User talk:Iridescent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

WP:LT

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of London's transport system.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• You may want to join or create a task force which attempts to drive the improvement of articles within a smaller scope.
• The project also provides templates to help you make the perfect article.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every London transport article in Wikipedia.
• You can vote for the London Transport portal's selected article and selected image of the month here.
• Submit your interesting London Transport facts at Portal:London Transport/Did you know for our portal.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

— From the members of WikiProject London Transport

09:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cad Operator copyediting

I added the "copyedit" more for style and tone than for errors. I thought input from the League of Copyeditors might be beneficial to what I believe is a good article. Some senteces seem kind of long to me etc. As far as deleteing the first sentence, I didnt realize that I did, I must have done it in error while adding the copyedit tag. I appologize for that.EMT1871 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem... Iridescenti

Cad Operator

No problem! No offense taken at all. My ignorance of all things British showed in that copyedit. Thanks for correcting my gaffes! BuddingJournalist 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I confused User:Hu12

I will send to User:Hu12. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jccoppola (talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Iridescenti,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Martinp23 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing

I see my entry has been deleted and you have not bothered responding to my talk.Really helpful and constructive stuff - well done!Alexash 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)alexash

Thank you for responding. I think the external links I provided went some way to asserting notable content and wonder if you checked them. I had not meant to be abusive in my second response (and apologies if I caused offence), only to express my frustration at what seem to be double standards where five minute tv celebrities deserve an extensive entry chronicling nonsense, but a small UK company that achieves 30% growth to a $3tn turnover company by using pioneering marketing techniques, receiving plaudits from leading media commentators, does not. I will work on the entry in an attempt to bring it more into line with the claimed requirements, but perhaps the quickest route would be to bare all on TV and get a headline in The Sun.Alexash 08:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)alexash

Further research discovers this quote from Wikipedia: "Former editor-in-chief of Nupedia, Larry Sanger, stated in an opinion piece in Kuro5hin that "anti-elitism" — active contempt for expertise — was rampant among Wikipedia editors and supporters. He further stated that "[f]ar too much credence and respect [is] accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labeled 'trolls'."[19] This sort of sentiment is more commonly known as anti-intellectualism." QED.Alexash 11:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)alexash

Huh? - Iridescenti 16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Home Improvement articles

I'm glad someone else has noticed the copyvio problem. The problem is that these pages do need to exist and it sucks that we have to delete them and start over. I hope this can be resolved soon. Thanks.--Tainter 01:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See the note on your talk page - do you think we can just snip out the offending text and leave empty shells? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Canaries

If you are indeed a Canary, I invite you to visit Category:Wikipedian Norwich City F.C. fans and follow the instructions at the top of the page! Please also note that Ipswich Town F.C. is currently at WP:FAC and Norwich City F.C. is undergoing a major overhaul, on its way to FA status too! --Dweller 10:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well just so long as we get there first... - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

you make wikipedia a very unfriendly page

I would like you to know I was very offend by your comment and Don't appriacte you critizing a members whos new to working on pages. I must say you make wikipedia a very unfriendly page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmenyZeroSkater (talk • contribs)

Sorry - I don't mean to be rude - but who are you and why are you leaving anonymous abuse on my talk page? If you're a Tractor Boy than sorry for hurting your feelings but it's true... - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You both seem to have edited the same Afd. I think he's referring to this diff ([1]). --Dweller 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That does make more sense... My, I'm making a lot of enemies this week. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am not, I am working on a wiki page deciated to a website I love and feel there should be a record about. I am still new to wiki and I don't think one of their higher ups should be making such harsh comments about a new users page they are working on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by EmenyZeroSkater (talk • contribs)

Believe me, I'm definitely not "one of their higher ups"... BTW you do know I'm not the one who nominated you, don't you? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I hoped you liked my little entry about Count Reginald... Shame that it has to be deleted don't you agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taylor.clapp (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Speedy deltion of Maratha Kings of Thanjavur

This is unnecessary. I was planning to fill the page whenever I get the time. You could have instead designated it as a stub asking for people to contribute. Anyway, its okay. I cannot waste my time in notifying the administrators just for the sake of the two lines the page contains. Ravichandar84 11:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is designated as a stub... Even if it's deleted it will be easy enough to recreate but at the moment there's nothing that wouldn't be better in Thanjavur. Also, remember that just because I tagged something doesn't mean it'll get deleted - it just means I'm suggesting to an admin that it might be deletable. I (rightly) have no power to make that decision... - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Matías Campos

I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article, as it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (playing in the top division in Chile is an assertion of notability). If you believe the article should be deleted, you may nominate it for deletion at AfD if you wish. Oldelpaso 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I thought they were second tier - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww, thanks...

Glad you liked my argument at AfD... thanks for the comment. :) Pinball22 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Message from User:JimJast

Hi Iridescenti, It's nice to talk at least to one real person and not to goasts from before over 2 years. Why are you taking part in something that you don't have any idea what it is (judging from your description of yourself)? Not that I don't like it but it interest me as a psychology student (to which I switched from astronomy after learning already how astronomers function). Jim 17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, and this isn't meant to sound stupid, but I have no idea what you're talking about... - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Weatherbug

I noticed that you have tagged the weatherbug article for cleanup. Keep in mind that the employees of weatherbug are constantly reverting the page to be non NPOV, (as well as threatening lawsuits against critics who have called their programs adware or spyware). [2] If you really want the article cleaned up, you might have to do it yourself because everyone else has grown too frustrated keeping up with weatherbug's reverts and strong arm tactics. BigE1977 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know it... Personally I think it should be deleted and salted, but unfortunately there aren't (quite) grounds for it. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opion

I've picked you at random from today's AFD page. Please give a third opinion at Talk:Chinaman. You might want to read English language names for Chinese people first. Uncle G 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Giddy-up, helicopter!

what does "this article must not be blanked mean?" i am also confused about the prior message someone left me in regards to deletion-- it wasn't grammatically correct and it also said that the notice could be taken down. this message to you actually isn't the most coherent thing i've ever written but it's 5:30 in the morning here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by notlearninglatin (talk • contribs)

See message on your talk page. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I proded it and was trying to be humorous in my reason for deletion. Guess you don't share my sense of humor. They were talking somewhere in the original article or on the talk page about getting revenge so I took it and ran with it. And I am not a sockpuppet. Gave those up almost 40 years ago when I left nursery school!  :) AND if you looked, you would have seen I proded a bunch of articles like Jason is the coolest kid on my street. AND I am a one timer everytime I am on here (which has been almost every day for 4 plus months now) because AOL assigns you a new IP number each time. Doesn't mean I don't know what I am doing! 172.144.63.43 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - AOL used to do that to me, too (main reason I set up a username, as half the addresses were blocked) but you have to admit, it does look iffy when it looks like the account's entire history consisted of a single day of prods. I'm not convinced the article's keepable (which is why I didn't !vote either way), but a prod after seven minutes for a new user's first ever post is a bit harsh. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot's tagging of Kew Constabulary

Hi! I had the same problem with it's tagging of The Proms. If my experience is anything to go by, you'll find that your comment gets moved to the bot's current project talk page, and reasoned argument is then ignored. Philip Trueman 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquitous command and control

For I think the first time, I agree 100% with Smerdis of Tlon;

Just wanted to let you know that I got a chuckle out of that. I do try to keep the mood relatively light in my AfD contributions. Still, the sort of language pathology exhibited by that article really annoys, largely because there are so many people who are so highly paid to say very little in a great many words. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen embrittlement during metallic coating

Can somebody explain how is the process of hydrogen embrittlement happens during the course of metallic coating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.147.53.27 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

OpenTable

Thanks for your comments on the article and its AFD. I just wanted to mention that I don't think you need to know much about California to edit the article in question; while the corporation is located in California, it operates internationally (given the interests listed on your user page, you might find it noteworthy that it serves 147 restaurants in London!)and has been covered by the BBC, among others. In instances where the article is primarily about a corporation's web presence, it's my opinion that the physical location of the corporate's headquarters is largely irrelevant; one doesn't need to live in Silicon Valley to contribute to an article on Google, or in Seattle to discuss Amazon.com, for example. None of this is to imply that you need to spend any time on the article; I just wanted to correct any possible misconception. Thanks again! JavaTenor 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment charges filed against you

Mr. Iridescenti, I have filed harassment charges against you.

Billy Hathorn 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Area 10 Project Space Peckham

Crickey, its a crazy project to get a wikipedia article accepted!

Perhaps it would be worth starting with a quick read of the edited hisory, and the 'external links', and 'collaborations' sections that were edited out in compleatly.

Would you help me to clean up the Area 10 PSP article before deletion?...i.e the links to participating artists (collaborations) etc what i would prefer to use is a 'box' as such re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Coles_HQ 'young british artists' rather than what has been called as a 'link farm'. I am learning wiki etiquette as i attempt to engage with wikipedia...Do you think you could help me making such a 'Box' ?

The nature of the article is all in reference to our applied status as Charity..which is the only way such artist run spaces can exist in the middle of the metropolis. Arguably our space is a 'networked', practice: without the people (like wikipedia) it would cease to grow and exist, even so this element of the article is fairly essential.

hope you have the time and interest to help! ∆iµitpi 06:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I'll say is, this article as it stands is probably going to be deleted. This isn't a criticism of the subject; it's due to the fact that Wikipedia articles need to have "multiple independent non-trivial sources" - basically, all the information in any article - even George W. Bush - has to come from other media talking about the subject and not the subject itself. This can be frustrating, but it's necessary to stop people posting articles on their own pet projects.

Save the article either as a text file on your computer, or as part of your user page (you can create a user subpage by putting a slash after your name, eg User:Dimitrilaunder/area10). That way, even if it gets deleted, you'll still have a copy to work with and can re-add it when you think it's ready.

Because Wikipedia has a no-original-research rule, you have to demonstrate that whatever your saying has been said by someone else. See WP:CITE for the "correct" way to add references; but don't worry too much about how you add references, as if necessary someone will clean up after you. Mentions in the national media - particularly discussions of the venue itself, rather than "xxx put on a show there", are what you want to aim for to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense (see WP:N for more details). As I said in the deletion discussion, I think it would make more sense to have this article as a section of a larger article on Eagle Wharf, as it will be easier to establish notability for "Eagle Wharf including Area 10" than for Area 10 on its own.

If you want to add a link box for the individual artists, copy and paste the following to the article, replacing xxxxx with the individual artist's names. Bear in mind that unless the artists have their own entry, they'll show up as redlinks; this isn't necessarily a bad thing as it shows other people which articles need to be added, but it can look messy.

{| class="navbox collapsible" style="text-align: center; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: blue" | <font color=white>[[Area 10 Project Space artists]]</font>

|-

| style="border: solid 1px red; padding: 8px; text-align: left"|

'''Artists:''' [[xxxxx]] | [[xxxxx]] | [[xxxxx]] | [[xxxxx]] | [[xxxxx]] | [[xxxxx]] | [[xxxxx]] | [[xxxxx]] | [[xxxxx]]<br>

|}

I'm more than happy to help expand it & add references; as I say, this version will probably be deleted so let me know where you move the copy to, and I'll clean that up and get it ready for re-submission. Be aware that you appear to have a conflict of interest with this organisation; while it's not against the rules per se to write on an organisation you work for, it would be a good idea to read WP:COI very carefully as anything you say is likely to come under increased scrutiny for bias. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your coaching and support notes! I'm rather distracted this past few days with my own art practice but will get back to this asap (nxt week) once deadlines are over....

∆iµitpi 06:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

the Finn Whitman page

Dear Iridescenti -

I created a Finn Whitman page to discuss a character from the novel, The Kingdom Keepers. You recently placed a "notability issure" box on the page. If you could please tell me what (exactly) this means and help me to complete what's necessary, I would be so thankful! I'm wlling to do what I need to do in order to keep at least one of my articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time - --72.199.242.220 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it means that you have to prove the character is important enough to warrant his own page rather than just a paragraph in the page for the book. This is annoying - and everyone here has had articles deleted because of it - but it's necessary to stop Wikipedia getting overrun with pages on every minor topic there is. Read WP:N for a full discussion of what a page needs to have to stay up ('notability' in Wikipedia jargon); the most important thing, which every page needs to have, is "multiple non-trivial independent sources". It sounds a lot more complicated than it is - basically, you need to show that other books, newspapers etc talk about the character (eg, "the character of Finn Whitman is important because...").

Once you've found a couple of sources, put them into the article. The "correct" way to do it is at WP:CITE, but don't worry too much about doing it perfectly; as long as you put the references in, someone will at some point tidy it up.

The system is a bit unfair on new books - established characters from older or from very famous books (for example Peter Pettigrew or Heathcliff) stay up even though they break all the rules, because the admins know that the characters genuinely are important, while with newer books they don't necessarily recognise the names. As long as you've made the effort and the article isn't nonsense, the worst that will happen is that it will get merged with the main article; despite what some people think, most people here don't like deleting things if they can possibly help it. If someone does decide to delete it, don't take it as an insult; it won't just vanish, but will go to Articles for Deletion, where everyone (including you) can explain why it ought to be kept or deleted. It might be a good idea to have a look at the current AfD's and see what kind of things are being kept and what's being deleted.

Hope that helps! It would probably be a good idea to have a look at WikiProject Children's Literature and ask for help on their talk page as there's a good chance someone there will be able to help further. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy

I can't think why he didn't, except perhaps what I've been doing more of is trying to edit the stuff as he writes it, removing the details in the life stories of the minor characters, & he usually does not revert. (& if there's already 6 to 0 for deletion I usually don't see the point of adding a 7th) . Qy: should we try to change the rule of state legislators being automatically N?--we seem to have many examples now of when they are otherwise NN DGG 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd say leave them for now, but it does lead to a can of worms - why is a member of a US state assembly N while a member of an English County Council isn't, for example? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:AfD

Hi Iridescenti - you wrote: I've nominated Kamakuza, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Kamakuza satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy).

Thanks for that, but I do know a little about AfD policy, and WP:NOT (another item I helped to write here :). Though I must admit I'd be a little disappointed to see Kamakuza go, it does perhaps belong more on Wiktionary than here. The initial intention was to provide considerable more information for the article, but for some reason it fell off my watchlist (an easy thing to have happen when that runs to about 3,000 articles). Thanks for the heads-up. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Editor review

Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for your comment on my editor review page, and take a moment to personally address your concern that my account is a multi-user account. Its not. I have made time in the last few months for some extensive WP editing, and my interests are diverse, but I am only one person. I thought that your concern warranted me personally addressing it, frankly because I am growing weary of the constant concern expressed on WP regarding my contributions, and because you left me a sincere compliment. So, there ya go. - Freechild 18:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am working at becoming more "dispassionate" about the fields that I work in, versus what I am simply interested in or fascinated by. One of the aspects of WP that truly fascinates me is the prospect of "just" knowledge; that is, sharing information about topics that are marginalized by mainstream knowledge sources. Thus, the List of Communists in Omaha, Nebraska. However, I have quickly learned that for some reason it is more apropos to expect some topics to fly better than others... I write more easily/dispassionately about ones that I know will do okay. I tend to go into a different style when writing about ones I know will have a more difficult time. Hmm. Anyway, thanks for understanding that we all have different writing styles, and for letting me discern those for myself a little bit more at the expense of space on your talk page. - Freechild 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tashkent clan

Thanks for stub-sorting Tashkent clan. KazakhPol 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shower Science

Fluid dynamics is a specialty area. Why pick fluid dynamics and exclude other sciences. Science is a global term period.--Showerscience 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Because in the context of this article the only scientific elements are fluid dynamics, aside from a few words on insulation - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello Iridescenti -

Sorry for forgetting to log in and sign my message. Let me know if I get this right: in order for the article I made to be valid, I need to have several other sources that either cite, mention, quote, etc. about Finn Whitman or The Kingdom Keepers. I contacted WikiProject Children's literature and left a message on their talk page about the validity of the article also. Thanks for your time and help in all of this - I'm rather new, I confess, and quite naive.

