing Jewish law outside its own context, but I will always uphold what I know to be true. If our roles were reversed, I would not have made statements about you that I knew to be false. (The conspiracy word was a suspicion, not a statement of fact.)
If I may fudge the truth on one item, though, please don't compare me to banned users. It's not nice.
Thanks for the reply and sorry it turned out like this. It doesn't look like we're ever going to agree on this, but there's no point things getting nasty. (I can't see myself comparing you to a banned user anywhere – the only users I compare you to that I can see are User:Abd and User:FT2, both of whom are very much active). – iridescent15:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved sanity.
On an unpleasant character who fooled us both
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Note specifically for Shalom
Note specifically for Shalom: After the recent developments today regarding possibly the one controversial thing we did agree on, I am now more-than-usually disgusted both with myself and with the Wikipedia environment and I suspect you are too. If things do turn out the way they seem to be headed, you have my sympathies, and if it's any consolation you weren't the only one fooled. – iridescent01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am humiliated by my involvement in the "Poetguy" fiasco, not because I did anything wrong, but because I unwittingly helped this jerk exploit his victims. You did not compare me to Awbrey or Kohs, but you mentioned them, which is what I intended by saying I was "fudging the truth" on that count. Don't worry about it. :) Yechiel (Shalom) 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think "disgusted" better sums up my attitude. Not just the time and effort people like you, I and many others put into defending this character, but the mishandling by Arbcom. Yes, they got the judgement right, but if they'd explained the situation instead of this "I'm on Arbcom, do as I say" routine, an awful lot of nastiness could have been avoided. And it still has to be asked, why did he do it? – iridescent23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
:O
Using AutoWikiBrowser and Huggle at the same time? I'm impressed.
By the way, thought you might want to know that the next version of Huggle has a system for making your own filtered queues -- which means among other things, you can use it to monitor other Huggle users :) -- Gurch (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
While you're here - any chance of adding a BLP "adding unreferenced controversial info" warning (as per Twinkle)? It would be useful for Sarah Palin, quite aside from the usual "x slept with y" nonsense. – iridescent22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Never really approved of jokes in block notices or warnings – too much risk of backfiring. I get more than enough complaints as it is. – iridescent19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said there, take it with a grain of salt; one researcher's findings doesn't mean they all agree (see Adultism for the opposing view). Although – whether or not it's relevant to Wikipedia – "the longer you live the more you learn" does seem fairly unarguable. (I personally believe that users below the age of legal accountability – 13 under the Florida law in which we operate – shouldn't be put in a position where they're making decisions on libel and copyright issues, but that's just me). – iridescent18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Interpretation of maturity is extremely diverse; It's all too easy to declare someone immature, but to explain it... =P - Best regards, Mailer Diablo18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually approach the whole kids-on-the-net thing from the "maturity" angle; there are plenty of adults on Wikipedia (including at least one college professor) who squeal and whine like a toddler who's wet his pants whenever they don't get their way. I look at it from a twin issue of legal responsibility (which the relevant law defines as 13, and isn't up for debate) and ability to judge content (a more tenuous area, and there are some areas where children are better placed to judge, but in general less life experience = less awareness of what is and isn't important). The phrase "Juvenile behaviour" exists for a reason. – iridescent19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasilla Assembly of God Deletions
I am new to Wikipedia and I created the Wasilla Assembly of God article as my first article, so please bear with me if I ask something stupid.
1. Do you know what reason 98.164.65.131 gives to keep deleting your information?
I wrote as section on International Press Coverage of Three Church Sermons
"Wasilla Assembly of God became the focus of Pakistani and American press coverage and intense internet activity in September 2008, after the The Huffington Post posted videos and quotations from three of its sermons, asserting that God favored the American invasion of Iraq, that critics of president George Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina would go to hell, and that voters for John Kerry would not get into heaven."
This was the zillionth rewrite, with people all over coaching me to remove coatrack and POV issues, and any living person reference. 2. Do you know why it may have been deleted?
3. Sarah Palin could not have been present for the sermons being reported and blogged on all over the world, since she left in 2002. But no one will let me mention her. It seems unfair to her to tar her with a sermon she never saw. Do you have a suggestion how I can get this fact in the article without it being deleted? EricDiesel (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm in England, and consequently know very little about a) Christianity, b) Alaska or c) Sarah Palin. I do know that Palin-related articles are quite controversial at the moment; you might want to ask Keeper76, who has become something on an expert on Sarah Palin articles lately. – iridescent20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I was actually offline a good part of yesterday and laughhed so hard when I saw the exploded state. I was trying to fix the diff I used in the keeper pedia rule (wanted one that just showed the page withot my comment at the top) but at the same time the one I used showed it so well. We're all insane! TravellingCari00:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
ROFL Palin Apprecation Society? Good lord of Alaska, that's funny. I've reverted some of xeno's "alterations", for the sake of the n00b as well. Thank god for oil drilling, er I mean, whale killing, er I mean archive-bot. Keeperǀ7615:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You're evil and I hate you
How could you possibly brutally harass that poor innocent Wikipedia editor into crossing the road? You should be banhammered so hard you end up in China.
The bot will clear it all away in due course. I don't actually want the Thread From Hell insta-archived as it refers to a (ahem) Current Unfortunate and Foreseen/Unforeseen (delete depending on who you are) Event. – yanardöner00:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A reference to this if you're trying to figure it out. (This talkpage gets more than enough genuine "You're evil and I hate you"s to keep you happy, though). – iridescent02:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You are evil and I do hate you! Giggy (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Btw. what's up with the sig today? Btw2. You're running for ArbCom right? Please say yes.