--WiseOldRafiki 00:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Hillingdon Derby Road (Ipswich) railway station Hackney Central railway station Bittern Line Hoveton and Wroxham railway station Bethnal Green railway station Wood Green Sheringham railway station Fratton railway station Southgate, London Bethnal Green Bedwyn railway station Doleham railway station Berney Arms railway station Ivybridge railway station Wymondham railway station Angel Road railway station Buckenham railway station Broxbourne railway station

Cleanup Space elevator economics Skelmersdale Branch RAID Merge Geosynchronous orbit Geosynchronous satellite Mass noun Add Sources Penge Tether propulsion Crystal Palace, London Wikify Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers East Bedfont Obed-Edom Expand NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Cell microprocessor Lighthouse

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I actually saw that and in fact have already commented on the review. (I understand where you're coming from in staying out of it, but just my personal preference is to go ahead and chime in. If whomever wants to decided I'm "biased" or whatever against him . . . I'll accept that as that person's prerogative.) Thanks for the heads-up, though! Mwelch 00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Iridescent, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Congratulations - and an early Happy St George's Day, since I'll be away from my computer Keeping The Streets Safe on the day itself - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thank you very much for expanding, or should I say re-writing the Pate Hole article! It's looking much more professional now!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmac2905 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

All looks well! To be honest I don't know too much about it at all apart from I've been down it! It's amazing how quickly you were on to it though! In 30 minutes of me putting it on you'd re-written it! Do you like caving yourself?

I live in Suffolk myself and get to cave whilst in Cumbria on holiday. Thanks for saving it though!

Oh and lastly. I'm not too familiar with all of this article adding. Just put a picture of inside pate hole on the page however it is huge. Could you size it down please. Many thanks

Thank you very much! The picture now has a license!

Oopsie! I just tried to add a tad more and reference it by copying how you did it but I messed up! I won't try that again!! Sorry!

By the way, is it known as "Pate hole" or "Pate Hole"? --Charlene 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

...

Perhaps you should think about removing those quotes and picture from your user page; perhaps, that could be considered an uncivil act towards those anonymous users who have felt you are harassing them. --Remi 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since of the three two were indefblocked for repeat vandalism, and the third took the argument to AN/I and didn't get a single voice in support (and knows where to find me if he wants to ask me to take it down himself), I believe I'll survive - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project

You have vandalized my talk page with a false accusation of "Personal Attack" on "New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project" article. This is a notable, newsworthy group associated with the Church of Scientology that has been covered by the mainstream press. Your speedy deletion of this article is in violation of wikipedia policies, and if you continue with such behaviour your priveledges may be revoked. In the future, disagreements with sourced notable newsworthy articles are handled in the discussion page of that article, not by abusing administrator priveledges. --Gallup 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I have no more 'privileges' than you and am not and never have been an admin. Are you sure you have the right person? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 07:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

École acadienne de Truro

I'm curious if anyone will defend it. Lets see how long our harmony lasts: there are many Nova Scotia schools like that--they are all small and K-12, for obvious reasons of geography. (There are similar in New Zealand) Look, I vote to keep about 1 in 10 shopping malls, to prove I'm objective :) But if people are going to use the Virginia Tech discussions as an reason to dredge up all the least important articles in WP to embarrass us, it offers a good opportunity. DGG 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, it probably could be kept - in my experience it's possible to inflate just about any school article to at least borderline keepable status if you really feel the urge. I agree, the bizarre side effect of the last few days is that some of the worst crap of the last year is being dredged up to be shot down. Maybe there's some kind of conservation-of-deletion-numbers principle at work here to fill the AfD quota, now Billy H seems to have eased up on his campaign to create an article for the entire population of Alexandria, LA. (I actually !voted keep on one of Billy's articles last time one came up. For some reason, I didn't get a 'stalking' complaint that time. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Cortson

I see you are from London. I've been there and will go back someday. Do you have any suggestions for my article about Mike Cortson? I added a reference in there to his books.LaurieFoston 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The most important criteria for any article (not just biographies) is "multiple independent non-trivial sources" - basically, you need to show that at least two other newspapers/significant websites/books etc have written about him (see WP:CITE for how to source things 'correctly', but as long as you show in the article what the sources are, don't worry too much about getting it perfect as someone else will tidy it up). Because at the moment, the only sources are things he's written himself, these don't satisfy the "independent" part of that.

Biographical articles have some further criteria they also need to meet, in order to prevent people who, for example, weren't particularly important but had obituaries in two newspapers (thus technically satisfying the criteria) from having their own pages and clogging things up. See WP:BIO for a full list of how Wikipedia determines whether a biographical article stays up. Again, this needs to be demonstrated from independent sources - because Wikipedia is a 'tertiary source', it shouldn't mention any fact that hasn't already been mentioned somewhere else.

If it does get deleted, don't take it as a personal insult; it won't be because of you, but purely because it doesn't in this form satisfy the criteria. I'd suggest moving a copy to a user subpage (to create a subpage, put a slash and the title after your username, eg User:LaurieFoston/Michael Cortson; user pages are exempt from most of the rules about content, so you can keep it there, work on expanding it and then move it back into the mainspace when it's ready.

Hope that helps! If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me (but be aware that he's a subject I know nothing of, so probably won't be able to help with any rewriting. You may want to post a message on the Talk page of WikiProject Golf to see if anyone there has anything they can add to it, as they'll likely have more knowledge of the matter. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am too tired to actually say "thank you" in so many words. I think I will take a break and work on it again later. I'll send you out a note to let you look at it. I am up for criticism but he was actually very crass. I see you have a lot of fan mail. Thanks, again.LaurieFoston 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the hate mail still just outweighs it though... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

hey there

Hi!

I saw your vote on the AfD for Sashank Mavayya. I was just wondering, would a dated prod be sufficient for articles of this sort. WP:HOAX clearly says that hoaxes aren't speediable, which is why I ended up putting it on AfD.

Also, I've noticed some pages that after one editor prods an article, a second editor can support the prod, and this shows in the form of a template on the page. I was wondering... how does that happen?

My apologies if this all seems a little random, you seemed to know about article deletion and I was curious about these two things. I saw you online, so I just thought I'd pester you :)

Best regards, xC | ☎ 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say a dated prod is more than sufficient, but AfD's probably better if the hoaxer's still online, as the hoaxer will just take it off meaning it needs to go to AfD anyway.

To add the "support prod" template, add {{prod-2|[comment]}} underneath the original prod, replacing 'comment' with your reasons. Personally, I've never really seen the point

Hope that helps! - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

True, the support prod always seemed unneccessary, but I still thought I'd ask.

Thanks for the advice!

Regards,xC | ☎ 06:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Trevor Ivory comment deletion

I don't know how your comment got deleted; I certainly didn't intend to, and it seems weird for it to have happened without my noticing it. I'd have said it was due to an edit conflict (which is possible from the timing), but I didn't get any warning about it. Oh well, computers are infinitely mysterious. Glad you spotted it and restored your comment. Trevor Hanson 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries - it was only a trivial comment anyway, not like you were editing out the keep votes or something... We've all done it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Québécois

Hello, I am contacting all non-anonymous editors who participated in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. It has been very difficult achieving consensus on the appropriate scope of the article, and the use of the word Québécois in a series of articles proposed by one editor. I am requesting input at Talk:Québécois. Joeldl 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Iridescenti. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. (By the way, why at the top of this page does it say to read something if someone disagrees with a deletion of yours, though your not an admin?) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. Forget about the question. Should've clicked and saw the big bold words. :) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I got fed up with "why did you delete my article" posts (the reason I disabled my email, since people tend to be a bit warier about posting abuse on talk pages). For some reason, even I was one of fifteen contributors on an AfD and halfway down the list, people always seem to think I'm the one who nominated them (see here for my personal favourite example - note that of the seven AfD's listed, I didn't even participate in four of them).

I hope you do pass your RfA next time - as I said on the discussion, all the problems I think you had are all well on their way to sorting themselves out, and I suspect most of the !votes who were oppose this time will be support next time — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mythical chickens

All...err, A very small subset of all Wikipedia sheds a tear at the AfDemise of this young, nay, too young, article. I feel your pain.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I really makes me wish I could find a way to resurrect the title somehow — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Beki Bondage page

Hi mate - I am really happy with your excellent article about Beki. Aside from great writing and the interesting way it is written - I see you have respected my pleas for privacy. I do hope someone else cannot undo the great job you have done because we are finally happy with it ! If it is within your powers to remove the link at bottom of page i.e Category:1963 births. I would be very grateful as I really don't want Beki's age to be revealed ( which I'm sure you noticed me ranting endlessly on about ). My reason being is that some people are still very rude and disresapectful and use this age thing as a put-down. For so called hard-faced rockers we are very sensitive you know !

Anyway - if you can do that I would be a happy man.

If you require any assistance with your article I was a member from Bombshells and now V.S to present day and obviously Beki will provide you with any info too. I guess an article from 'the horses mouth' so to speak would be regarded as 'conflict of interest' ... so , I dunno...boy it's frustrating.

Thanks again.

Stargtr

Thanks - hopefully, it's neutral enough that nobody will be offended whilst having enough information about her to be interesting. I can take off the Category:1963 births, but I don't see a problem to be honest - anyone interested in her is likely to also have done a Google search on the name, and most articles have the sentence "she joined VS in 1978 at the age of 15" within the first paragraph, so the maths isn't rocket science. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

user oo7565

hi i know you are worried/do not like my edits manely the prods and afd's i have made in the last week. i do understand that i am a proposed deletion patroller. i know that relly does not mean anything in all hoensty but any way when i look at the proded article i am manely looking for if the orgional proder have notified the articles created or someone who work on that article a long time and leave a prodnote for the orgianal proded have already have not. and when a article have don everyone right in my eyes i add prod 2 to as checklist meassure saying someone have already look that article over. alsoo if you look at my last 100 to 200 edits most of them are prod notes and prod 2 and some prods i have done my self but because i have no clue and what should or should not be on here i that i stick to prod notes and prods 2. if you look at my talk page yes some people are upset but at latter onces are more about prodnotes the onces who leave message for me think i added the prod but i did not i have added the prodnote to there page to tell them someone else had proed there article i was trying to be a nice guy. also if you look at my last meassage on my talk page you will see why i did that afd for that person on the oliver m (sp) today i hope this helps you to understand me. also if you can give me any pointers to become a better editor on here that would be great i hope you respond tot his okOo7565 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As a number of people have already said to you - including User:Arkyan, one of Wikipedia's most respected editors - I think you need to familiarise yourself a lot more with Wikipedia policy (particularly WP:N and WP:DP). I don't believe you're doing this to be disruptive and I apologise if I've given that impression, but there are plenty of articles you have prodded/AfD'd yourself (True History of the Kelly Gang, Jaye Griffiths etc) that are so obviously notable by Wikipedia standards that proposing them for deletion looks like vandalism. As per the instructions on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, AfD should be a last resort not a first option - if you're not happy with a page, add {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} as appropriate rather than going straight to deletion. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oliver M

I just notified the other 2 eds. involved, Stude62 and Hoof Hearted, to the discussion. You will understand that this does not mean I endorse their views in the slightest--on the contrary, I did so because I think they owe us an explanation. And I certainly agree with your implied comment that repeated totally unjustifiable AfDs are an appropriate subject for process, if explanation does not helpDGG 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Schools and notability

Namaste Iridescenti,

I went to the WP:NOTE talk pages and read the two old discussions regarding trying to set notability guidelines for schools, its not very encouraging. This seems to be a battleground for the Inclusionistas and Deletionieros and neither side seems willing to give any ground. I have to say that I would probably be considered a running-dog Deletionist. I think there are many things that are verifiable and sourcable, perhaps even notable, but are just not encyclopedic. There is the whole rest of the web out there, isn't there?

But...The greatest thing I learned in college was when I was arguing an obscure point on a test question I had gotten wrong on some minor point relating to the Kreb's cycle (relates to energy creation and use in cell metabolism). The instructor let me go on for a while and answered my points and then said, Bill, is this the hill you want to die on?"

Well, I looked at her for a moment and then felt rather stupid and said, "No," and she said, "Very well then, lets move on."

She meant it in a joking way and it wasn't at all a putdown. She was a great teacher and we became friends after the class was over, but I never forgot that question.

When my daughter was in her pre- and teens there were times when she wanted to dye her hair green or do her school shopping at Goodwill and wear polyester Marcia Brady shifts or three full-length black slips to school or make soup out of one of every vegetable from the Albertson's and I would think, "Is this the hill I want to die on?" and decide that no, it wasn't.

Really Bad News friends? Riding with people who have been drinking? Yeah, I'll die on those hills, but few others are worth the fight. I was a single parent and I credit that teacher with my sanity and Amelia's unique perfection.

I bring all this up because I see so much time and energy being wasted over this debate and whatever I think about it, this hill is not worth dying on. I also feel that the issue is hindering the advancement of civility here, and if I have any ulterior motive, for this or WP as a whole, the promotion of civility is it.

I am thinking about proposing that all schools be considered notable, subject only to verifiability and as far as I'm concerned, a phone book entry would be sufficient.

You've been around awhile, certainly longer than me, so I want to ask you if you think there is a snowball's chance of this being accepted. I think the inclusionists have an advantage in this battle and the fact that 85% of the school AfD's are resulting in keep seems to show a broad consensus in general, if not in every case.