The people who hate me are generally the same people who hate you. With at least one obvious exception. – 虹色15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't imagine how I'd do in an arbcom election. Actually, I can, and it's not pretty. See (1) above. You, apparently, enjoy putting yourself in situations where 100 people line up to insult you for any vague thing that didn't go 100% their way that you were somehow involved in; I get quite enough of that already. Although it would almost be worth it for the lulz value of some of the opposers comments (I think you can guess who I have in mind), which I'm guessing would be fairly epic. (If I announced a candidacy, I might for the first time request a password for #wikipedia-en-admins, as the conversations would probably make entertaining viewing). – 무지개빛깔15:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of making a category. "Music Michael Jackson owns the rights to". Lol, it would be so fun to tag like the hundreds of songs (especially The Beatles, Elvis and some of Madonnas). — Realist214:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes it looks like he has a formidable empire of his own, yet doesn't actually own his own stuff (the irony). Anyways, it would be a mammoth job, it might be easier to make the category "Music Michael Jackson doesn't own the rights to". — Realist215:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, Sony has an option to buy him out; you just know that the moment you created the category, they'd exercise it. – iridescent15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The official negotiation of 2005 were never disclosed although that was suggested as an option before hand. We don't know what was actually agreed to when they eventually signed. However as recently as 2007, they worked together on a big business project ... Jackson and Sony bought Famous Music LLC from Viacom in 2007. This deal gave him the rights to songs by Eminem, Shakira and Beck, among others.[6]. Personally I think he's mad to continue with them, he should sell out before Sony try to sink him into selling out. — Realist215:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a gamble; if the new album sparks a wave of interest, or something happens to generate a renewed surge in interest in the Northern Songs list, he could be sitting on a goldmine. I suspect Apple would jump at the chance to buy his stake, both for the stranglehold it would give Itunes over the market, and to annoy Paul McCartney. – iridescent15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it funny how this has been spun by so many people as a Jackson v Beatles/McCartney thing. The thing is, the Beatles are only 150 songs. Northern Songs and later Sony/ATV are thousands of songs. Jackson's and Sonys empire is huge with or without the Beatles (sorry Beatles fans). I think he's mad to stick hold of them. The music industry is weak so I'll guess this has effected the value of the publishing's a little and he has Sony playing dirt tricks behind his back. If I was him I would sell to some other company and wipe the smirk off Sony's face. — Realist215:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Although the Beatles are only a few songs, they're by far the most significant of the Northern Songs backlist, not least because the "Lennon/McCartney" crediting means that the copyright clock will only start ticking from McCartney's death. As regards the Apple thing, Apple & McCartney have been sniping at each other for thirty years over who owns the rights to the name Apple Music. – iridescent16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is, although we can delete the photos as "disputed status", unless we can dig out the original and prove where it came from – or he leaves the metadata tags on something he "borrows" – it's almost impossible to prove abuse. I do not intend going through the million-plus images a Google search on "Britney Spears" will bring up. Since he says he lives in Hanoi, and the photo is clearly in California, I'm not going to assume much good faith here. – iridescent16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ding dong, editor who uploaded this also uploaded another Britney Picture a few days ago (check his talk page), it emerged via consensus on the Britney Spears talk page that that picture wasn't free. This seems unlikely too. It even has an AP sign in the corner. — Realist217:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Given him a final 3RR warning. Don't revert him if he does it again or you'll be in breach of 3RR. Have also given Mr Vinx a final warning for copyright violation, having spotted yet another of "his". – iridescent17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Bloody molly, they are all at. Just because she looks good again... Betta watch out for this, lot's os sneaky stuff going on. — Realist218:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Jennavecia and I imposed a topic ban on this editor earlier today due to his edit warring and COI issues. He has since continued to edit war and insert snide editorial comments, such as this. Would you mind either attempting to talk to him or issuing a short block? Thanks. GlassCobra20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
From the history, he hasn't readded the more idiotic additions since they were last removed,and the bit about the logo one can at least see an argument for inclusion. I've got it watched; if there's any further silliness, I'll step in. I've been watching this one for a few days and it looks like he's trying to do it right, he just doesn't understand what "right" is and is getting frustrated on realising that we're not Facebook. By the way, is GlassCobra your real name? – iridescent23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, he did add the logo since my last posting. Here, he appears to be making some kind of claim that because we have an article on I Ching, it should be included in the CU article. I'm failing to see any kind of significance in the logo, nor do I see any sources that the Ching is an "essential theme inspired by the Lower Manhattan theater and performance art movement." GlassCobra02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have made every effort to accommodate reasonable recommendations by admins and other editors, even relentless editing by "GlassCobra." I regret that "GlassCobra" fails to "see any kind of significance in the logo," despite the link to the wikipedia I Ching article, but I understand that he or she may be uninformed and/or may be trying to prove some other point or gain wiki "cred." This effort to ban me is completely unwarranted. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." I have made every effort to collaborate with other editors to come to agreement on changes, and explain my viewpoints in a friendly, positive, and objective, manner. The article may ultimately include conflicting viewpoints. I will ask you and again ask GlassCobra to please not abuse the power of an admin. Thank you.--Justindavila (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article contains no reliable sources for the history of and story behind the logo, and it is very unusual for a Wikipedia article on a company to discuss the design of the company's logo; even truly iconic logos like the Transport for London roundel or the United States Air Force insignia aren't discussed. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything or a webhost, and GlassCobra's removals of extraneous material from the article are trying to help you by stopping the article from being deleted altogether. With all due respect, GlassCobra is a very experienced Wikipedia administrator who has made over 17000 edits to Wikipedia and almost certainly is better qualified than yourself to judge what is and isn't appropriate content. If you're unhappy with his actions, feel free to post a report at WP:ANI, but you'll almost certainly find that others agree with GlassCobra on this. – iridescent13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The internal Wikipedia link was to I Ching hexagram 64. At no point does that article mention this theatre, nor can I see any circumstances in which it might do so. Please read some of the advice you have been repeatedly given, about reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost, and everything on here has to be sourced. – iridescent14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Except that this hexagram can only be understood in terms of the I ching hexagram, right? Do you understand what this hexagram means, like millions of other human beings [likely do not -- (edit after the fact--Justindavila (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC))]? Would you or other wiki users benefit from learning more through an easy wiki link? Wikipedia has an article on the I Ching, with a specific ref to hexagram 64. Even an admin, such as – iridescent, and possibly many lowly "users" without "admin-only" powers, may wish to learn what that symbol means. The symbol does not refer to the theater, the theater refers to the symbol, despite iridescent's somewhat limited ability to "see any circumstances in which it might do so." This is simply a lack of research by this admin. Thanks. --Justindavila (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
←You have been told this by at least three editors; I will repeat it one more time. That this hexagram appears on your logo does not make the article on this hexagram a reliable source for the article on your organisation, any more than our article on Chicken is a reliable source for France national rugby union team just because they happen to have a heraldic chicken as their emblem. All these people you are spewing abuse at are trying to stop this article from being deleted. Wikipedia is neither a webhost or a directory and you have had this explained to you many times. This is not open for debate; if you are not willing to follow our rules, this is not the site for you. The time taken up in dealing with you is beginning to cancel out the positives you bring to Wikipedia; if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – iridescent23:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sudden divergence into discussion of unusual heraldic animals
Let's consider this a learning experience. I've learned a lot, especially about admin powers. Your "chicken logo" analogy was certainly amusing to at least two other people, even if it was both more condescending tham funny, and also totally missed the point -- but before you use your powers again, I acquiesce to your "advice," since I've learned I dont have much power here at all. By the way, did you ever actually justify the claim of COI which was supposed to be the reason this all got started? And did you review my apologies for adding a response to a request for citation of the 501c3 non-profit status of the organization, before you blocked me without discussion? Did you do any review personally, or did you just go along with your fellow admins claims? Thanks. --Justindavila (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous and I'm no longer going to reply to any of your ramblings unless and until you have something constructive to say. Three people gave you advice on what was and wasn't acceptable. You chose to ignore it and were blocked. Four more people then gave you advice on what was and wasn't acceptable. Since then you've done nothing but post abuse on talkpages. Wikipedia is not an anarchy and if you're not willing to follow our rules – which have been explained to you repeatedly by multiple editors – then we don't want you here. Sorry to be rude, but that is all that this dispute boils down to. – iridescent22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't think I have seen many of them, but a "heraldic" chicken, cockerel, or other fowl can't be very different from the real animal. In contrast to such ferocious beasts as a heraldic antelope or dolphin. Have you seen any? A child would be scared. (Which translates as "useful weapon".)