If you feel this worth persuing or have any other thoughts on the matter, let me know. If I do persue it I would like to have a group of people from both sides onboard to launch the proposal. I'm not trying to stack the vote, I just don't want to fight old battles over again.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

PS,I'm going to post this to a few other people to get a sense of how folks react, and I'm signing twice co' I forgot above :) --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 07:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 07:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied to this on your talk page to keep everyone's responses together — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I've been told the data is old and that the deletion rate is now around 50%. I guess its the civility issue that prodded me to this idea. As a new and perhaps untraditional user (my demographic) I feel this is a big negative on WP. I also agree with your point about distorting the ORG guidelines, it would probably just drag everything else down with it. Why isn't my local 7-11 notable? They sell Campbells Soup, a very notable product!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the support of my rfa (I know, I know, that was quite a while ago, but I don't believe in form letter thank yous, and I got overwhelmed). I enjoyed your comments about the oppose votes. I was pretty thrown by some of the bases stated (especially the implication that the majority of my contributions were botlike, without actually checking). I'm sure we'll be bumping into each other but feel free to drop me a message anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:TheRaincoats.jpg

I accept your explanation of why this image is fair use, however, there are two things I must ask you. First of all, could you please provide a detailed fair use rationale for each intended use of the image, explaining why it is not in breach of our rules? Secondly, I must ask you to remove the image (and any other copyrighted images you have) from your userpage- our policy forbids the use of fair use images on anything outside of the article space. Thanks! J Milburn 10:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The image will not be a fair use image to demonstrate what the band members look like, as they are still alive, and so another would be creatable. However, if you use it, as you said you intend to, for critical commentary on their image and how it influenced the image of others, then, obviously, as this is the way they were in the past, a free image could not be created. J Milburn 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that it is fair use when used in that way. J Milburn 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

'Reproduced by permission' is not valid on Wikipedia- if something is used in that manner, it would still technically be fair use, and so still have to comply to our fair use guidelines. If it is reproduced with permission then it cannot be used on other projects, and so is no good in our attempt to build a free encyclopedia. J Milburn 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice- people who are willing to put in effort with, and know the rules about, images are few and far between. Well done, and good luck with finding better images. J Milburn 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Algie

Hey there. What's with the non American comment? The nom is pretty half hearted as were the comments made before yours... I've seen plenty of ludicrous AfD noms that could've attracted your comment (mostly on cricket and other non American interests) but I think you were a little off on this occasion. --Dweller 18:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd already preemptively replied on the nominator's page - this wasn't a dig at the nominator (whom I think from their edits comes from Greenock, anyway) but was aimed at the "usual suspects" who always turn up to !vote on AfD's like this - people who'll argue passionately to keep a sidewalk busker in Houston, but vote delete on pretty much everyone non-American (you know who they are...) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Was it a pre-emptive strike - no-one's !voted delete! --Dweller 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

modesty

It's nice to see that someone saw my Motoring in Singapore article. As soon as someone edits it, I'll stop calling it "my article". I put the stub tag on out of modesty. Maybe it did outgrow it!VK35 04:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

For your kind comments at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and Werner Erhard - I know nothing at all about Scientology, but this is one of the best written & best referenced articles I've ever seen - I worked hard on sourcing that article and your acknowledgement of this is most appreciated. Thank you. Smee 12:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Bit-plane

Given you have de-proded an unsourced article, could I suggest you introduce citations to reliable sources. Addhoc 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, give me two minutes... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescenti! Addhoc 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated stub tag

Please stop using {{vocab-stub}}. It was a once-off stub tag created to provide a holding area, when stub sorting was first implemented; and has long since been deprecated. Uncle G 10:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realise - force of habit. Ought it to be taken off the WP:WSS/ST list? My bad - so used to using it from force of habit didn't even see it was marked as deprecated — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled...

I don't understand by what you mean by totally unsourced. "Embedded HTML links" is an acceptable way to cite according to policy as far as I could tell.

I restructured the article as per recommendations from other editors & adapted the 'lie' you mentioned (it wasn't 100% correct, but not far off) and added a book citation for it.

Other comments welcome. JLMarais 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Prod of 24 (film) and Superhero!

i proded 24(firm) and Superhero! moves sorry to bother you but because you help me in the past i though i would ask you a question i added the prod tags to both but both have been removed they are not in producation and both have been announed also it seems to fail the inoffical wp poicle you tald me about so should i take them to afd thanks for the help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs)

That's correct - anyone for any reason is entitled to remove a prod notice and doesn't need to explain it. If you think the articles ought to be deleted, the next stage would be AfD. At a guess, I'd say the result would be a delete for Superhero and a keep for 24, since in the case of 24 the making of the film is getting press coverage, but if you think it deserves it do go ahead and nominate them both — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the help i wanted to ask because i had a bad history in afds and prods so thats why i ask

No problem. A general rule for whether an AfD is likely to succeed is, do a google search on the subject leaving out wikipedia & mirrors (add -site:wikipedia.org -site:answers.com to the google search box); if at least one of the top 30 results is from a legitimate publication (a famous newspaper or TV station, a government etc), there a good chance the article will be kept. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These are not articles about myself. They are white papers published by experts.

These are not articles about myself. They are white papers published by experts that uncover compelling new research on topics important to the financial services industry. Did you click on the PDFs?

Let me know you thoughts. I am happy to expand on this.

unknown user & account deleted so not showing in history - added timestamp to allow archiving 9:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism Deletion Review

there is yet another deletion review for the article on Matrixism going on at WP:DRV#Matrixism. Thought you might want to stop by to register your opinion. Thanks. D166ER 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support...

...in objecting to the deletion of the entry on me, "Paul H. Smith (remote viewer)." It strikes me that the folks voting for deletion were manifesting some markedly un-neutral viewpoints in criticizing what was entered on that page. In fact, it seemed pretty evident the deletion had much more to do with their own biases against remote viewing than anything that was said in the bio about me. Is there any way to appeal this? I don't know much about the workings of Wikipedia, but when someone Googles my name now (which many do), the empty Wiki page comes up as he second entry on the first screen. Of course, I suppose an empty page is better than a hatchet job from someone who doesn't know me and can't be bothered to look into the evidence supporting remote viewing. At any rate, even if you yourself are doubtful of remote viewing, I appreciate your intellectual integrity. Paul (H. Smith) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.145.155.248 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome and sorry it got deleted - while I freely admit I'm sceptical about the whole concept of remove viewing, I still believe the fact the government was researching it - whether or not it worked - is notable enough to warrant an entry.

You can appeal the deletion of an article at WP:DRV but in the case of this one I think the deletion will be upheld. The article's not been 'salted' (protected from recreation), so you're able to recreate it, but if you do I'd recommend rewriting it completely as reposting the same material is automatically deleted. Where this version failed was the multiple sources; find some press reports that talk about you and add them to the article (see, for example, Jenny Randles or Ingo Swann for examples of biographies of people in fringe topics that pass the WP:N criteria).

Hope that helps! — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Afd John Alves Arbuthnot

I do hope you will reconsider your vote now that I have pointed out that he is notable for founding a long-established merchant bank. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? The only mentions I can find of him in this context are your own web site and mirrors of Wikipedia articles written by yourself. I'm not doubting it, but as per Wikipdeia policy a claim like that needs to be cited, especially in light of the fact that the bank's own website makes no mention of him. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The Fall of Arbuthnot & Co, Rangaswamy Srinivasan, ISBN 81-88661-40-6 and Memories of the Arbuthnots, Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot (1908). - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Add them to the article & I'll change my !vote (although I'm not convinced Memories of the Arbuthnots qualifies as an independent source) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Two references are quoted. Looking for the page in TFoA&Co. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Kittybrewster#John_Alves_Arbthnot_self-reference and this edit to the AfD page. There is clear evidence that one of those sources is a self-reference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of the 24 Hour Knowledge Factory article

I am the creator of the 24-Hour Knowledge Factory page, one listed as spam by you. I implore you to please check the Social Science Research Network for this global work paradigm and read over some of the many papers that deal with this new framework. Many companies including IBM have adopted and are in the trial stages of testing the efficacy of this paradigm. A link to one of the most recent research grants given to [Dr. Amar Gupta], the creator of this paradigm, is here:

http://www.eller.arizona.edu/news/2007/01/09_IBM_honors_MIS_and_Entrepreneurship_professor_Amar_Gupta.aspx

I appreciate your want to include this in the offshoring, however this article and the paradigm itself is much more than something that "boils down to saying "people in different time zones are awake at different times"". Please do some research next time before marking something as spam. I would appreciate your help in retrieving all the information that was written on that page. If you have access to it, I would appreciate it if you would please place it back in its original form and then contact me with any edits that you think would make it more appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuu.david (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

it's ok that you delete it but......

please do not count it as vandalism or counting against me....PLEASE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silly monkeys (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Vale of Health.JPG

I saw your picture at picture peer review, and I decided to have a go at editing it. If you are still considering nominating it for featured picture, I will upload the edit at a seperate file name. Otherwise, unless you do not want me to do so, I will go ahead and save over your picture. I find that it is easier to have as few versions of a file as possible. If you do not like the edit, you can always just revert it. Tell me which you would prefer me to do. J Are you green? 04:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think you can improve it, go right ahead. Don't know whether I'll submit it to FPC, which is why I submitted it to peer review (I certainly take the point about the skyscrapers in the background being out of focus, but I'm not quite sure how you can have buildings at 30 ft and at 10 miles simultaneously in focus) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 07:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. I adjusted the curves to try to keep the sky from looking overexposed and the foreground from looking underexposed. The image was pretty blurry at full size (pixel resolution vs. actual detail) so I downsampled it until it looked resonably sharp at the pixel level for in-focus areas. I also did a little unsharp masking to increase percieved DOF. The picture itself still would not pass, but if you want to take another shot as Enuja suggested, you might stand a chance. As for focus, go for wide-angle and small apertures. I don't really think that focus was the problem in the original, though - just a general blurriness. Tell me what you think of the revision - if there are any problems, you can go ahead and revert the edit and I can try to fix them later if you would like. J Are you green? 15:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job - many thanks! At some point I may try to re-take it - preferably on one of those rare days when London isn't shrouded in the strangely luminous grey smog that tends to always make location shots look washed-out. Annoyingly, the only angle that gives a clear shot has that pesky tree stump in the way, and I don't really want to crop it down as I think the surrounding greenery & hills are necessary to emphasise just how isolated the village is from the rest of the world — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bean Creek, Florida

I closed this a delete given that the location are hoaxes(fictional), I also included an offer to restore to appropriately named articles that identify them as being fictional, also note that any articles of fictional locations shouldnt include or be included in any template of actual locations. Its this inclusion that swayed me to delete first as hoaxes. Gnangarra 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As per my rems on the AfD, I can make a case for keeping a single article (as per, say, Narnia) but I agree it needs to identify the locations as fictional — iridescenti (talk to me!) 07:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips

I'll be sure to add summaries when I nominate speedy deletions next time.

As for adding stubs to new articles, if you noticed, I did more than just add the stub template, I added specific stubs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chinese3126 (talk • contribs). 08:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Huzcal

I am sorry for having anything to do with the Huzcal page. It is completely fictional and should be deleted imediately. As for the page on Windsor High School (Halesowen), how are my edits classed as vandalism when I am the original author of that page? Loshgr 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 08:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

While your original article was fine (although slightly non-neutral), a lot of your later edits such as this one were clear personal attacks, which - while not technally vandalism - likewise are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Who the original creator of the article is makes no difference as no-one on Wikipedia "owns" articles - the moment you press "save page" you're signing the content over to the Wikimedia Foundation. (There's a long legal explanation of how this works available as a link from the bottom of the edit window.)

You also appear to be using multiple identities on Wikipedia, such as User:Logan Gregory FC; while there are circumstances when this is acceptable, the circumstances are quite limited, and using multiple accounts ("sockpuppeting") will generally make other editors look at you with suspicion.

The Windsor High School (Halesowen) article as it stands looks fine; I think most of the problems with it stemmed from well-intentioned violations of the biographies of living people guidelines, and from attacks by people from other schools, both of which seem to have stopped now — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NUS

No movement; for some reason, on their website, the NUS's website describes the Camden office as the "Head Office", even though the officers and much of the support staff work out of the Holloway Road office. Warofdreams talk 15:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, that's cleared it up nicely. Warofdreams talk 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the Sunshade page with the correct distance

Whoops,

I was looking at the distance I had written down while doing some calculations (the distance from the Earth to the Sun, not Earth to S-E L1). Jason3777 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries - given the number of people who read that article without noticing (including me) during the AfD discussion, and the number of times the article's been edited since the wrong numbers went in in April, I'm not sure it reflects well on anyone. (As an early version of the article did talk about geostationary orbit, I have a sneaking suspicion that somewhere along the line "16000 miles to geostationary" became "16000km to L1") — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Jamaica

Hi, I agree with you so I am converting it to Monarchy in Jamaica. Would you please revisit your view? TerriersFan 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aschlafly

Okay, I plan on taking my time to write up a good AFD that describes the issues and lays out all the evidence so I will get started on it but might take me a day or so to get it all together counting side projects! Tmtoulouse 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I'll support it - I am getting truly fed up with this wretched article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

His editing account on his wiki is quite clear. Claims writen by the subject are sources for what the subject says. The links are http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Aschlafly and http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harvard_abortion_study&oldid=125138 Someone's postings are WP:RS for their opinions. As long as the claims are WP:ATT the material should be included. Arbustoo 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so who need productivity eh? I went ahead and put something up now anyway. Tmtoulouse 19:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a lengthy why-this-should-be-deleted mini-essay to the AfD. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Faheem Muhammed

In case you didn't realize, the article has been up for months and it is not an attack page. You can even check with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office if you like. It has been aired on First Coast News Crimestoppers and I can prove it. --Chinese3126 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist, doing it the hard way here — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You were right the first time Iridescenti, the article should be Speedy deleted. Once the Speedy tag has been placed, even if a Hangon tag is added, both should remain on the page until an Admin reviews. In this case, there is really no question that it will be Speedied as soon as someone gets around to it. I blanked the page and added another Speedy tag because without any reliable references the article represents libel (or possibly slander; I'm not a lawyer and don't know the difference). In any event, you did well spotting this in the first place; keep up the good work : ) Doc Tropics 23:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jonesy (the cat)

I realise you live in this area as well but you have to believe me when I say that this is true. I'm being serious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonesy445 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

As per the repeated warnings on your talk page, please stop adding hoax articles to Wikipedia. In this particular instance, I not only have lived in the area but am currently stationed in the area, and this is a patent hoax — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You added those warnings because yourself, because you're not willing to believe in anything I'm trying to add to this website.--Jonesy445 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As so far you've added contributions to five articles including this one, and the other four have been vandalism, it's hard to WP:AGF for this. Provide me with the two independent sources a Wikipedia article requires and I'll happily remove the deletion notice — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my troubles but I just wanted to contribute what I knew about. I don't know how to obtain sources on a little-known or publicised subject.--Jonesy445 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Google is always a good place to start — or you could always go 200 yards up the hill to the Crouch End Journal office and check the back issues — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you delete what I said about Travis performing at Weston Park Primary School? Because they did. I'm telling you the truth about this Jonesy.--Jonesy445 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - they played at the Weston Park Festival which has nothing to do with the school - thanks for drawing it to my attention — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Latin American subaltern studies

Hi. I hope I've addressed some of your concerns about the notability of Latin American subaltern studies. --Jbmurray 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine now - just that as it stood, nothing to indicate why it was any different to any similar group elsewhere — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Grand. --Jbmurray 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RoIOs vs bootlegs

Sure, but a lot of people outside of Echoes, other Floyd mailing lists and the RoIO Database may not get the connection. Everyone knows what a bootleg is. :-) The Parsnip! 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but wanted to clarify since "bootleg" implies something criminal whilst plenty of RoIO releases are (arguably) legitimate parts of the canon (Point Me at the Sky even has its own article, and hasn't had a non-RoIO release for 40 years) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy

Following on from our discussions yesterday at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#.5B.5BList of living Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom.5D.5D, I have raised some concerns about one of he other lists we discussed: see Talk:List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy#Accuracy and maintainability of this list. Your thoughts would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hereditary Peerage Association

If editors cant come up with multiple non trival sources will you reconsider your !vote on the AfD?--Vintagekits 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - you're absolutely right in what you don't quite say, that for an organisation in a position like this not to have any press coverage implies there's something funny going on. In this context I'd even accept something from, say, Tribune or Conservative Future as a legitimate source, but it appears not even to be being discussed by people interested in the Lords — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

See you're running into the same things I did on the Peter Brinsden talk page. I asked the author several times (same author mind you) on Talk:E J Boys to provide proof. None was given. --Whstchy 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating, as the guy may well be quite important, but at the moment this reads like his resume and I can't see how to save it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't either. Same with every other page the author has edited. --Whsitchy 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Trouble House Halt railway station

I've partially reverted your edit to this article. Portsmouth Arms station was named after the pub (along with several other examples), but was built to serve the community as well as the pub. Trouble House was the only station built specifically for the pub, at least according to this site. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I thought PA was built specifically for the pub but on reflection can't work out why I think that. I could maybe make a weak case for Jolly-sailor being built specifically for a pub as well (the railway cottages opened with the station & the pumping station a couple of years later) but certainly not enough to have a strong opinion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Henry Thomas Arbuthnot

I am going to nominate the above article for deletion but it has been nominated before and I dont know how to do this. As you have undertaken a second nomination for the Terence John Arbuthnot article I hope hoping that either you could tell me how to do it or you could do its yourself as nominations by me usually come witha load of comments from the usual suspects saying that it is a "bad faith nomination". Either way I would appriciate your help. regards--Vintagekits 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• enter {{subst:afdx}} at the top of the article
• save edit
• Click on "preloaded debate" and fill in the form as you would with a normal AfD; save changes but don't add it to the AfD log yet
• Edit the debate page you've just created; change the first line from [[xxxxx (2nd nomination)]] to [[[xxxxx|xxxxx (2nd nomination)]], and in the section starting {{la| (usually on the 2nd or 3rd line) delete the "(2nd nomination)" so it just references the article title
• Go to the AfD log and paste {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}} , with "PageName" as the title of the full nomination - eg, including the "(2nd nomination)"

Hope that helps! — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems

"Oppose It was only two days ago that you considered this an acceptable edit summary, while it's less than six weeks since this was your user page. Additionally, you recently deleted what looks to be a bona fide attempt to add information to a very stubby article as "vandalism" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 02:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC) " Let me explain myself. I have been to the city of Seguin many times and what this person wrote is pure vandalism, they wrote something that was completely contrary to the fact. As of for the ranking of presidents, I did not make these edits yet reverted an edit that violated NPOV, I had a big discussion with another editor about this subject and we agreed to keep that form.--Uga Man 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If the city doesn't have a swimming pool, go ahead and delete it, but "inaccuracy" is not "vandalism"; someone who doesn't WP:AGF - a core principle - should not, IMO, be trusted with sysop powers. Regarding this edit, unfortunately the Wiki doesn't lie - no-one's claiming you didn't revert, but "I like it better the way it was" should never be a reason for reverting — iridescenti (talk to me!) 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Terence John Arbuthnot (2nd nomination)

Came across this AfD by chance and noticed that you required a good authoritative source other than Kittybrewster. I have listed two within the article. One from 1970 by a renowned editor (Townend - now dead) and another from 1999 with an ISBN. Also, did you see this: http://www.rafcommands.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4961&forum=DCForumID6 Regards, David Lauder 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As said - repeatedly - throughout that AfD discussion, nobody is doubting his existence or that he won a low-level military decoration. WP:MILITARY#Notability is clear that only winners of the highest decorations are exempt from the usual WP:BIO requirements, and his award is Belgium's 16th highest decoration. A "laundry-list" entry in Burkes, while acceptable for verification of his existence isn't a non-trivial source in the WP:N sense any more than my own entry in the phone book is — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Burkes is equivalent to a laundry list or a telephone book?? I had given you more credit than that. David Lauder 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message re "XXXXX" AfD

??? Is this a mistake? 16:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yes - have corrected it... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

London congestion charge

Hi! I would appreciate it if you fancied giving this a read as I suspect you know something about the whole thing. I referenced it to death yesterday, but want to make sure all the bases are covered. On another note A500 road got GA status! Regan123 10:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do in a few days; at the moment am working 12-hour night shifts so am no use to anyone. Congratulations on A500's promotion! If A1 road (London stays stable for a couple of weeks I might submit that, too — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Antonine Centre

Huge? By UK standards? I'm not seeing it because...

1. It's currently under construction
2. I don't know what a Royal Visitor is
3. No sources other than the mall website itself
4. I don't know the typical size of malls vs. this 250,000 sq feet one

It's also a complete mess of things. If there is notability to this thing, could it be asserted? Like how you fixed up Beki Bondage to a readable, decent, article? hbdragon88 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a try - problem at the moment is that it sounds like it's been cribbed from a press release. I'll see what I can do — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Don't make me do that again... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I laughed when I read that it was voted the ugliest city. What an honor. hbdragon88 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

stub sorting

Hey! I noticed you're doing this. When you're doing the uncategorized tags, could you make them {{Uncategorized|date=May 2007}}, not {{Uncategorized|May 2007}}, so they sort correctly, por favor? Danke! :) -Ebyabe 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Serve me right for manually typing it in... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A1 road (London)

The article A1 road (London) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:A1 road (London) for eventual comments about the article. Well done!

• The Giant Puffin • 12:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot AFD

Please see my comment on the afd. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi it turns out he wasn't a Brigadier General (i.e. the lowest General rank) as that was abolished in 1922. He was Colonel-Commandment of the 1st division of the Royal Artillery from 1925-28 when all Col.- Commandments became Brigadiers. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar!

A map that shows the unitary authorities, ditricts, boroughs, etc. might be of help to you. However, obviously it's easier if the station's still in use, although it's still possible if you know the location of the station and see where it is on the map.

I hope this helps.

Ted Ted 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing it that way for the counties, but for the urban stations I'm having to go by the Thomas Cook map which doesn't show boundaries & for the disused stations I'm having to make educated guesses. Manchester & Liverpool have actually gone more smoothly than London, which surprised me - but I haven't started on Wales & Scotland yet, which will be the killer — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Two GA articles!

Well done on your two GA articles. The congestion charge one is my next attempt I think. Regan123 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't even notice the second had passed - have been sat gazing blankly at AWB trying to clear up the mess that was Category:London railway station stubs. I will have a look at the Congestion Charge one soon! — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot

Hi- could you take a look at the further info I have added here as it may change your stance? Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry about confusion

i am a newbie account holder but i have been editing under various ip addresses and noticed that GreaterWikiholic is a very important and respected user in wikipedia so i nominated him sorry i did not mention it on the nomination pagePutmedown 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

GreaterWikiholic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreaterWikiholic (talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of Metcall

The article Metcall you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Metcall for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review.

The Sunshine Man 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Railway stations

Hi Iridescenti,

I'm confused, but let me clarify: you added the Cat:Railway stations in Renfrewshire to a couple of closed railways on my watchlist, Georgetown railway station and Houston railway station, as per discussion on WP:UKT. I agree that they are located in Renfrewshire, but should they not be Cat:Disused (or closed) railway stations in Renfrewshire? It seams strange to Categorise them as Disused railway stations in Scotland and as Railway stations in Renfrewshire.Pyrotec 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but at the moment we only have separate "Disused stations in..." categories for a few of the largest English counties (you can see the full list here); everything else just gets lumped into Category:Disused railway stations in Scotland, Category:Disused railway stations in Wales, Category:Disused railway stations in Northern Ireland or Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom (for some reason, we don't have a Category:Disused railway stations in England).

As per the discussion on adding location categories, I've done the automated run adding the "Stations in..." category for places where no "Disused stations in..." category exists. It's not an ideal solution, but I think it's better than no category at all; at least this way, someone with an interest in (for example) Perthshire railways but with no knowledge of Renfrewshire can track down the stations without having to go through "Disused stations in Scotland".

Personally, I think we ought to have a "Disused stations in..." category for every county and wipe out the UK/Scotland/Wales/NI categories (as has been done for the open stations), but I don't want to carry out such a fundamental change without a very strong consensus. Some counties (notably Gwynedd and North Ayrshire) have more closed than open stations, and I absolutely agree that it's messing up the categories. For what it's worth, I do have an AWB script pumped-and-primed to add the "disused" in front of "railway stations in" if/when the broader categories are split up — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I'm going to copy-and-paste this discussion to WP:UKT to see if we can get a consensus either way — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your brother

Hi Iridescenti,

I saw on User_talk:BrownHairedGirl that your brother had an article on Wikipedia. I was going to ask who your brother was, but then I saw your comment about not revealing your real name, so had second thoughts. However, I'd like to know why he is notable enough to earn an article here - unless, of course you want to keep that secret as well!

--Tracey Lowndes 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He's a (relatively minor) composer & (very occasional) singer — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Tracey Lowndes 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reposting

hi again i have a question a while back i afd this article Superhero! which was delated. then someone have we created that article which is the same as before which i had proded before someone removed it again. my question is how do you list a article for afd for the second time?Oo7565 09:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's the same article, put {{db-repost}} on the talk page and it will be speedily deleted. You can only do this for articles that have been AfD'd, not prodded/speedied — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

///seizethemoment.

This article was previously deleted because of the lack of credibility. However, although most of the information is from the old article, the section "Cornerstone '07" was added to meet the guidelines.Imallout 23:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the {{db-repost}} of this article, this does not apply to this article as it does not meet the criteria, whilst there has been an AfD of the article, it was finished early and speedy deleted. The deletion was not as a result of the AfD so it doesn't fit the criteria. Regards. Adambro 09:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

windows-stub

Please don't put windows-stub on articles that are not about Microsft Windows. The stub is for articles describe an aspect of the operating system itself, not third-party hardware or software that works with it. Thanks. -/- Warren 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry :( — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A1 road (London categorisation)

Ah. I see your point. Sorry, I wasn't thinking it all through. Will reply fully on Talk:A1 road (London) when I have.--A bit iffy 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WAGs of 2006

Hello iridescenti, it looks like you put in a good deal of effort to defend this article. I hope you were not put off by my comment about the list being incomplete. I was mistaken to believe that it represented the significant others of all footballers in England. (can you imagine trying to create that list?!). Anyway, thank you for your dilligence and commitment to the project. --Infrangible 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, given that the list will only need updating every two years, it's probably better as a section in the WAGs article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge

I replied to your point here [3] Giano 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your (largely unsung) work on Wikipedia, I, Dweller, award you this Barnstar. Dweller 14:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: article on Barb Lien-Cooper

I read elsewhere that you would like to do an article on Barb Lien-Cooper but found mostly stuff on her work, very little on the woman herself.

If you are still interested, please contact me about getting more information: I think I could provide what you might need, seeing as how I'm currently married to her.

--Dr. Park Cooper xxxxxx

Am in the middle of something else right now but will get back to you in a few days on that one. I've deleted your email address to stop the spambots from finding it, BTW — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Eugene P. Watson

But if you give up . . . well then, that means the terrorists have already won! ;-) Mwelch 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, I've actually noticed that on-going AfD saga. I guess I'm a little too American to have either the knowledge or interest to personally jump into the fray regarding the notability of some third son of a 17th Century Scottish viscount or what have you. But I've definitely been interested enough to be a spectator and watch to see how the whole thing unfolds. Mwelch 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Disused Railway stations in the West Midlands

I've worked very hard ensuring that all the stations in the West Midlands are categorised into the relevant city/borough category, which is then linked both to the "Transport in City/Borough" and "Railway Stations in the West Midlands" categories. Now I find that all my work has been completely undone and suddenly there is no path to the articles from the relevant city/borough category. Can you please revert them all. I have no objection whatsoever to the previous change to include "Disused Railway Stations in England" category. 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I can see exactly where you're coming from with your suggestion, and I have no real great objection to it, save that it seems like a little over-categorisation to me. Take Wolverhampton, for example, where there is only one station currently in use, but something like 20 closed ones. The three Black Country boroughs are almost as bad, as the vast majority of the network in the area was utterly destroyed in the 1960s and early 1970s.

If we do agree to go forward with Category:Disused railway stations in Sandwell et al, then I think it would need to be a subcategory of Category:Railway stations in Sandwell, which will link it all together pretty well, I think. Fingerpuppet 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It all looks pretty good now - thanks! As for your supplementary question, no, not really - it wasn't Beeching at all, although he did start the large scale disruption. Allegedly, it was due to the fact that instead of being split between the Western Region and the LMR, the area was moved into the LMR. All the senior management was from the LMR, and still had the old rivalries in place, so most of the WR lines were closed. The story is told that the Birmingham Snow Hill-Wolverhampton Low Level Line which was the busier of the two lines between the cities was run down due to being former WR, and that eventually the service was suspended, but the line was never actually closed. This has the upshot that the Midland Metro is theoretically causing an illegal blockage of the line...

It's a great story, though how much is fact is unknown. Certainly the line was not mentioned for closure by Beeching, and indeed lasted until 1972. I have seen the passenger figures from before the WCML electrification project and the WR Low Level station is quite a lot busier than the LMR High Level. There is no mention of Dunstall Park railway station closing either, but all services were slowly shifted from Low Level to High Level at the time. If nothing else, it's a good conspiracy theory. Shame really, as the two-track section between New Street and High Level really could do with the extra capacity that would be available by diverting via Snow Hill and Low Level, and the millions spent on expanding the two stations could have been saved. Fingerpuppet 22:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Broadwater Farm

I must admit the subject is new to me--I live in NYC and pay attention to similar problems here, & so am glad to have the chance to broaden my knowledge.

Redirecting the main article to the riot is absurd and should never be suggested., The real question is whether the riot should have its own article, or just a section in the main article. Probably it should, both on its own account as there were two deaths, and second in order to isolate some of the controversy from the article on the area as a whole. To that end, I would suggest decreasing the space devoted to it in the main article, and especially, in expressing it in different words than the one on the riot, and presenting it as an occurrence rather than going through the events day by day in a chronological way. If this is done, NPOV on the main article should be relatively easy to establish. I congratulate you on a magnificently done article, & I think suitable for FA once the usual details are worked out.