Not sure if it qualifies as "heraldic", but my favourite mediaeval stylised animals are the Dacre Beasts, especially the salmon. Just plain odd.
On the subject of scary heraldic animals, my IRL ancestral arms (no, really) are possibly the least menacing ever – a heraldic smelt makes a dolphin or hare look positively terrifying. For any Brandt-wannabee tempted to play soopersleuth with that & try to find out my name, those are the arms of the Cuddeback family, from whom about 70% of the population of my area of NY are descended (14000+ people on the "official" family tree alone), so good luck with that. – iridescent22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm only an amateur, but they look like carved supporters. You will notice that there are additional symbols on them: the salmon is crowned with something, and the ox is gorged with a crown and chained. (The latter, in combination with the shell on the pedestal, hints at Bedfordshire—I don't have extensive knowledge of family heraldry, but similarities with arms of local authorities are frequent and intentional.) I think I've seen such wooden sculptures prepared for coronations; they sure are interesting.
Slight rephrase: I like the way the hare is depicted in heraldry (playing the bagpipes), but my favourite beasts are the griffin and several marine hybrids, most notably the sea-lion and sea-horse. I actually use sea-lions in my coat of arms.
About yours, now, you are right about the profound lack of menace. :-) I like the shield: it has a certain sea-like beauty in its simplicity. I also notice the difference from British heraldic tradition, which is the one I study. French, is it? (And what does "IRL" mean? I suppose "ancestral" means you cannot actually use the arms, no? Or wasn't the individuality of arms as strictly enforced in France?)
PS: You've just caused an edit conflict, and it's the first time I am so happy to see one. The new screen is extremely interesting, and tremendously helpful. I think I can hear the rousing cheers. Waltham, The Duke of17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(Excited by the edit conflict, I failed to comment on the reason for it.) Lol! This is a nice one. It sounds like a pun, though, so it's probably fully justified. If a coat of arms can be punning, it usually will be; after all, the purpose of arms is to identify the armiger, and puns make it easier to remember which design is whose. Waltham, The Duke of17:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The Dacre arms
In rough order:
I'm sure they're supporters - look at the way the salmon's fins in particular curve round to grasp an (invisible) staff. Not sure where they came from though; the Dacre arms contain no animals of any sort, let alone this odd mix. They now live in the British Galleries at the V&A, and are a lot bigger than they look in the photo.
Norman, originally, so I assume from the French tradition; the family was originally from Caudebec-en-Caux near the Channel coast, but settled in what was to become the US in the late 17th century (as Hugenots, the family was banned from New France so wound up in what's now New York). I'm quite sure I'm not entitled to bear them, and I'd be surprised if anyone is, given the French Revolution and (presumably) taking British citizenship when they migrated. There's a (rather dubious) history of the family here; traditional back-country American inbreeding means large swathes of Orange County, New York (most obviously Cuddebackville) are filled with Cuddeback descendants of one sort or another. The family tree is so entangled – in the best upstate NY tradition, it forks a lot less than is traditional – that any line of descent is hopelessly confused.
Well, there's one thing to do if you don't have arms: draw your own. They won't be legal, but the product does offer a certain satisfaction.
You are lucky to know your family's history, to any extent. I don't have a family tree to look at, simple or complex, there are no detailed records of the previous generations, and I only vaguely know the history of my ancestors and my surname's derivation. There is no heraldic tradition here, either. (Though, I must say, not actually living with relatives all around is not bad at all, at least for the duration of my studies; family can be a little overbearing at times (read "a lot"), and mine especially so.)
As I was making that edit I was actually considering the possibility that I might be causing an edit conflict, and how fitting (and helpful for my point) that would be. Funny how it came to be, after all. Waltham, The Duke of04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
For beating me to reverting my own talk page five times in quick succession, then beating me to the block. How on Earth did you do that? J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been accused of it in the past... Huggle may have some flaws, but when it's being used right and not as an edit-warring tool, it's a beautiful piece of kit. Gurch gets flak for some of his acolytes' "overenthusiasm", but deserves spectacular credit. – iridescent17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
On the topic of vandalism, I don't think these edits really violated the NPOV policy, considering it's about a fictional radio station in a game - it doesn't exactly seem unlikely that one of the characters would be racist. The whole article is pretty crufty though. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Keeper says you need a lesson. You go to the game, yawn instantly, then leave. - At least that's how I played my first game. I'm a mathematician, the world's greatest excuse, so I was the kid on the T-ball team who struggled to pick up the bat, then missed the T-stand. I'm off to read about heraldic animals... You know, before I tried to write my first Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin's Church five days ago, I used to have a real life, see User:EricDiesel. I even had a girlfriend that I spent physical time with. EricDiesel (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The really ironic thing is, where I'm from is only about 100 miles from Cooperstown, but there's no baseball tradition at all in the area – everything's horses & football. Now, I have the excuse of living in The Rest Of The World, where baseball is only played by little girls, and nobody over 15 even remembers the rules. – iridescent19:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Re:"I'm in England, and consequently know very little about a) Christianity" -
2a. I lost $20 million by last summer with lawyers, then I lost my redwood forest in another frivolous lawsuit while caring for my my mom with cancer, my mom died in May, everything I own burned down with no insurance later in May, and my girlfriend just got a Neuroscience position in Newcastle, England. I hate Enngland.
2b. I thought you said you were in Cooperstown.
3c. Christianity is EXACTLY how I taught you to play baseball above. You go into the church, yawn instantly, then leave.
I'm happily editing away on a building up the road from my house, so I think the COI police can come for me first. (Once the "architecture and inhabitants" side is out of the way, you may get badgered about its current incarnation as a museum). I'm also only a few minutes away from The Boudoir. If that means nothing to you, count yourself very lucky. – iridescent22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I just read something aboout the Bruce actually, can't remember what. I've done a fair bit about my neighborhood as well. Few local buildings too. We're all going down, maybe Keeper will block? :) Not sure if the Boudoir you're thinking of is the one I know of in London. North? Fashion of a sort? I'm off to a bldg. local to my office. Don't think I've edited it yet. Will have to try TravellingCari22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, that's a bit creepy! I managed not to enhance my COI in editing MoMA. Actually didn't enjoy it too much, too much techno music and less-than impressive food choices. I'm really looking forward to this opening next week. Should be awesome. And yes, I am a museum geek IRL. I laughed when I got accused of a COI on account of that. I like museums and you like video games - how is this a COI? TravellingCari03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Message to User talk:216.120.190.254
Hello Iridescent, not sure if it's on your watch list, but I left a response to your message to User talk:216.120.190.254 - this does look like it may be a copyright violation, as the anon claimed; and the anon also provided an explanation and link to the site in question. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I am new, and am learning about Wiki nightmares by having them. But I don't want to learn that way. Should I shut it down, so I don't kill myself by playing with gunpowder, until I have time to read the links you sent me? 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
At the moment it's fine. The twin issues are:
If you remove a personal attack on SP from her article and keep it there, it's still a personal attack on a major figure hosted on Wikipedia;
More importantly (and this is what the GFDL bit means), Wikipedia content is copyright to whoever wrote that particular part. We can't cut-and-past text from one article to another, as that breaks the chain of attribution. If you copied and pasted something to that page, it would be impossible to credit the original author were anyone outside Wikipedia to use it (other sites, and even major newspapers, copy Wikipedia articles surprisingly often), and impossible to find out who to blame for any libels etc.