I was surprised to see the POV discussions on the riot article as muted as they were--I'd have expected worse. I think no WP article on anything people are interested in will ever be stable, and how to find the energy to maintain them and still write new ones is one of the WP problems. Hope this helps DGG 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The article on the riot existed, with the page on the place redirecting to it, which is what annoyed me in the first place. I agree that the riot ought to have its own page, but given that it's the main news story in the 40 years since it went from "rural farmstead" to "large suburb" virtually overnight, I think it does need to be covered in at least some detail, both in general to explain why all of a sudden the government started pouring money into an area it had been neglecting, and for more specific reasons as to why dismantling the "deck level" became such a priority. (I am half tempted to blank the riot article and redirect to this one, but I suspect that really would spark a revert war.) I assume the reason my version is so similar to the riot article (I deliberately didn't use the existing article as a source) is that both are ultimately sourced from the Met Police's timeline of the day, with the BBC and Guardian used to check reported facts against the police version (they're the only two major UK news agencies to have put their archives online that far back). I think their version's better at covering the events of the day (I was deliverately trying to keep it short), while mine does a much better job at covering the root causes and subsequent effects

I was surprised there isn't more extreme POV-pushing on the riot page as well. There's some low-level edit-warring on Winston Silcott, but less than I'd expected. It may be that very little actually linked to the riot article - most of the links came via Brixton riot (1985) which took place a week earlier and seems to be acting as a flytrap for the POV pushers - check out the high-grade edit warring on that article compared to the Broadwater Farm one

As an American who's completely unfamiliar with that area, I don't think I can offer much of value with regard to what you can expect in terms of stability, vandalism and POV-warring. I just don't have any feeling at all for what the opposing POV's will be, nor for how strongly they will be held. With regard to the basic issue of whether there should be a separate article for the place, however, I can't see much controversy over that. From what I read, the comparison I'd make to something more familiar to me as a native of the Los Angeles area is to the Watts Riots of 1965. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting that that article stand alone and that the article about Watts itself should not exist. And that's even considering the fact that the Watts article is much less thorough, not as well-written and more poorly referenced as is your work on Broadwater Farm. Granted that someone could argue that Watts has about five or six times the population of Broadwater Farm, but still . . .

With regard to how much of the BF article should be devoted to the riot, I'd say very little exactly because there is already a whole article other article about the riot. You don't want to create a situation where someone editing riot information effectively has to make any change in two different places. The riot article is supposed to be the main article about the event, so allow it to be such. In my opinion what you have in the BF article is already too much. I'd condense it down to maybe three paragraphs or so with no sub-headings ("Community tensions. . .", "Death of . . .", etc.). It already says (as it should) very prominently at the top that there is a whole other article on the riot to which the reader can go. I think that is sufficient.

Just my opinion, of course. A couple of months ago, I went through something similar in editing the pages of George Moscone, Harvey Milk and Dan White with regard to all of the information there that was duplicated from Moscone-Milk assassinations. The pages of the three individuals now more closely match the way I prefer: assassination section that consists of a two to four paragraph summary of the event as it pertained to that person, with a link at the top of the section to the assassination article.

One thing I would do in the BF article is, in addition to that link to the riot article, I'd also link to the riot article in the lead. Currently you just link to the article on the word riot. I think it would be more appropriate to link specifically to the BF riot article there.

One other minor suggestion would be adding more demographic information to the article. It currently mentions population in the lead, but that's all. If you can find some more details, I'd add a section on that. Mwelch 00:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your request on my Talk Page. Regards, David Lauder 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I briefly looked over the article. It generally looks neutral, which is impressive for such a subject. It is also well-referenced, although I did find one sentence that needs a citation. I have some organizational suggestions:

• Create a "History" section that contains the "Early History", "Broadwater Farm Estate", "Deterioration", "October 1985", and "Reconstruction" sections.
• If possible, find some external links and add an "External links" section.

One minor point: The "Crime rates" section refers to the number of crimes in the "period preceding the 1985 riot". Can you specify the length of that period so that the readers have an idea of what the actual "rate" was?

I otherwise have no major insightful comments. I hope these comments help. Dr. Submillimeter 11:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the article I think the riots section needs a slight rework. I would pull back most of the information from Brixton unless we have an indication of causality there. I do think the riot needs to stay with a brief outline of what/why/result of the actual events with the details left to the Broadwater Farm Riot. I also wonder if we could do some reference interchange here between the two articles. I have to agree with the above - a very impressive piece of work! Regan123 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone

Thanks to everyone who's commented on this so far - I've restructured & rewritten parts of it in light of everyone's comments. The one major change suggested which I haven't made is stripping out all the detail of the riot; I think at least a brief summary of events is necessary to explain why changes to the architecture (particularly the "deck level") was considered so important, and I've left the reference to the Brixton Riot in (albeit stripped down as far as I could), as I think it's necessary in explaining an atmosphere in which an event that would normally have led to an investigation and maybe a minor protest flared up into a full-scale riot — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thank you for contributing at my recent request for adminship, even though I could tell you're angry. A few issues were brought up there. I would like to tell you that I am not anti-gay. The creation of the userbox was for other users. If I was, I would have used the userbox within my own userspace. Nor do I seek power; just more ways to help the goals of Wikipedia. As far as changing my username goes, the first was at the request of WP:RFCN, and the second was preference, as Wikihermit is kind of an odd user and T is my middle initial. As far as nominating articles being marked as minor. If you take a look at the edit summary, it shows using twinkle. Twinkle automatically marks the edit as minor. Anyways, thanks for your comments. --Wikihermit ^{(Talk • HermesBot)} 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Archiving

Hi, sorry, I should have been more careful. (But the page definitely needed archiving!) --RFBailey 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so: I think Werdnabot is for user talk pages only. It's certainly not allowed for article talk pages, I'm not sure about project-space pages. --RFBailey 23:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Queen of Angels Academy

Thanks for adding the disambig tag to the Queen of Angels Academy after I forgot :). Greenboxed 02:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem... — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

London Congestion Charge

Can you look at the new section that has gone in? As the GA reviewer I would appreciate your thoughts on whether or not a new section is required? Regan123 17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Malformed Earthborn

Please check User talk:Staatenloser for the answer.

Staatenloser 05:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon Hillcock

I hate Wikipedia. I seriously do. Jon Hillcock is of note and XFM is a huge station which is not local, it's available across the country and even in Ireland. There are many other DJs from the station who have their pages.

I think it's really ridiculous that people set out to delete these pages. It's a notable person. I understand there are people who edit themselves into Wikipedia, and things which my not be considered encylopaedic, but the problem with this site is that it's American, and anything that's not well known at a national level in America is much more susceptible to be deleted. --Jiei 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know.........

An IP appears to have a beef with you here, although I have no idea why...... ChrisTheDude 09:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King's inspiration

Hello. Back in May you participated in an AfD discussion on Stephen King's inspiration. I have called this AfD for review as I believe it was deleted against consensus in the discussion. If you have a few moments, would you please read the review and weigh in with your current opinion? Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_22#Stephen_King.27s_inspiration Many thanks. All the best LACameraman 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Marcia White

Hi, I have scourced this stub and removed your notability tag. Is it per WP:HEY O.K. now? Bearian 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Malformed Earthborn

Could you answer to my request ? Check here.

Staatenloser 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As per the large notice at the top of this page, I am not a wikipedia admin and have no deletion powers. In all honesty I have no idea why this was proposed for deletion without seeing the article in question. Just because I'm the one who notified you, doesn't necessarily mean I'm the one who nominated it (although without looking at it, I can't say for sure it wasn't me). To get it undeleted, go to WP:DRV and follow the instructions there — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A215 road Knights Hill

I think its a rather nice tour guide to the A215 (but then, maybe I do have odd tastes!) though Knight's hill has been a problem is lots of other WP articles... I have here a couple of local history books (St Luke, West Norwood 1825-1975 & The Story of Norwood by JB Wilson) which assign the northern patch by Tulse Hill as detached, and include the southern Knights Hill within Lambeth parish. They have copies of old maps pre the 1807 enclosure act. A 1563 map of Levenhurst manors shows several patches owned by John & Henry Knyghts Blobbesheth(!) A 1678 map for the Archbishop of Canterbury shows Lambeth common in the place of Norwood Common stretching out to Streatham gate, while the later maps show the situation of the new church of St Luke was planned by Lambth diocese to be positioned at the junction of Knights Hill near the Horns Tavern, at the site of an old toll gate. The enclosure map shows the north-most Knights hill as outside the parish, although still owned by Lord Thurlow like the rest of the area, and variously assigned as a detached part of Streatham or Battersea. The books also remark on Penge (an outlying wood owned by the parish of Batricesee as long ago as AD 957). rgds, Ephebi 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CanCliff

That you check the content on Wikipedia and volunteer your time to do so -- I appreciate. You assert, however, that I wrote the article in question. I did not. It was a local high school student. I did write the Canary Cliff article because I thougth it might be fun to participate and to link to the article about me (so I am not as modest as you think). I am offended at having my credibility and work questioned. I am offended that a kind of feeding frenzy has begun. I checked several articles tagged for deletion. I saw no supporters. Everyone -- an I mean everyone -- jumped on the deletion bandwagon. I think this mob mentality is a flaw on Wikipedia. The basic arguements for deleting the article center on the idea that my name cannot be Googled. So if I buy a bunch of links and rise to the top of the search page I can tell any lie I want? And IMdb title entries must be made by the producer or director. So I list credit on a show called "Top Flight" but it isn't listed on the IMdb. Am I a liar? No according to the producer's website [4] the show was real. But I can't list this credit on the IMdb. So I avoid things like the IMdb and Wikipedia and MySpace -- because the information on them is inaccurate or incomplete. No offense -- I like the fdact that you try -- but facts are facts. They are not subject to a vote and on Wikipedia they are.

So please, stop the public lynching of my good name. I'd rather have the damn thing deleted than to continue this humiliation. And the fact that people consider this entertainment is disgusting. I'm a good person and so is the kid that wrote the article.CanCliff 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the wiki doesn't lie - the article history clearly shows you as creator & sole editor prior to its nomination for deletion. And if you really are coming to Wikipedia for "entertainment", you've come to the wrong place. The argument for deletion has nothing to do with Google, but with a total lack of sourcing on the article. Incidentally, IMDB is an open wiki and specifically and categorically unsuitable for citation as a reliable source — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Poetic Decay's RfA

I'm sorry, I did not presume at all that you removed 2 support !votes. What did you mean? Thanks, Neranei (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. (and for the record, PD withdrew) Thanks for telling me; I'm really sorry! It was an inadvertent removal. Thanks again, Neranei (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, you're correct, if that were my RfA I would have been very confused and possibly annoyed. Thank you again! Cheers, Neranei (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Why are you opposing me because of my userpage? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As I specifically say, I'm not opposing you for your userpage. Answered in full here — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're making a bigger deal out of my userpage then myself. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how you work that out... My reasons for oppose were specifically not based on your userpage, and were: "I know some editors disagree but I don't think it's possible to apply policy correctly without experience; being an admin isn't just zapping articles you don't like with your magic button, it's explaining to irate writers why you've deleted the article they spent three days working on, and with no article creation experience I don't see how you'll be able to reply to them." I don't see how you get "you're making a bigger deal out of my userpage then myself" from that — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your comments at my RFA! Democracy sure is great, even when you lose. I'll try to use your comments to shape my character and become a better admin, thanks! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Hi, as you can see I have withdrawn my rfa as to be honest looking at it now I probably wouldn't have supported it if I was on the judging, first of all i would like to thank you for you comments and although you did not support I was glad to have some feedback, as for the future I will try to address any concerns raised. I will continue most of my regular actives but I am also going to try to get many Linux articles up to GA status as well as trying to get some previous Linux FA back up to FA. As for future rfas i am pretty sure I will try again but I am not going to put a date on it. --Chris  G  12:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Meowth

So what's my prize? ;) [5]. -WarthogDemon 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Hi. I would like to thank you for your support and advice in my RFA which I have decided to withdraw as I lack overall experience at present. Thanks 21:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I think you were probably right to withdraw as it was turning into a pile-on delete. Good luck with next time, though - if nothing else, WP:UKT needs more admins on board to help in cruft-clearing & category-zapping. I'd strongly suggest lurking round AfD, both to get a stronger feel for policy and to push your Wikipedia-space edits up - for better or worse, that's what most people look at first at RfA, and it was your weakest spot this time round — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Portal:London Transport/Vote

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. The template on the page wasn't actually supposed to be a wikitable but just a way to make it easier for people to see the template but I have removed the wikitable as I understand it may cause confusion. I would also like to thank you for your article nominations. They really help. Thanks again. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Broadwater Farm

Hi, thanks for the message, I'll take another look. --Elonka 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Have replied to your comments on the article's talk page — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for letting me know. Agree it should go. Good to see you back. Regan123 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again... Am currently sidetracked cleaning up the mess of the railway station articles, but will be back road-merging soon... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

I am very curious on whether if you think clearly you believe that the fact that I refer to myself as Director provides any countervailing evidence to my prospects for success as an admin. I attempted to defend the viability of the project by fight with people who were detagging articles related to our project. This is not really edit warring.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very specifically (and say so) not opposing as I have no problem with your edits and while I haven't always agreed with you on XfDs, you've always given valid reasons for whatever you're arguing; I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of "Directors" (not just you, but the directors of other projects too); both because I think if the concept of directors, managers etc takes root it creates a de facto dual structure to Wikipedia, and because (and I am not saying you're claiming this) it can give the idea that some editors' contributions are more valid than others. Obviously, any project will have certain people who, because they've demonstrated exceptional knowledge in the area, will be taken more seriously in talk pages than newcomers (such as Simply south on WP:LT), but IMO that differs from an actual director. (See the current flamewars on WP:Bartcies, also spilling over onto User talk:BrownHairedGirl, all summarised nicely at User:Giano/some thoughts, for an extreme example of what happens when some editors start feeling their membership of a project gives them more right than others to edit "their" articles.)

As regards the "edit warring", it's perhaps an extreme phrase, but I'll (weakly) stand by it; I do think you (the project) cast the net far too wide (it would be considered ridiculous if Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union tagged Bill Clinton, for example, even though he played for many years, and some of the Chicago taggings were far more tenuous), and certain members reacted very badly when people started objecting to some of the tags; as I say on the RFA, if you are going to be Director, for better or worse you have to be considered responsible for what's done in your name (another reason I dislike the idea of hierarchies on WP). While I don't consider it a reason to oppose, as I don't think it actually breaches any policy, it makes me uncomfortable enough to "actively not support" with a neutral !vote and explanation, rather than just abstaining. I've deliberately put it in the neutral section rather than in the discussion, to keep my opinions separate from your opinions and the questions, as they are personal views and not based on policy.