Hope that makes sense! Don't worry too much about all of Wikipedia's policies, but copyright and BLP (Biographies of Living People) are two that do need to be taken seriously. – iridescent21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hate to think of what the diff would have looked like at one week! I changed my archiver once. Despite Keep's predictions, I've not gotten inundated with posts as *touch wood* I guess my admin moves are mostly uncontroversial and any intensive conversations are in locations not my own. Odd. TravellingCari15:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, I don't usually get 50k posts! I don't like having the archive period below a week and ideally 14 days, as I'm so often away unexpectedly. – iridescent15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We all have our crazy moments. I don't have many unexpected away periods, but I also don't like monstrously long talk pages. DGG's is a wonderful wealth of information but it used to break my old laptop. I couldn't manage that as a page I had to check regularly. TravellingCari15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I set it to 7 days instead of its usual 14, and it's still looking set to top 100kb within the next 24 hours at this rate (particularly as one of our more periphrastic contributors has now turned up). I guess if it can cope with ANI... – iridescent21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've created by second account. I would appreciate if you could give it rollback rights - thanks a lot. And, if there's a way, if you could give it autoconfirm right away. Thanks again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done as regards the rollback. Not sure how to give it autoconfirm right away (unless anyone reading this can help), but if you make 10 edits it should autoconfirm after four days. – iridescent18:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't really judge; that looks like a fairly impressive list of films, but I don't know if he's just "guy in background who looks like Michael Jackson" or if he actually has significant speaking roles. You probably know more than me; if you think he's non-notable, AfD it and see what happens.
In general I'm against deleting actors, even the minor pornstars; I tend to follow the KMWeber/DGG line of reasoning that they're verifiable and they're potentially useful – as I've said before, where Wikipedia shines is that we do cover the minor subjects that don't get Britannica entries, and the proper deletion criteria is verifiability and not notability; at the risk of sounding like the most pompous kind of wikilawyer, Wikipedia:Notability is only a style guideline (a much-modified version of this essay), despite the people who cite it as if Jimbo Wales had carried it down on stone tablets from Mount Nupedia. However, there is a limit even to this extreme inclusionism (which I recognise the majority don't agree with), and we certainly don't need articles on every lookalike on the planet unless there's something significant about them.
You might want to ask Keeper76 about this (I'm sure he'll be grateful for yet another post on his talkpage, and do be sure to include at least one of these in any post there) – my deletion-decisions tend to be on CSD candidates and salvaging incorrect prod-nominations, and he has far more experience than me in judging borderline AfDs. – iridescent19:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Iridescent, I'd have appreciated a note that I was quoted on AN/I.[7] You misrepresented my position, which is not that Cooper Brown is real, and that I'm an American editor is totally irrelevant. The satire is obvious to me too. However, that the column is satire doesn't prove that the author doesn't exist. Sometimes, for example, a real person will write a total spoof about their own history; some of it may be true, some not. As you noted, maybe the author is Dom Joly, in which case Cooper Brown would be a possibly notable pseudonym. I've pointed out that, just as we can put "facts" from the column into the article with verifiable attribution, likewise we could put in the two "RS" comments about the identity, I've simply left that to others with direct access to the columns in question, I'm dependent on what's been written in Talk. Did this really deserve a note to AN/I? It seems to have been rather easy to find consensus there on what's in the article -- I managed it by stubbing it ruthlessly and by tossing in weasel words for good measure, to reflect the lack of verification of the underlying "facts." And nobody is seriously debating AfD, either. I.e., some users may indeed file one, but that's simply normal process. I agree, an AfD might be messy, and the article, as-is, seems harmless. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the sole purpose of the thread was to direct uninvolved people to the talkpage – and no users were named in it – there was no purpose in notifying people of it. You've noticed, I assume, that nobody else involved in that particular lame edit war was notified either;
Cooper Brown is a real column. There is no possibility that Cooper Brown is a real person, unless you think "I'm a movie producer, originally from Eureka, California. I then went to Berkeley before working in LA at Paramount and Variety as well as being Dennis Hopper's PA for a crazy couple of months. Then I met this English chick- Victoria. She's an aristocrat and I moved over here with her and we've had a kid- Humboldt-Fog. We're engaged but I'm in no hurry to marry as her parents (The Himmlers) are lunatics" is a genuine biography. Since you're so fond of wikilawyering: Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. As far as I can see, there is not a single person on that talkpage agreeing with you;
Even if you're absolutely right on everything, this is a pathetic thing to be editwarring about, and that goes for all concerned. We currently have 6,909,031 articles of which 47,151 don't need substantial improvement, a ratio of 147 to one. All of you, go improve this article instead of wasting everyone's time arguing about an article nobody cares about;
The place to discuss this is on the article's talkpage, the AfD, or the talkpages of those editors you're arguing with, and not my talkpage. If you have any reply to this that is not directly about me, take it somewhere else. Having just got rid of one batch of 50kb of ramblings from this page, I do not want my talkpage looking like this. This is a website (of somewhat erratic quality), not the Oxford Union; if you have a problem, take it to ANI, RFC, RFAR, WQA or whatever other bit of alphabet soup takes your fancy; hell, take it to WR. – iridescent20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Came across this AfD, checked out the page, and it turns out that the current four paragraphs are copied (link at AfD log). I was considering a {{db-copyvio}} tag, but it wasn't all added at once, so I don't think G12 exactly applies here. Perhaps {{db-spam}}. Or should we just let the AfD run? Whatcha think? Cliff smithtalk16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it's a copyvio is irrelevant (and all the edits by a single editor, within a single two hour period, is close enough to me to "at once" for G12 to apply); it's blatant and unsalvageable spam. Gone. – iridescent18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Cromer Links Halt
I was in the midst of expanding the Cromer Links article when you made an edit redirecting the page to a Cromer stations article. I have nonetheless proceeded with my edit - removing the redirect - and shall explain why. This station merits far more in-depth treatment than is currently given on the Cromer stations article. I've also read through the discussion you've flagged up in your redirect and can't see that it excludes the possibility of individual articles on stations which have a lot of history to them. I was hoping to do a similar article on Cromer High on which there is plenty of material. I'm not trying to create problems and I don't think it affects the good article status of the Cromer stations article. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem if you're going to expand it – and I couldn't care less about the GA status of the current article, which in its current much-messed-about state doesn't deserve it – but don't be in the least surprised if someone else reverts you on this. (I won't, unless the article isn't substantially expanded). If you're going to split the article, you maybe ought to delete (or massively stubbify) the equivalent sections from Railway stations in Cromer and return it to being Cromer railway station, unless you're willing to keep them all watchlisted, as the potential for content-forking is very high. – iridescent20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
After some consideration and having read the many other discussions on this subject, I moved the content to the Cromer article and reinstated your redirect. It's a shame though that it had to come to this - the original Cromer Beach article seems to have been extended by tacking on brief mentions of the former stations in the area and then gained GA status. What in retrospect should have been done was as Mjroots proposed at the discussion you indicated, namely different articles for the stations, but the concern that they would just be stubs seems to have prevailed. It's a shame as the main article on Cromer Beach isn't up to much in the first place. Interesting though that Roughton Road survived the grouping, perhaps on the basis that it's open to traffic. One can only hope that the debate on this article will be reopened and Railway stations in Cromer reverts to Cromer Beach once more. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It might not be clear from the discussions, but we used to have three separate articles ([8], [9], [[10]]), which were merged to form the single article. You're indeed right on why Roughton Road survived; every currently open station gets its own article (even hopeless cases such as Brigg), while unless there's a good reason to keep them separate (generally that their article is long), standard practice (but not policy) is to have an article on the line with the stations as stubs. There's a grey area regarding preserved railways, which tend to look something like this. As so many people are watching these articles, it's usually a good idea to discuss any proposed change at WT:RAIL to gauge how any changes are likely to go down. – iridescent21:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Not particularly impressed I have to say – whatever the merits of the song, the production sounds like it's been through Auto-Tune one too many times, and the song seems a bit dated. But I'm decidedly not the target market. – iridescent18:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
My RFA
In response to your concerns at my RFA, I would like to tell you I have been contacted for my speedy deletions. Since then, I have been much more careful. For at least two of those, one being Koh Lipe, I would not have nominated it today, as I have learned since then. I hope this explanations of my actions will switch your !vote to Support, or maybe even Neutral. Cheers.--LAAFansignreview22:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
No. If these were in the past I'd have no problem with it at all - everyone makes mistakes - but this and this were yesterday and the others were all in the past couple of weeks. – iridescent22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(adding) I just noticed that "at least two". If you think any of those six examples were valid taggings - let alone two-thirds of them - then quite honestly I don't trust you to tag articles for deletion, let alone to actually delete them. – iridescent22:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant at least two of those were before I took a long look at the criteria, and wouldn't have even considered to CSD them. Sorry if my comment was taken the wrong way.--LAAFansignreview02:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
What you seem to be saying is that you were tagging articles for speedy deletion without having looked at or understood the speedy deletion criteria. Have I got that right? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, i dont really see you that much around here, but thanks. For reverting Vandalism On my Userpage. Nvm, you always revert vandalism. I cant wait till all these socks can be blocked... Thanks again
I guess you deserve this :P
an editor has asked on my talk page that he wants Yateesh M. Acharya back on wikipedia. It would be very helpful if you could email me with the latest version of this article so I can tell the editor what improvements the article needs to pass wp:csd.
You don't have email enabled, and I'm unable to repost the original article as it's a very blatant (as in, virtually word-for-word) copyright violation from here. I can email you the article text if you want, but it really is virtually identical to the source. – iridescent19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
oops I forgot to enable it via email (I didn't expect you to reply so fast) but I'll still want to have the article emailed thanks
Hi. I noticed that you reverted 80.192.27.63 (talk·contribs) and left a message on their talk page warning them about content removal. However, this edit dif covering their 7 edits shows that they only added, rephrased and rearranged content. They did remove some content in the later edits, but it was only things that they had added themselves (looking at the individual edits I think they were just confused by the election box template and reverted themselves when they couldn't fix it). Can you please review your reversion and the warning you gave to the editor? Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Off it goes. Ray-zin has enough of a history that they may just have a shared interest, and AGF isn't stretched too far. Although if Ogioh gets blocked, it will be interesting to see who gets caught in the autoblock. – iridescent20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
What right do you think you have from denying the truth to every American that was affected from flight 93 and every other incident? You have no idea what happened I have no idea what happened so, you have no right to publish the incomplete truth on this site. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that is influenced by everyone but from what I have seen is nothing less than a page of fascist lies and half truths when it comes to 9/11.THE Most ridiculous part is the Fact your community would place the flight 93 on the front page on a day like this when over 10 million people do not agree with the commission lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al3xtec (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Stop this now. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy theory fan forum. If your next edit looks like this you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – iridescent22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked a simple question ...and my edits were just a trivial pursuit not a real definition m of my actual editing skill... but my real question is who is in charge and who can i talk to that is intelligent enough to respond in a full educated statement and not a mild threat that i could careless about... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al3xtec (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if the stuff you posted were true, it would have been in rather bad taste to post it today. As to who's in charge, well, so far as you're concerned iridescent is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Scroll down to the bottom of every page here and you'll see that the Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia. If you want to talk to the man in charge, anyone's free to post to his talkpage. Or if you want to make a complaint you can take it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Unless you have something more sensible to say than you've said so far, expect not to be taken very seriously by any of the three. And as Malleus says, this of all days is not the day in which anyone wants to hear your conspiracy theory. – iridescent23:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of newer users who haven't yet experienced September on Wikipedia, it won't get much better than this until November. And then all the kids will get shiny new computers for Christmas and it all starts again. Enjoy.
LOL It's ridiculous how much of a tool this site has become.. a TOOL FOR PROPAGANDA...I DON'T CARE ABOUT MY LOGIN ANY LONGER..SO NOW I WILL TELL YOU TO GO FUCK yourself and hopefully when you lose every right to express your self You will remember how someone tried to enlighten this world but your ignorant counsel of convoluted moronic single minded fascists. GOOD DAY SIR
(u will see me again as a new name some day soon i will never be stopped) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.0.49 (talk • contribs)
I've just read about the "Eternal September", and a surge of pessimism and confusion has risen inside me. When did our September start? I'm not sure we haven't always been like that, anyway (with the exception of the first couple of years, perhaps—from what I infer—but that was a different phase altogether).
If the point is that we'll always be in (at least) as bad a state as the one we now find ourselves in, then I believe it has been successfully conveyed. But again, how is it that the concept of knowledge is always supposed to be so distanced from that of idiocy? Idiots are anything but clueless, at least to themselves; on the contrary, they are quite convinced of their views, or they wouldn't present such problems to us "'knowledgeable'". Waltham, The Duke of01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Our September dates quite precisely, to November 29, 2005. That was the day the Seigenthaler incident reached the public domain, and "hey, there's this site that anyone can edit and they don't check their facts" started to spread; the whole thing reached critical mass in early 2007 when an unfortunate incident caused every troll on the internet to target us. Personally, I'd say our "September" of fending off an endless rain of trolls and vandals is gradually lifting, for the first time in three years, and you can thank Gurch and his baby for that; the automation of vandal-reversion is depriving them of the satisfaction of seeing their edits go live (our conspiracy-theorist friend's edits were both reverted within 10 seconds [11], [12]) and making them go somewhere else for their kicks, and (Sarah Palin notwithstanding) most articles are now settling into a stable state. Also, the attack sites are by and large either stagnating or hopelessly compromised with Wikipedia editors; /b/ is the last of the troll marshalling-yards with any real bite and they're easily defended against. The fact that our main competitor is very publicly failing isn't hurting, either.