FWIW, I don't think you've anything to worry about regarding the RfA, as it seems certain to pass unless there's a wild swing in the next couple of days — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Some could make the argument that if Bill Clinton added a category for every past hobby he would have category clutter and thus Rugby should not be part of his article. We ask editors to choose their categories correctly and then allow us to do our work without fighting about it. See my Q10 answer and other recent Q answers. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing to Support, for what it's worth (not that one non-admin voice is likely to make any difference to an RfA), as I think you've handled the ridiculously large barrage of questions very well. Incidentally, on a completely unrelated note you may want to have a look at Manteno, Illinois, which seems to have come under sustained vandal-attack recently — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve

I don't know who the hell you are, but you are a major idiot. Can you stop being a BUTTINSKY about everything? Obviously, you're not well liked around here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth E (talk • contribs)

Sorry - who are you and what is this about? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to delete a botanical garden that I went through hell and high water to find you jerk. And yes I am pissed at you for doing this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth E (talk • contribs)

If you're referring to Harland Hand Memorial Garden, as the article stands it violates multiple Wikipedia policies, most importantly WP:N and WP:RS, both of which are core policies. I have no problem at all with the article remaining, but as Wikipedia is a tertiary source every article on here needs to have "multiple, independent, non-trivial sources" cited in the article, illustrating why the subject of the article is notable in Wikipedia terms. Wikipedia is not a directory, and the fact that the garden is mentioned on another article (especially an article which you just added it to)is not in and of itself reasons to keep it. If you somehow think I'm "trying to delete it", can I request you read the message in large flashing letters at the top of both this page and my userpage - I am not a Wikipedia admin and have no power to delete articles. You may also want to familiarise yourself with another core policy, WP:NPA — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not mentioned in "another article", it is a small garden, not many people know about it, and it's important. You might not be able to "delete" but you decided to "tag" it, and yes I feel that is offensive. Wikipedia IS a directory for botanical gardens since there is NONE on the internet as extensive as the Wikipedia list of botanical gardens list. You admit on your homepage that you're into railroads and indy music. Since you are NOT an expert on gardens I fail to understand why you decided to go over to gardens and decide that is what you wanted to nominate for deletion.

It is not a matter of what anyone likes; it is purely whether it passes the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, and if you (or anyone) can add any references to the article (it almost certainly had some when it opened and for events held there) I have no problem at all with it being kept. Proposed for deletion is not the same as deleting - if you look at the list of articles for deletion you'll see that around half of them end up being kept, and in every case it's an admin that makes the decision. While some of the Wikimedia Foundation's other projects do double up as de facto directories, by the first of Wikipedia's core policies, (aka WP:NOT) Wikipedia explicitly doesn't.

As it's obviously a sore point, I'll happily agree to leave the article alone; however, I'll warn you now that, while by deleting the {{prod}} notice you've stopped it from going through the proposed deletion process, in its current state it's certain to either be nominated for deletion when another editor finds it, or speedy deleted under category A7 ("No assertion of importance/significance") should an admin come across it. (Because of the way Wikipedia functions, another editor will find it, as articles of this length are automatically tagged {{stub}} and sent for sorting & assessment) — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I apologize, and I realize I got very upset. Please put the PROD back if you wish, I don't know how. I thought it said to delete the PROD if you don't want the article to be deleted.

It's a sore point because I read about this botanical garden in the SF Chronicle once, and I've never been able to visit it, and I think it's important. I also put in the Dunsmuir Botanical Garden as well. I just feel that having a complete list of botanical gardens needs to be somewhere on the internet, and since Wikipedia is an excellent reference, this needs to be here, so people can visit them. There are no longer any websites that list them. There were 2 and both are now no longer. It's terribly devastating to those of us who like to visit botanical gardens. Thanks in advance for understanding. I don't know how to expand the article because there isn't much known about it.

If it's any use, Yahoo does maintain a list (albeit not a very good one) here. If you're in a position to collate a better list, the best place for it would probably be Wikibooks rather than Wikipedia, as they work to a different set of notability rules which allows original research, so it doesn't need the multiple-citations a Wikipedia article needs — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm familiar with the yahoo list, and it's terrible. As far as wikibooks, most people don't go there to find things like this, they go to the "list of botanical gardens" list here at Wikipedia, which is probably the best one on the net currently.

You might want to post something at WikiProject California and/or the relevant subprojects, as there may well be someone there who can assist with expanding and sourcing the articles to pass the WP bar.

Let me reiterate, I'm not objecting to the article(s), but if the inclusion rules aren't enforced Wikipedia would get uncontrollably large very quickly; also, forcing articles to be referenced is necessary to restore some semblance of a reputation for accuracy, a quality for which Wikipedia is not exactly famous right now. As one of the volunteers for assessing the new stub articles and deciding what to send for deletion and what to pass up to the appropriate specialists for expanding, I get through a lot of these (if you check my contribution log you'll see I've done around 500 today alone), and it's impossible not to upset some people (hence the assorted abuse on this page, which is actually considerably lower than normal). Normally I'd offer to help (the articles listed on my userpage with the green letter "r" next to them are all articles I've rescued from deletion in these circumstances), but unfortunately as a New Yorker living in London I don't know CA well enough to add anything useful — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the link to the SF Gate article which talks about how incredible that garden is. I just don't know what to add to the article. Yes the article is a stub. The SF Gate article is fantastic and I added it to the links section. I don't know how to describe the garden since I never visited there. Again, I don't know, how to advocate for the article, but I really think it's important that it stays, so anything you can do to help would be appreciated. Check out the linked sfgate article on the site!

I'll have a shot at expanding it if I can but can't promise; as I said earlier, I know virtually nothing about CA so if info isn't available online I won't be able to add anything. As a first step, I've replaced the {{stub}} tag with a more specific {{ContraCostaCountyCA-geo-stub}}, which will take it out of the general stub slush-pile and into a specific Contra Costa list, which is looked at much less often & should give it enough time to be expanded before anyone else notices it — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Hayday (2nd nomination)

Thank you for your comment at the above discussion. I am fairly new to all of this, and wasn't sure if it was a good thing to do. I have a worry, and that is looking at the previous discussion this person set out on a smear campaign against the person who listed the article for deletion, vandalised their user page and set up sockpuppet accounts to try and make it look like more people were editing the article than just one person. Can you do me a favour and keep an eye out for that kind of thing? I don't know how things like that are handled. -- Roleplayer 02:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As a local councillor, I suspect if he tries anything like that this time he'll be very sorry. Private Eye now monitors Wikipedia for this sort of thing, and if he does anything to bring the party into disrepute I'd guess a promising career will come to a very sudden halt — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lyall Howard

I was pleased to see you made some edits to the Lyall Howard article, fixing typos and wikifying. You must have read it and noticed it is listed for deletion. But you did not make any comment on the AfD list. I was curios what you thought of it, because you are a non-Australian. In some ways it's the test of a good article if someone with no connection to it can decide if it has value or is interesting, or has no value and should be deleted from Wikipedia. Cheers, Lester2 19:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Have done so - I can't really understand why this is proposed for deletion when Denis Thatcher, Daniel Wayne Smith, Laura Bush etc all stay; for better or worse, in the world we live in notability is inherited. Or do the delete voters think Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon should go as well? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving some feedback on the article.Lester2 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An Invitation

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Thanks for the spell check on Dravidian civilizations. Regards. Wiki Raja 23:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to join the project, I think, as all my knowledge of the subject is 15 years out of date (and there are enough editors in India with far more knowledge than me), but thanks for the offer! — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your behaviour regarding the supposed "sockpuppets" of loask

I think you should definitely apologize for what you did. I am the person who owned the account "Loask", and you have got me and some friends banned. You call the accounts "Four accounts with a history of tag-teaming on goatse.cx. The four accounts are now multiple-voting "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weasel Thomas (patent hoax article created by Loask)"

Now, i disagree with you on a number of points here.

Firstly, the claim that the accounts have "Tag-teamed" on goatse.cx is clearly false. Three of the accounts have made posts there at completely different times, something which is understandable, given a mutual interest in the matter. The account "humjosh" is clearly not a "single-purpose account", as it is claimed on the afd page, and has made constructive edits to wikipedia.

By banning our IP addresses, you have just removed our right to participate in the weasel thomas debate, and because of your clearly false statement about tag teaming on goatse.cx (and even if the accounts had been sock puppets, this would not have been a violation of rules Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry) we were not able to say anything in the debate about whether or not the accounts were sock puppets or not. In fact, we have done nothing whatsoever wrong. We made the article on Weasel Thomas (which was vandalised by "thepeanut", but that has nothing to do with it, and we correctly sourced everything we wrote. When i noticed that it was up for deletion, i asked my friends to throw their opinions into the AFD discussion, whereupon you jumped on us and tried to get us banned for no reason at all. We have not violated any wikipedia rules, however you have broken Wikipedia: Etiquette, and so we would like you to first of all apologise, and also to get our accounts unblocked.

If you think you've been blocked unfairly, add {{unblock|your reason here}} to your talk page and an admin will come along and review it. I suggest you have a read of WP:MEAT, WP:HOAX and WP:POINT before doing so, though — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Davenant School

Sorry about that last revert! Acroterion _(talk) 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries - the multiple anons were misleading me as well. As far as I can see the last clean version is the one of 9th August. Congratulations due to the vandals for keeping it live that long, I guess — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Southern IL

Found dollar value for endowment. Yay me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.27.130 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really "vandalism" as such, and feel free to blank the warning on your talk page to make sure you don't get blocked for it (if anyone objects, point them towards this conversation). I agree it looks messy as it currently stands — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict - ignore the above and well done... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

London streets

I am a little puzzled about how to deal with the nomination of the many articles. Probably most are in fact not notable, but i would like the time to be able to check, and I do not see how anyone can be reasonably expected to do them all in the few days provided. But since this is your special field, it might help to know what places you already looked, so at least I don't duplicate. I note for the one that I did check, Welbeck Street, I found additional information readily in Google Scholar. I havent done the formal sourcing yet, though. DGG (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary check with all of them that didn't have an IMO valid claim of notability in the article or something I could easily add was to check their entries in the 1995 The London Encyclopaedia, and anything that had a potentially interesting entry was kept (and the entry added if it seemed appropriate). The few that were left, I ran through a Google (normal; I didn't think to check Scholar) search to see if I could find anything valid to add; those that were left, I AfD'd. As I said in the noms, I didn't prod any of them. Although it looks like a wild burst of deletionism to AfD 10 articles in a single day, this was in the context of an assessment (for WP:LT) of every article in the sprawling Category:Streets in London, and I gave benefit of the doubt to anything that seemed to have even a borderline claim to warrant its own article.

If consensus is to keep them all, even the most minor, I've no problem with that; from the way the AfDs are going so far, it seems that three of the 10 are on their way to being kept. My gut (unscientific) opinion is that unless a Google or Lexisnexis (to which I don't have access) search turns up a mention of a street in its own right (eg, not just as an address for something), it's unlikely to warrant its own article; thus, Savile Row receives coverage in and of itself as a focus of the tailoring trade whilst Cork Street turns up a number of entries for art businesses based on the street, but no discussion of the street itself as a focus for the art trade (a claim I've never heard, incidentally, other than on the article and the AfD discussion - it's not even mentioned on London art scene; the major galleries & auctioneers are on Piccadilly, Bond Street and Hoxton Square). To coin a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST analogy, whilst New York City rightly has articles on 34th Street and 42nd Street, there would be no point in writing 68th Street or 25th Street, even though both probably have a better claim to notability than any of the streets I've AfD'd. The "It's old so it must be important" instinct doesn't really apply in the older European cities as so much of the cities are old, especially by American standards. (When I briefly lived in Indianapolis, it always jarred me that the (relatively modern by British standards) Victorian terrace house I'd lived in in England was older than all but the very oldest buildings in Indiana.)

I do disagree with the idea that there's any kind of inherent notability for streets, particularly in England. Unlike a US gridiron-plan city of perhaps 200 E-W Streets and 100 N-S Avenues for a total of 300 streets, or a Paris/Berlin style city of a few long boulevards divided by connecting streets, British & Irish cities have retained the street plans of the villages that expanded to form the city. Most named London streets, including all of those I AfD'd, are the equivalent of one or two US style blocks; London alone has over 70,000 separate named streets - the index alone of the London A-Z road atlas runs to 180 pages of very small (6pt) print - and the same applies (at a smaller scale) for Edinburgh, Birmingham, Dublin et al. I do feel that a street such as Great College Street has far less press coverage, plus an impact on far fewer people, than the kind of minor indie bands that are deleted without a second thought, and that (as with the bands) the burden of proof of WP:N should be on the creators & supporters of the individual articles, without the kind of presumption of notability we assume for the railway stations. (In the unlikely event that you - or anyone reading this - cares, you can read my meandering argument as to why the presumption of notability is valid for railway stations here.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For modern cities, I tend to agree, though i suspect that for the Manhattan streets you named, sufficient material could be found if sufficient work were done--which would of course take a serious local history maven In 150 years, things are likely to have happened there. They are both in interesting neighborhoods that have had dramatic changes of different sorts over the last 150 years or so. But for purely residential areas, there will be much less, especially in the newer ones.

For the city of London, I'm much less sure. There's about 1000 years of recorded history, some very detailed, and I do not rely in the least upon it all getting into the tourist guidebooks or the major commercial city guides. There are literally thousands of specialized books, let alone documents or scholarly articles or popular newspaper or magazine articles, all over centuries--especially for those streets where archeology has been possible or where there has been major rebuilding after WW 2. At the very least, these articles should be closed without prejudice to rewriting when someone who cares has the time. Only the first steps in looking for sources has been done.

There has been much less time for material on indie bands to have accumulated. And there is the factor of permanence, which is also one of the factors for railroad stations.DGG (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about closing any deletes without prejudice, although I really doubt it would be possible to create bona fide articles on any of these streets. Aside from Barton Street, which is a tiny back-street so insignificant it isn't even labelled on the map and Wormwood Street, which is a tiny stretch of a much longer road and could be perfectly well covered as a paragraph in London Wall, none of these streets are any particularly historic areas, but are bog-standard late 18th/early 19th Century streets of the kind every British city has by the thousands.

I think of the three articles I AfD'd which are headed for a keep, two are being kept on a false premise that notability can be inherited from the surrounding area; Welbeck Street, as a street near Harley Street, has picked up some of the medical overspill from its notable neighbour, whilst, because Piccadilly, as the home of the Royal Academy, is a bona fide artistic centre, the surrounding streets are filled with art shops; yes, googling Cork Street shows a number of art dealers but so does a search on any other street in the area. In the third case, Curzon Street, I find the keep arguments baffling; one is based on two famous people dying in a neighbouring street with a similar name (Curzon Place) while the other keep argument is "this is a very notable street" with no explanation and an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And (I know I keep labouring this point) all ten of the articles currently at AfD are virtually content-free substubs lacking even the most basic content such as "what's on the street" or "where it is", not someone's life's work & passion — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Manteno, Illinois

I saw on the Chicago page your question about Manteno. I don't know much about the village either, but could set it up with sections that would need to be filled. Were you just saying you were reverting vandalism, or do you have plans on expanding it? I currently have no plans to expand the village myself (being part of WP:Illinois). Thanks for the reverts.--Kranar drogin 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't help in expanding it; although I used to live in Indiana, my knowledge of Illinois stretches only to Chicago itself. It's purely something I came across that had obviously been heavily vandalised, and I wanted a second opinion as to whether I'd reverted too far/not enough — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has a liberal bias"

Hi there, I was just scanning through your talk page, since I came across you en route from User:Giano's talk page. I wanted to know why you think this about Wikipedia? I think "liberal bias" is banded about quite unnecessarily by some conservatives, and yes, vice versa, on many projects/organizations/news networks/TV shows/you name it.. but I'm not sure if it applies to Wikipedia or not. My impression of Wikipedia is.. it's EVERYBODY's bias. Full of bias on subjects I'd never heard about (scanning through RfCs, arbitrations, etc, has really given me another tertiary education), on both right and the left, and up and down too. It's unavoidable, being a publically-editable encyclopedia. I'm sure there are just as much conservative bias than liberal bias in most articles not because of an adherence to NPOV so much as a "compromise" on viewpoints, usually ending up with an article that is based somewhere in the middle. Until of course, someone comes through with another bias and changes it, and boom the whole cycle of edit warring, RfCs and eventually arbitration begins again.