Wikipedia still has major problems – most obviously the messy stratification of the arbitrary adminship procedure in creating a self-selecting elite (in 2003 50% of edits were made by admins; in 2006 it was 10%; I suspect it's now below 5%); the relationships between Jimmy Wales, his private companies, and the (charitable) WMF sites; and the wretched mess that passes for a dispute resolution process. However, for the first time the problems with Wikipedia are internal processes rather than the content itself. Despite the constant volleys of abuse from the "exiles" at WR, we are generally very accurate, and we know what the problem areas are so can watch them. – iridescent01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping maybe it was the conspiracy-theorist version of hobo code and I was being marked out as someone to be shot come the revolution. (That hobo article is either absolutely fascinating, or an inspired piece of bullshit almost in the league of Wet Floor Sign – "during the 1889 National Hobo Convention in St. Louis Missouri, a code was voted upon as a concrete set of laws to govern the Nation-wide Hobo Body"). – iridescent02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And they say Wikipedia is inaccurate and boring. Pf, the ignoramuses.
I have read about both the Seigenthaler incident and the Essjay controversy, although I did not have the opportunity to witness them unfold. I certainly hadn't realised how momentous the consequences of the former were for the community itself, apart from the institution of the BLP policy (and, I think, the "temporary" banning of article-creation by anons). I only started contributing in earnest in early 2007, and my memories of Wikipedia for the previous three or so years are fragmented at best. This saddens me sometimes, as I have read and deduced that many serious improvements took hold in 2006 and 2007, and I'd like to see the differences for myself.
My information-hungry brain also regrets the lack of documentation for many of the community's memes and running jokes. I've been fortunate enough to be informed about the origins of the "on wheels" meme (it sounds funny enough for those who didn't have to do the reverting), but the Grawp one is more obscure; I realise that documenting these things is undesirable, as it would give vandals and trolls the attention they seek, but I must know. And you are quickly turning into a useful fount of historical information. :-)
Question: I see all these block logs reading "account creation blocked", and it just makes no sense. The user has an account; it's the one the log belongs to. What account's creation is blocked? Waltham, The Duke of04:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"Account creation blocked" (aka "hardblock") means that, not only is the account banned from editing, but should any IP address that account has edited from try either to edit, or create an account, they will see this notice:
You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. Your ability to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse from the other person.
The other user was blocked by $1 for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
$2
This block has been set to expire: $6.
Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.
What does this mean?
As do many websites, Wikipedia administrators occasionally block accounts and IP ranges that are deemed responsible for or related to problematic activity. You may be an innocent victim of collateral damage, whereby a block of some other activity has accidentally caused your account to be unable to edit pages. If your editing access has been blocked by mistake, it will be reactivated very quickly, as soon as you let an administrator know of the problem. The box above gives the information you will need.
What is a block?
A block is a measure used to protect Wikipedia from possible improper use, or modification in breach of editorial policies. Once blocks are over, they become history unless problems recur. Blocks can apply to a user account, an IP, or a range of IPs. A number of automated features identify unblocked usage which apparently should be blocked; these are known as autoblocks and can be quickly rectified if incorrect.
Most common cause of an autoblock
Your IP matches that used by another blocked account, or the software believes your account or IP is connected to another blocked account. Ask for further information and/or request unblocking. Due to the nature of some Internet service providers, automatic blocks may inadvertently affect people other than the person whose account was blocked.
Rectifying an autoblock
Unblock request
If you are unjustly affected by this block, please copy-paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page:
An administrator will show up shortly to review the block once you have added the above template to the bottom of your talk page.
If this problem affects you repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia'sXFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers. This will reduce the chances of you being affected by future automatic blocks.
Emailing us
You will usually get a faster reply by posting the {{unblock-auto}} template on your talk page, as described above. If you need help, however, you can contact the unblock-en-l mailing list for assistance.
When emailing us, please copy and paste this form:
To request assistance with an autoblock:
IP address: $3
Blocking admin: $4
Autoblock ID: $5
Original block reason: $2
Your account name (if you have one):
Even though emails sent to unblock-en-l mailing list are viewable only by administrators and trusted volunteers, under no circumstances should you email us your account's password or reveal it to anyone else even if asked to.
This list exists for the purpose of reviewing blocks only — any request to make edits to articles on your behalf will be disregarded. Correspondence containing legal threats, personal attacks or rudeness are likely to be ignored and may result in the lengthening of pre-existing blocks.
There's a potted background to the Grawp meme here, along with all our other regular trolls and vandals. The best summary of the background to the whole Grawp vandalism meme is the Encyclopedia Dramatica page at http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Grawp (not linked for a reason); although most of their articles about Wikipedia are a 50-50 mix of exaggerations and lies, this one sums it up quite well. If you're viewing ED from work/school/anywhere there are likely to be other people, turn your browser's images off; also, the usual "don't believe anything you read there" warning applies, as ED is notoriously a place where disgruntled Wikipedians go to settle scores. – iridescent15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is all very interesting. First of all, the hardblock; I do not recall having ever read the blocking policy—except, perhaps, the amount necessary to help me make the distinction between blocking and banning. I do need to brush up my knowledge of policy. I read all policies and guidelines, a little cursorily perhaps, back in 2006 (or maybe '05). Now they are more, bigger, and more complex, or simply changed.
WP:LTA... So there is a Hall of Fame for vandals. Or just the equivalent of a brochure with the safety features of banknotes. Definitely bookmarked.
Ever since March I've been editing from home and make very rare usage of public computers, so no problems here, although there are obviously more reasons to turn images off before venturing there. I am rather difficult to disgust, but I pretty much hit my limit with the talk page. The person clearly has issues. The funny thing is that Grawp has appropriated the name of an ultimately likeable character; good thing that there is not enough material on him to create a featured article (or even a full article), or we'd have a very strange situation in our hands.
I must hand it to him that he keeps up to date; he attributes the auto-confirmation changes to his influence (doubtful, and I know I was quite involved in that debate), and keeps a scrapbook of mentions of him, like every self-respecting movie serial killer. You know, if Brandt spent his resources tracking down the primary culprit (someone else could take care of the "car accident" part), that would be a boost for his popularity around here. Waltham, The Duke of02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting. I also agree with the decision to keep the page, as well as with the comment you cite. I disagree with Citrouilles's action as much as I disagree with his peculiar selection of username and his most unfortunate practice of italicising "Wikipedia". (I knew I remembered that fellow from somewhere.) That snowball was well placed. Waltham, The Duke of00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't have any issues with The-One-Whose-Name-Is-Too-Bloody-Long. Well, I found him annoying, and his behaviour in some public venues disruptive at times, but there was nothing specific I held against him (save the aforementioned practice of italicising "Wikipedia", of course). In any case, I'm glad to see him get his comeuppance—although this isn't necessarily the last we've seen of him. (Even I have noticed how many lives some cats have; Jean Latore's posts in the Pump still haunt my intellect.) Waltham, The Duke of22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is blasphemy against The Great God Policy, and no doubt will be quoted against me by one of the gaggle of soi-disant Defenders Of The Wiki who periodically threaten me with RFC, ANI, RFAR, WQA, DESYSOP, AN & DR, but Wikipedia's block policy – like all policies – could quite easily be replaced by "use your common sense". The reasons we have such long, rambling policies are:
Plenty of people here don't have any common sense;
We have way too many kid (or kid-at-heart) editors who treat Wikipedia space as a rehearsal area for their future arguments with their girlfriend;
We have way too many adult editors who treat Wikipedia space as a substitute for their girlfriend;
We have way way way too many editors who treat Wikipedia space as a place to try to get a girlfriend through the sparkling wit of their debating skills and verbal repartee/pig-headed stubbornness. The fact that there are only about six female editors on Wikipedia who read the policy pages and most if not all of them look a bit scary doesn't seem to put them off;
We have a nutty "promotion" process that rewards people who can waffle about minutiae of policy whilst punishing people who can put forward common-sense suggestions and defend them.
The "is LTA a high score table for vandals" debate has been going on since the dawn of time. Noone will ever agree on that, so it stays.
You'd be surprised what can be inflated to FA/GA status given effort (although in-universe subjects always suffer from a lack of reliable sources, especially one like this that hasn't had time to get the academic articles written about it yet). A number of editors are (ahem) beavering away to get Cunt up there, for instance. Pretty much anything that you can find 10 reliable sources on can be brought to at least GA status, given a bit of effort.
The original culprit for Grawp isn't hard to find, if you know where to look; however, most pagemove vandalism (right back to the days of WoW) is down to dimwitted 4chan kiddies who haven't the wit to think of an original means of vandalising Wikipedia. And I think you can safely assume that nothing is going to give Brandt any popularity round here; he's not just "that quirky guy who sometimes posts on Wikipedia Review", he's a guy who maintains a dedicated attack and outing site on anyone he takes a dislike to and one of the primary drivers behind "true" anonymous editing as opposed to the old days of your username being a nickname. – iridescent16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Did that hurt? You know, when you fell from heaven? How you doin?. Scratch all that, I can't do it. I suck at pickup lines, I've been married too long. As far as the "there are only 12 female editors" here, I would submit in fact that there are probably only about 12 editors here, with massive pyschological complexes of multiple personality disorder, each battling themselvs and the personalities of their foes....I'm pretty sure I'm personally about 7000 different editors, as evidenced by my talkpage. Keeperǀ7619:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify my above comment, there are at least 12 female editors here, and at least half of us don't look scary. I just look very ordinary, rarely getting a second look on the street (either of attraction or fear), and even my friends have a hard time picking me out of a crowd. With a few exceptions. Risker (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought we'd established that you looked like a cross between Alannis Morisette and John Lennon?
Just doing my part to make this thread longer so you have something to link to on my talkpage to complain to whomever is listening that "your talkpage has long threads..." :-) Keeperǀ7620:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, quite correct, although Alanis with shorter hair, not the knee-length style. And without John Lennon's beard or wife. I really ought to be doing my work. Risker (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I've got two Uninvolved Admins here who don't seem to be doing anything else...
Not all Irish are Roman Catholic, you know. Strikes me there's been a bit of a stir about that, particularly in the northern part of the island. In any case, the category has a pretty good limiting statement, in that the person's Roman Catholicism must play a significant role in their notability, and from what I see that is the case for most of the articles in the category. One exception is Brian Cleeve, whose bio could certainly use some cleaning up and improved referencing, particularly the "spiritual life" section. Not a great category, but certainly beats Category:Canadian rapists. Risker (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC) makes mental note to clean that category up one day
In a bit of almost-too-perfect talkpage circularity, the final (13 September) offering from Cooper Brown – in its entirety – was "God I adore Sarah Palin - I need to boff that MILF." – iridescent18:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like that's just a compressed-air powered Firearms Training Simulator. Most real AR-15/M-16's don't come with extension cables in lieu of a magazine. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll use my secretary as a shield against Keeper's bespectacled enforcer. I am sure Cartwright will be thrilled with the prospect of his first seven-day leave in three years. Waltham, The Duke of22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Princess Protection Program
Thanks for the re-re-deletion. Might it be advisable to salt the article, at least for a month or two? And the article talk page too? Just thinking out loud. Cheers! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to salt it; as a forthcoming movie from a major studio, there is a potentially valid article to be written on it, and it will undoubtedly be valid when the movie's released. I've left a note on the author's talkpage; I have it watchlisted and will continue to whack-a-mole G4 it as and when it's reposted without addressing the issues. – iridescent17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I was simply adding an external link to that website as it applied to the subject. If you took the time to look, there are other wikipedia pages that have the same external website that I referred to, yet they are not considered spam. Therefore I do not get your point. If you wish for me to make you a list of all the articles I am talking about, please let me know. I won't do it now, because frankly I do not think you are worth my time.--Brad M. (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
ALso if you want to talk to me, talk on my page.--Brad M. (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Posted on your talk as per your request, but crossposting here for others' benefit
This link was clearly to a blog, which did not appear to be written by an established expert, and consequently removed per WP:EL. If this site is in fact a recognised authority by Wikipedia standards, by all means re-add it as a source. You might want to lay off the personal attacks, while you're at it.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you.
It is frowned upon to call Mark Zuckerberg a "sorry piece of shit" on Wikipedia.