I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying that you're wrong (you may be right, and what I just said might be complete garbage), I just thought I'd take this up with you and ask for clarification, based on the fact that you seem to be a quite knowledgable editor, despite the fact our respective politics might not mesh (is there a userbox for "militant atheist anti-conservative"? I want one). Thanks! DeusExMachina 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "liberal bias", I don't mean "liberal" in the sense Americans use, but in the British sense; a vague sentiment of "extremes are a bad thing" coupled with a small-c conservatism which favours the tried-and-tested over anything new. A bias towards this is built into Wikipedia from the ground up due to positive feedback from the self-selecting group of significant editors. What constitutes a neutral point of view to a fundamentalist Christian is likely to be a totally different position to what would constitute NPOV to an SWP activist, with the benefit of the doubt falling on what's determined to be "moderate" by this same self-selecting group, alienating users who are deemed to be at either "extreme" and accelerating the positive feedback. Compare Wikipedia with Conservapedia, who maintain (with equal justification) to have an NPOV; "the middle ground" is defined purely by the consensus of the editors in both cases, but each group, by virtue of being self-selecting, becomes dominated by people who agree with the stance that project takes.

In Wikipedia's case, self-selection and the facts of computer access & leisure time mean it's dominated by what would be considered moderate left-wingers in the US and moderate right-wingers elsewhere. The "six times more liberals than conservatives" claim (both words used in the American sense) is always bandied around with no reliable source, but on the basis of an unscientific trawl through random userpages, looking to see what political affiliations if any are listed, I'd guess it's reasonably accurate. WP:BIAS is of no use in countering this, as the definition of what constitutes the unbiased view is itself a consensus of the self-selected group.

I think you might be under a bit of a misapprehension as to my personal views, incidentally. While I've deliberately removed virtually every irrelevant userbox as per WP:NOT#MYSPACE (there are still a lot of them, but — aside from a couple of jokey ones near the bottom — all are directly relevant to my contributions to the project) , until about two weeks ago I was listed among Wikipedia's rather sparse (I prefer the word "exclusive") club of paid-up anarcho-syndicalists & secular humanists.

As regards the userboxes, here you go (cut and paste all the gibberish below into your user page):

{{Userbox |border-c=#8F0916|border-s=0 |id-c=#FF6378|id-s=12 |id-fc=#031F07|info-c=#FF6378|info-s=8 |info-fc=##031F07|id=[[Image:Atom of Atheism-Zanaq.svg|67px]]|info=This user is a [[Antitheism#Militant_atheism|militant atheist]] anti-[[Conservatism#Australian_conservatism|conservative]]'''}}

This user is a militant atheist anti-conservative

— iridescent (talk to me!) 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me, and for the userbox. ^_^ DeusExMachina 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curzon Street

Can you please revisit this discussion. I have done some digging and have found that the street has a very prestigious history, which I have added to the article, including several references. I believe the page is now of a quality whereby it should be kept. -- Roleplayer 22:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Have changed to Keep in light of the rewrite (although I still think there's a nettle to be grasped here, as outlined in the discussion above with DGG, as I'm still not convinced that the individual streets that aren't of importance as streets (the primary A-roads and famous streets such as Oxford Street etc) really warrant their own articles. Would it make sense to merge-and-expand the stubby articles on streets in areas into single longer articles (eg, Streets of Mayfair), along the lines of what I did with the roads making up A215 road following this AfD — which (although I - successfully - argued keep at the time) convinced me that the way to go with minor roads (and their cousins, the closed railway lines) was the mergist route — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know because I'm quite new to this. I looked at the streets that are up for deletion on an 1862 map of London that I happen to have in my possession (an Edward Stanford no less) and Curzon Street immediately leapt out at me. I had intended to do other stuff this evening and have spent far too long on it now...! -- Roleplayer 22:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		Thanks...
	Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. Even though you didn't support my candidacy, I did greatly appreciate your comments, which I will certainly put to good use in improving myself as an editor. I do plan to make another request in a few months, once I have improved upon your concerns. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent, I have a quick question...

Hi, Iridescent.

I've just joined Wikipedia, and I've been hanging around the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that you happened to write a warning on a talk page after I reverted one of their vandalisms. (I'm talking about the North Dakota edit, where some guy was "adding the truth".

I'll be the first person to admit that I haven't been warning vandals, but I was hoping you could enlighten me to your method of finding these edits. Thanks - capitocapito 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no magic trick to it - click on "recent changes" (in the left-hand menubar under "interaction"), and browse through them at random - around 5% of edits on Wikipedia are vandalism so it shouldn't take you long to find some. Anything with an anon IP as the editor and no edit summary or anything with an edit summary like "Telling the truth" or "dfoiigoagjoirngg" are your most likely suspects. Installing Twinkle will give you a button to automatically roll-back edits, but you do need to be careful using it as it's hair-trigger, and you can end up undoing someone's hard work with a single wrong click — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Manteno, IL

I took a look at the article, removed some uncited POV, added a {{cn}} to one sentence and tagged the article as unreferenced. Most of the stuff is probably true or close to true, doesn't seem exaggerated or crazy for a town that size in northern Illinois, so it can probably be cited and cleaned up into a fairly decent article. : ) Given that most smaller settlement articles on Wikipedia are nothing more than a bunch of stats, this one has a leg up on the competition already. IvoShandor 08:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice job!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for your excellent vandal fighting efforts recently! ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Two in 24 hours? Has Community Consensus finally decided it doesn't hate me? — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I that's three posts in a row at least. I mopped up that article btw. :)IvoShandor 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up the half-dozen or so posts from here on down to get a better idea of the typical tone of comments on this page. Thanks for cleaning up that article BTW, I had a niggling feeling I'd either reverted too far or not enough. At the time I thought it was a bit of an obscure target for tag-team vandalism, until I noticed the SPAs determinedly vandalising British Thermal Unit today — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's out of line, they were violating WP policy with that one, I wouldn't worry about it too much, and nothing seems to be too out of the way for vandals, odd isn't it? IvoShandor 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Have you thought about running for RfA? I would be happy to nominate you. I think you have plenty of experience, and even from a cursory glance the above thread demonstrates that you have a great understanding of policy. I see you at XfD and RfA all the time and you evidently know what you're talking about - I'm very surprised you're not an admin yet (unless you don't want to be one, which is fair enough). Walton^One 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! While I've never seen any particular need to self-nom, I'd take it if offered on might-come-in-handy grounds (although, as my edit count is currently about 9500, it may make sense to wait until it hits 10k to satisfy the editcounters). I doubt I'd be all that active as an admin; most of what I do involves a) writing TL;DR articles on roads and the emergency services; b) expanding the sorry state of the UK railway articles into something approaching validity; c) trying to expand at least some former Conservative MPs beyond one-line stubs - yes, Wikipedia has a liberal bias etc but these people were important; and d) cleaning up & rescuing valid-but-badly-written "my favourite band" type articles from the {{stub}} bin while prodding the apparently hopeless cases. Whilst all of these are (I hope) necessary, important etc, I don't generally stray into the vandal-fighting side of things unless I happen to come across it (although I do seem to have drifted into the role of protector of Maria Sharapova). As I have no intention of touching the user interface (which I think works perfectly well, and virtually any change anyone ever suggests would IMO be for the worse), realistically the only admin field I'd likely be working in would be XfD/CSDs.

I think an RfA from me would possibly get quite bitchy at the moment; as you can see from reading the posts above this, I've acquired what is in my opinion an unfair reputation as a fanatical deletionist (for some reason, no matter how many people comment on an XfD, I always seem to be the one who gets blamed for "pushing it over the edge". Also, there's an (ironic, in light of my comments on TonyTheTiger's RfA) argument currently running between WP:LONDON and WP:LT regarding my tagging of the talk pages of London streets with {{WP London Transport}}; given the way Tony's RfA is spiralling out of control (twelve questions for the candidate, especially from people who've made their minds up and have no intention of being swayed by the answer, is ridiculous), I doubt anyone really wants another arcane row spilling into RfA.

If you think I'd pass, go ahead and nominate me and I'll happily accept (the worst that happens is I fail). I would ask that if you do, it not go live until Friday, both to give the road-tagging debate time to settle down, and because for the next four days I'll be doing twelve-hour shifts drinking tea, filling in forms and staring into space making London the safest major city in the world and am likely to be in no fit state to write coherent answers to any questions — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply to this post. Re the posts above, I don't think the controversy would kill your RfA - although I haven't investigated in detail, it doesn't look like any of the conflicts above were your fault (you were just enforcing policy), and I believe that most long-term contributors would recognise the valuable work you've put in. Also, you certainly don't need to hit 10k edits; I only had about 4500 when I passed RfA. I really think you would probably pass, and I think you could do good work at CAT:CSD and in closing AfDs.

As a side point, I (as an active Conservative campaigner) agree with you that we need better coverage of former Conservative MPs. I think the problem isn't so much liberal bias as a bias towards recentism (mainly because it's easier to find sources online for current political figures than for former ones). I do what I can, but I've had comparatively little time to edit recently.

I'll draw up a nomination statement for you this weekend, and you can choose whether to accept or not. I understand that as a serving police officer, you're probably quite busy (another consequence of the over-stretching of police resources under a Labour Government, but I'll try not to get political on-wiki). Walton^One 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - if you put nominate me, I'll certainly let it go forward (although I foresee a barrage of "doesn't need the tools" comments). Because of the way the shifts fall (five twelve hour days on, five days off) there's never really a convenient time. BTW, I'm no longer a serving officer but a "civilian contractor" - (almost) the same pay, but I now get to sit at a desk staring at a screen full time instead of just a third of the time, no longer have the Great British Public throwing rocks at me, and get longer holidays.

Having seen both the Conservative & Labour governments (and my LibDem council) in action, I've come firmly round to the "as bad as each other" view; the comment below (and formerly on my userpage) about being the sole member of Category:Anarcho-syndicalist Wikipedians was only half a joke. (See this conversation below for some further thoughts of mine on the subject of Wikipedia bias.) Incidentally (admittedly due to a barrage of minor edits trying to clear out Category:Stubs) my edit count has reached a bona fide five figures today — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I will be logging on to oppose given your recent erroneous accusations of vandalism. 24.7.91.244 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiplex

Can you show me somewhere that "multiplex" is used for British roads outside the "fandom"? I'm removing the term per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --NE2 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've not got a problem with getting rid of "multiplex" - I think it's horribly confusing (as people assume it relates to the construction firm) as well as an ugly neologism - but "overlap" isn't the appropriate thing to change it to in a UK context. On the couple of articles where I've re-changed it, I've amended it to [[Concurrency (road)|concurrency]], as a least-worst option - it's the name we use for the article itself, after all — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK... I'l try to remember to use only concurrency if I come across any other UK articles. --NE2 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: I Know Him So Well

While I understand that there are rules about libelous material, there is nothing straightforwardly libelous about the removed statement. It has been suggested that the song, I Know Him So Well, is about his affair. It does not say the song is definitely about his affair, and of course being from a musical it cannot be solely about his affair as it has to tie into the story about Florence's affair with the Russian. It merely states a theory that has been suggested about a possible hidden subtext to the song. There is no defamation from false statements, a requirement for libel, as the affair is in the public knowledge as being true and the suggestion has been made. Technically, if I were to make the suggestion myself, the suggestion would have been made. However, it's not my suggestion and is found in the Tim Rice article, where it has existed since 14 March. It is also not a defaming statement on its own. The statement Rice had an affair with Paige is a defaming statement. The statement Rice may have written a song about his affair is not. Because there is nothing false at all about the statement and it is not necessarily defaming, it can hardly be considered a libelous statement. --69.123.165.15 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:RS for more on this - basically, an external source needs to be shown for everything on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it's potentially libellous. Other Wikipedia pages aren't considered "reliable" for this purpose — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that changes the reason for removal. It was removed for being libelous, not for lack of attribution. --69.123.165.15 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, it is a (potentially) defamatory statement, as there's no source for the statement that Rice had an affair with Paige which is potentially defamatory. I remember the story in the papers so I know the sources do exist, but at the moment it's unsourced (and is unsourced on Tim Rice as well). Read BLP for more on this — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Vandalism on Nicorette

Please brush up on the word vandalism before you start accusing people of it. Reverted 1 edit by 24.7.91.244 identified as vandalism to last revision by Tabletop. using TW) (undo). That was anything but vandalism, it was an edit you disagreed with, which is not vandalism, nor is it an excuse to engaging in blanking - which IS vandalism. You blanked significant new content on this page Inhalers, fine you may not agree with it, but in that case IMPROVE it - don't blank it. 24.7.91.244 06:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of extreme POV-pushing ("Nicorette inhalers are widely available over the counter throughout the free world, however in other places, such as the the United States they are branded as Nictrol Inhalers and are only available to those willing to pay a US doctor for a prescription", with "Nicoerette Inhalers available OTC in the free world (this obviously excludes the us)" as the edit summary); while this doesn't constitute vandalism as you hadn't inserted it after a warning, I'm sure you're perfectly well aware that the "vandalism" summary is automatically generated by TW when reverting. I agree that the reversion restored a line that should have been left deleted, about "obnoxious packaging", for which I apologise, but I'm certainly not going to apologise about removing your "free world" comments — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if you don't like it improve it, blanking could be construed as vandalism. You blanked mention of the Inhalers, and valuable information as to market availability, Ok, I agree the swipe about the free world was not appropriate (though accurate) as was brought on by me quitting. If you can't control TW to provide accurate summaries, get rid of it - but please do not blame the computer when edits from YOUR account accused me of vandalism. The dog ate my homework won't cut it - YOU accused me of vandalism. Control, or delete your scripts please. AND STOP BLANKING. In turn I will try and control my edits while quitting ;-) 24.7.91.244 12:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Regarding [6], what exactly is your excuse for not being an admin? Pascal.Tesson 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Our old friend "doesn't need the tools" - I deliberately rotate between article creation, stub-sorting & Wiki-space business (RFF, AFD and RFA), with the occasional bit of recent-changes patrol when I'm watching something on TV as it doesn't involve so much thinking, plus a periodic AWB spell-check run in the background through my "extended watchlist" (the 30000+ articles that have come to my notice one way or another) cleaning up whatever errors have crept in since the last run. The only one of those fields where admin tools would be any use is the stub-sorting, to zap the sorrier specimens that Alaibot periodically dumps into Category:Stubs, so I never saw any particular need to self-nom.