--Afed (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I dare say it is. It's also frowned upon to throw template warnings about incorrectly without taking the five seconds it would have taken to see who added that, and to think that just maybe I'd be unlikely to be the one inserting BLP violations. – iridescent19:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You expect me to believe that an experienced Wikipedia Administrator like yourself overlooked bald faced libel on the first line of the article? I think it's more likely that you added the slander anonymously and then made a legitimate edit with your account to cover it up. --Afed (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing that. If your only mainspace edit for two months hadn't been this, I might take your conspiracy theories seriously. – iridescent20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on Iridescent, own up. I think Afed makes a very fair point. I'd never have expected you to be adding anonymous "slander" though; I expect that Afed meant to say "libel". :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for blocking that user, they were becoming quite annoying. I have had to request a checkuser (for using a registered account to do the same vandalism) and page protection on the Office of Strategic Services page because of them. Thanks again....NeutralHomer • Talk20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
hahahaha :) Only if you lived in Washington DC working at TD International.....or are you? <_< Ze plot thickens! DUN DUN DUNN! Take Care and Have a Good Evening...NeutralHomer • Talk20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This was my 100th post to Malleus's talkpage, too. Admittedly, I usually do all the "writing and tweaking" edits in userspace, but I have more edits to that talkpage than to any actual article. – iridescent21:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Do I need to link here how many edits you've made to my talkpage, Iridescent? I believe you may have recently topped 300. Just sayin. Keeperǀ7621:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I was about to go contribute a bunch of stuff on Butoh, Njinski, Tamano, and Harupin-Ha on the Butoh page. I checked the edit history page to see if I knew anyone, and noticed your name there. Are you a Butoh scholar or dancer? The Tamanos will be performing in the rocks at Joshua Tree next month, at the home of film director Eva Soltes, formerly the home of 20th century composer Lou Harrison. EricDiesel (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No (well, certainly not enough to comment on); this would just have been one of my periodic trawls through my "extended watchlist" of articles I have enough of an interest in to do the occasional semi-automated AWB skim clean-ups of, but not enough to warrant keeping on my watchlist. The best person to talk to regarding Butoh would be Doctormatt; he's retired, but periodically pops back; if you can catch him on one of his occasional returns from retirement, Dekkappai is also generally very good with Japanese subjects. WikiProject Japan is fairly active and might be able to help, too. – iridescent15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sanity check please (TPWs feel free to pitch in)
Hi there, I have been keeping an eye on the Karla Homolka article for a while; I seem to have picked that up on my watchlist after an earlier discussion on this page! In any case, I've noted that User:208.124.198.234 has come back to start adding "rumours" that Luke Magnotta is/is not married to KH, the latest addition being that he has denied being in a relationship - referenced, even, since my warning on the IP's talk page said BLP additions needed to have a reliable source. The question, for you and everyone else: Having done varying bits of work on this article over time, am I now too involved to block the IP? Does the BLP policy override any level of involvement? Risker (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No, block away. If you were Karla Homolka there'd be a COI – but by the nature of Wikipedia you're more likely to notice changes/vandalism to pages you've worked on. It's not like everyone involved in that wretched saga hasn't been warned enough already. – iridescent20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Very odd. We must have pulled the trigger simultaneously. (Mine was a - whisper it - Huggle block; even for its worst enemies, it's worth keeping it open in the background just to perform blocks as it's 1000 times more intuitive than MediaWiki; just enter duration and reason, and it blocks, fills in the log, and posts the appropriate notice with a single click). – iridescent21:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Note before an irate Gurch sees this: I'm not saying I'm Huggle's worst enemy here!
It also checks the sensitive IP address list for you, and also warns you if a block of an IP address will override an existing rangeblock, something that Special:Blockip provides no indication of :) -- Gurch (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's deciding that "he is cool" is, technically, an assertion of notability and refusing to speedy it just in case... on the other hand, it's more likely I buggered up the deletion code. It will definitely be fixed in the next version, what it not so certain is when that version will be available, at the rate things are going it's looking like some time in 2010... :/ -- Gurch (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for reverting the vandalism to my user page, I appreciate it. I suspect that some registered user I've had conflicts with in the past signed out to make the anonymous edit, but there's no proof of that, of course. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c21:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Iridescent. I, too, was going to speedy delete this article, but according to this other article, this person might actually be notable (appears in the list of actors). This revision looks okay, I wonder why the creator then started vandalizing its own creation. By the way, you really seem to be enjoying vandal-whack tonight; you've already beaten me to the punch some twenty times. :-/ Best regards, Húsönd22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I G6 deleted it due to this diff; feel free to restore a clean version if you want (obviously that one needs to go and possibly warrants oversighting). Clean history restored and the offending diff off to RFO. – iridescent22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I think I'll stay well away from that one, on the grounds that everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten my own use of adminbots, and I have no intention of reminding them -- Gurch (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, I noticed my name wasn't added to the 'Account Creators' user group, but I am registered as one on the toolserver. It would be nice to be able to create 6+ usernames a day for the purpose of fulfilling requests. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to touch WP:ACC; that's run semi-independently, and there may be a good reason you weren't given it, of which I'm not aware. I don't know enough about their mechanisms to advise (and FWIW, can't understand why anyone would want to). I'd advise requesting the permission there, or approaching Stifle direct. – iridescent22:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The ACC flag can be given to anyone who is active in the account creation process (be it via the list or the toolserver) and has hit the account creation throttle. Since you've never hit the throttle Tyler, you wouldn't be eligible for the flag at this time. –xeno (talk)00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I'm more than familiar with the speedy deletion criteria. I can't imagine a more obvious test page than a page reading – in its entirety – What a lovely boy. He attempts to straighten his hair, but fails miserably each and every morning. He loves eels. He is married to Joanna Brown and they have 5 children...George,Dr Borwick, Gemma Craig, Jesus and Bob. There wedding was in GayBoys magazine and they live on a small island just off Scotland.. Anyway, why the hell does it matter whether I delete it as a G2 or an A7? – iridescent19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It was clearly a non-notable bio, I myself have been advised by an admin (which I note you are) to not use Nonsense as a reason when nominating, here's a quote from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets.", I guess it matters as it affects the message sent out to the creator of the page, which could mess them around as to what they are aloud to create in regard to articles, cheers Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hoping against hope that my edit here causes an edit conflict so that Iridescent can look at what Iridescent wants to post, and perhaps reconsiders. :-) FYI, I think it was a G3 vandalism, not test page....Keeperǀ7619:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec and greatly toned down) Did I delete it as nonsense? Did I say at any point I deleted it as nonsense? No to both; a test page is not nonsense. I have no idea why we're having this discussion, but I'd advise stopping now. Looking at your talkpage, it appears that in your two weeks on Wikipedia you've racked up an impressive collection of warnings regarding your unconventional approach to the deletion process. For your benefit, we've thoughtfully collected our policies and guidelines into one convenient place. I strongly suggest actually reading them before you start lecturing other editors about "what they're doing wrong". – iridescent19:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
British/US English Question
Hi Iri, question for you from this change. I'm guessing ue is British English as I (and google) think cataloging is an acceptable use. Is ue better in the scholarly sense? I'm just curious since despite living in Australia for a time, some of the British spellings confuse me, like artefactTravellingCari19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, and I've reverted. The fault is with AWB/T, but as Gurch will no doubt take great pleasure in pointing out, users of semiautomated tools have full responsibility for edits made using them. "Catalogue/ing" is the correct spelling in British (and a valid variant in American); FWIW, I don't know where the U came from since the word's obviously derived from "kata-logos". – iridescent19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I was just curious if it was one of those +ing that results in a non-word in either British or American English i.e. dialoging. I had someone try to tell me that dialogue came from Latin and then spent ~20 m on the logos root. That broke my brain. Wasn't too worried about changing it back as I knew ue was a valid spelling, I just was concerned that my use, which I know I've used elsewhere, was wrong. I split Brit/American fairly evenly, but there are some that are foreign to me in both - like my screen name in American English looks wrong to me. TravellingCari21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
And if I had a dollar for every time I've been told off for correcting "jewelery" to "jewelry" (for American english) or "jewellery" (for the rest of the world), I'd have at least five dollars. – ιριδίζων21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
mgodwin 
wikimedia.org) to notify him, since the Times is a significant enough paper that a potential copyvio/derivation from them needs to be looked into. (Aside from anything else, a Times article will become a Reliable Source, so any errors in the article will now be "set in stone"). – iridescent 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
.svg)
.jpg)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you.
It is frowned upon to call Mark Zuckerberg a "sorry piece of shit" on Wikipedia.
--Afed (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