That said, Walton One has offered to nominate me (see above); if he does, I'll let it go forward, but I suspect it could become quite a bitchy RFA. The combination of stub-sorting (with all the {{prod}}ding it entails) & RC patrolling racks up flamers & trolls at an impressive speed — the quality of debate currently on this page is about as good as it ever gets — so I'd expect any RFA of mine rapidly to become overrun by a gaggle of irate SPAs — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

*offers to co-nom* Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! Am doing 12 hour shifts for the next few days so nothing's likely to happen for a bit — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please drop me a line if you do run at RfA. As I have requested this, you will not be canvassing me. --Dweller 12:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dihydrogen, remind me again who the World Cup holders are?

They're Italy! Be more specific next time :P Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Norwich City player of the year

Just to let you know that I'm working extensively on this article, with a view to getting it to Featured List status. Come and join in! --Dweller 12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Useful. --Dweller 12:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Socrates

I knew I should have checked -it looked like the sneaky little changes that the vandals make (I'll assume good faith or check next time]] Jimfbleak 12:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle

We've never met, but I noticed that you used Twinkle very recently. Could I have some help? I've installed and configured it and all the rest, but I don't know how to use it. Could you tell me how? Thanks! —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Once you've installed it (follow the instructions at WP:TW, and make sure you purge the cache) it should be fairly self explanatory. Once it's installed, any recent changes list, edit history etc will show buttons labelled "AGF", "Rollback" and "Vandal". Clicking these will automatically revert that edit with an appropriate edit summary, then take you to the talkpage of the user who made the edit. You'll also see some extra buttons at the top of your screen; hover the mouse button over them for an explanation of what each of them does.

Two things to be aware of:

1. Twinkle doesn't work properly with popups blocked
2. Twinkle is very hairtrigger and it's easy to revert legitimate edits by clicking on the wrong box (it's designed for speed so doesn't have a "preview" function); be prepared to instantly revert any mistakes you make - and issue grovelling apologies - or it's quite easy to get yourself blocked for repeated page blanking

Hope that helps — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

As per our discussion above, I've written up an RfA nom for you.

Thanks, I'll fill it out when I get the time (probably tomorrow) — although I have to say, if this AfD succeeds I suspect I'll withdraw it, since my idea of WP:N is obviously wildly at odds with The Wikipedia Consensus — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Co nom! Besides, that AfD will certainly result in keep. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead & co-nom by all means — barring unforeseen circumstances I'll send it live tomorrow — although, as I don't want it to end up lopsided like TRE's RFA, in the unlikely event it gets a large number of co-noms I reserve the right to remove some of them. I agree that AfD will almost certainly result in a keep, and the more I look at it the more I think the entire set should be kept, even the smaller ones - some of them are in a wretched state, but in my experience it's almost always possible to whip a shopping mall article into a valid state (Antonine Centre is my favourite example of this) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sent it live - while it's not an ideal time, the way the shifts fall there never will be an ideal time — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All the best, you deserve a good ride. If it goes to rat-sh*t then don't fear, we'll work it out together! The Rambling Man 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, I'm curious as to who'll fall on what side. Any bets as to who the first to use the term "deletionist"? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And the winner is... BTW I am shocked at the people who haven't turned up to oppose (so far, anyway) — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Iridescent,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

TRE, I am so stealing that — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB diff's

You can customize the format of displaying diff's in AWB by creating the "style.css" file and putting it in your AWB folder (see Custom style.css). Regards, Jogers (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a star! — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tidying Userboxes.

Thanks for your help with my page, it's alot better now.Timothy Jacobs 10:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - if you want to add/remove them, you'll need to change the new page (User:Timothy Jacobs/Userboxes) instead of the main page — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive reply to anyone coming to complain about my cleaning up football redirects

I am well aware of Do not change links to redirects that are not broken, but in this instance it doesn't apply, as I'm adding the "F.C." for consistency with other links on football-related pages. There will be less than 500 changes in total, so it shouldn't swamp recent changes too much — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Coffee phone vandal

Thanks, blocked the one you mentioned. NawlinWiki 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Spotted another two in Recent Changes, listed on AN/I — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

NI Flag

Hello. I reverted your change to Ballymena Academy which removed the NI flag. All the NI flags can be changed by changing Template:Country data Northern Ireland (talk). Whether to change the current flag in this way is currently the subject of formal mediation: please feel free to voice your opinion on the issue at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage. --h2g2bob (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent report to WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report about 70.60.18.74 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. In this case the last final warning was on the 5th September which does not constitute as recent. With an anonymous IP, we prefer that the final warning is within the last 24 hours if not sooner. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to get in touch. ^Khukri 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Noted - although the vandalism has continued since that final warning ([7], [8], [9]), just no-one has reported it — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

I am hoping perhaps you can help me with my userboxes. On your userpage, I see that you have nice box with a scrollbar, and I would like to create something of the sort on my userpage as well. I simply have too many userboxes, that is the unescapable truth, but I cannot decide which should go... So, rather than having to make such a decision, I would at least like to present them in such a way that they do not take up so much space on the page. Any assistance you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's how (it's not as complicated as it looks):

1. Follow this redlink and select "Create page";
2. Copy & paste the following into the blank page that comes up:

   __NOTOC__

   <div style="height: 600px; overflow: auto;">

3. Cut the userboxes from your userpage, and paste them (each on a separate line) at the end of the new document you've just made;
4. Copy & paste the following AT THE VERY TOP of your userpage:

   {|cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border:1px solid #cfcfff; background-color:#ffffff;" width=100%

   |

   {|style="border:1px solid #cfcfff; background-color:#eaf5fb; margin-left: .1em; margin-top:2px" align=right width=270px :|align=center|

   ----

   {{User:RepublicanJacobite/Userboxes}}

   |- :#::|}

This will move your userboxes to a scrollable box down the right hand side of your userpage & keep them all lined up. To add new userboxes, go to User:RepublicanJacobite/Userboxes and add them there, rather than to your userpage.

Hope that helps — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Declan Coyte

As fellow AfD participant and AWB user, I noticed that you've edited this via AWB, so you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Declan Coyte. If it gets deleted too soon, you can later try out your soon to have tools to have a look. Cheers. --Tikiwont 12:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't think that one's really defensible... When I've the time, I try to clean up the articles listed at AfD - I think some delete votes (sorry, !votes) are unfairly down to poor grammar & spelling & general appearance, and at least this way there's a level playing field - but I can't imagine this not being a hoax — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Lucy-Marie (Sock Puppet)

Thanks for your support, it is much appreciated. If Lucy hadn't pushed her point so hard about "metric" units then I might not have made an issue. Sometimes people need to accept that they can't win every argument, and just go with the flow. Cheers mate.Canterberry 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Eek! I'm not worthy... Will at some point message you re IRC, but it will be a) when I've worked out how it works, and b) probably not for six days, as I've got 5 12 hour shifts in a row about to start — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are!! Besides, it's too late now to complain. Now go grab that shiny new mop and get to work already ;) Congratulations :) - Alison ^❤ 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! And now update User:Iridescent/deletion to reflect your mopification. Melsaran (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A shame to lose that... — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

iridescent, uhh... With regards to your thanks card... I have to ask... why does it appear to be sewage and drainpipes? :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! ^Ariel♥Gold 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The North London Sludge Main, if you please - cleaning up other people's messes for over 100 years. It seems appropriate. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! (And I simply love these cleverly designed thank-you-cards — the latest in surreptitious spam technology, :P) -- Chris B • talk 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that thank you card is becoming popular, thanks to my reusing of Phaedriel's RFA thanks. Good to give myself a pat on the back now and then. Congrats with the new tools. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA--congrats and a macrophage

Thanks for your note.

Congrats:

You can be the first to receive a Macrophage:

User:Dlohcierekim has given you a Macrophage! Macrophages promote WikiLove through infiltration and by smiling on those who keep Wikipedia healthy by increasing its resistance to vandalism. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! --[[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

Many congratulations on your promotion. Message or email if you ever need any help. --John 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

Glad you won your RFA. (: Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I feel very guilty for opposing yours last time now :( — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats. I had always assumed you were and now I'm right, as I always am! :-) Carlossuarez46 22:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the "chorus of disapproval"

I have to say, the images you included in your RFA thank you spam were the absolute best yet. Here's to an admin with a sense of humor! Best of luck, VanTucky ^Talk 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's one thing writing Broadwater Farm, A1 road (London) and current work-in-progress Tottenham Hale have given me, it's an impressive stack of unattractive photos (the full pile is here) — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks!

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

suilloux

I am highly insulted by your obvious dislike for the Polish language and culture. Since you have clearly not read Zamoyski's educational and highly acclaimed book, The Polish Way: A Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, you would not know the origin of the term suilloux (suilloü in Polish). Since I majored in Polish Studies, I consider myself an expert on all things Polish, so I would appreciate it if you left it up to experts to update information on Wikipedia. Thank you, and I would welcome any apologies on your behalf. --Wisesagebush 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Wisesagebush

On Polish Google, so there's no doubt:

• 4 hits on "Suillou" (none in this context);
• 3 hits on "Suilloux" (none in this context);
• 0 ghits on Suilloü.

Please stop deliberately adding false information to Wikipedia, whether using your primary or your sockpuppet accounts. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I wish you the best on your successful RfA. Thanks for the card. Modernist 01:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, a big congrats from me too! (Might I ask the reason for the sludge pipe?) Phgao 05:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See above - cleaning up other people's crap for over 100 years. Seems appropriate. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

You commented on an individual at ANI. I have posted some additional information here as well. I really hope someone intervenes soon. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA Spam et. al.

Well done. Now get working .......! Pedro |  Chat  07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm very glad to see you succeeded in being granted adminship. You deserved it. :-) Lradrama 07:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

kent district libarary entry

I am wondering why the information about the library for the physically blind and handicapped within the Kent District Library wikipedia page keeps getting erased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.143.152 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As you have - repeatedly - been warned, this is a direct cut-and-paste from their website. As long as you continue adding this without their permission, it will continue to be removed — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lobstrini

woopes, sorry about that. Wrong category, PGPirate 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hueneme High School

Thanks! Corvus cornix 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Beautiful Music

Hello I was trying to set up a Wiki Page about a band and you deleted the page on me according to the system.

Can you advise me please?

Thanks Andrea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeautifulmusic (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've recreated it as a userpage at User:Hellobeautifulmusic/Hello Beautiful Music for you to work on it at your leisure - at the moment, if it stays in the mainspace it will continue to be deleted. Please read Notability and reliable sources before you move it back into the mainspace, as it currently fails both criteria. From your username you're possibly connected with the band - if so, please also read WP:COI. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather late congrats

Nice work on getting through (I always knew you would), now get to work :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) (Drought) 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Belated (but most sincere) congratulations, my friend! :)

My dear iridiscent, knowing that you're such a sweet, kind person, I know you won't get mad at me for being late for your RfA party - so here I am, bringing you my very best wishes, and a little extra gift in this special ocassion, just for you:

You have waited for this moment Now, at last, it has come true You have finally reached the summit And, I am so proud of you You are worthy of this triumph No one could deserve it more So, embrace this time before you Filled with happiness galore. You have longed for this occasion And at last, it has arrived Now, you stand above, victorious With your heart and soul revived From this time, you'll travel onward Toward your future aspirations But this day, enjoy your moment With my warm congratulations! Jill Eisnaugle With all my heart, congratulations, dear Iridescent! :) Love, Phaedriel 04:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic_Hooligan

Not sure if this is a glitch in your script, but instead of creating a new AfD, you've blanked-and-overwritten the previous one. I need to go to work now so won't have time to fix this, can you do so? — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was odd. I pulled it down, sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My edits

If I have made a lot of valid edits why are you trying to get me barred. Surley if I was using multiple accounts for vandalism, then that would be justified, I think that as you are so certian that I have another account why not just block the other account to prevent the use of that account, rather than going after a user who has edited for a long time and is passionate on subjects. It seems you are applying capital punishment when a slap on the wrist is all that is required as I have not been in "serious" trouble as you allege before.--Lucy-marie 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to be discussing this; Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie is the appropriate place, as it will not be me who makes any decision as whether you are (or aren't) guilty, and regarding any sanctions following the findings. The statement "as you are so certain that I have another account why not just block the other account" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:AGF. While I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt (although I think we both know what Checkuser will show), if the allegations against you are true, then yes, I do believe a block would be justified. If the allegations are true, than the fact that you "have not been in serious trouble before" only shows that you haven't been caught - the allegations listed on WP:SSP only reflect a fraction of the suspected sockpuppet's edits, but show a clear - and repeated - pattern of votestacking, tag-teaming to avoid 3RR, and repeated attempts to game the system on talkpages across Wikipedia. To be honest, your best chances of avoiding a lengthy block will either be if you can convince the editors on SSP that these are two independent users (if the accounts aren't linked, Checkuser should go a long way to convincing people of this); or, if you are guilty, owning up at SSP and agreeing to monitoring to prevent further attempts to game the system. If you think we're treating you unfairly, feel free to post at WP:AN/I regarding it - but be aware that this will likely draw further admins into looking far more closely at your history than the quick skim I've done. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

What's this? your an admin? I never knew! Congratulations!--Phoenix 15 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean you can't tell by the fact that my talk page is already filling with abuse from reverted vandals and aggreived sockpuppeteers? — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a question...

But I'm wondering why you removed the speedy tag from Jack Pope saying that deletion after 5 minutes was inappropriate, but tagged Eastern conference champions under the same criteria just 1 minute after the creation of the article? Seems inconsistant to me, especially as the latter has more assertion of notability than the former. Darksun 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-hypocrisy, I agree, but I think valid; Jack Pope appeared to be someone creating a valid article piece-by-piece (band-cruft SPAs don't generally start with an infobox, then add content), while Eastern conference champions had every hallmark of vanispam; the list of former bands none of which have their own articles, the band's own website & a myspace page as "references", the "famous" producer whose article is a blatant piece of vanity-puff, and the fact that it appeared to be in its final form with all sections in place, whilst Jack Pope was still obviously undergoing expansion. (You'll note, I hope, that I didn't actually delete ECC; tagging without deleting will give anyone who thinks it should be defended a chance to say so.) I agree Jack Pope probably will warrant deletion the way it's going, but I dislike doing it until the article's finished. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. And congratulations on your recent ascent to adminship :) Darksun 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... I've added some comments on the talk page, btw, regarding reliable sources (I did the same search, and aside from the Spin article I can't see anything except blogs - the BBC one's misleading as it's not from the "BBC proper" but from their digital-radio 6music subsidiary, and is just a listing for the band playing in a club. CSD for it might be a bit drastic, but I can't see any other route for it other than contested-speedy contested-prod AfD delete recreate salt otherwise — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 RfA Thanks

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully with unanimous support. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and vote and I can't wait to learn the new tools and further immerse myself into Wikipedia! Please don't hesitate to point out any errors I make so I can prevent them from occurring again. I'm always here to help, so if you ever need anything, just let me know. Also, thanks to Wizardman for nominating me and for guiding many other editors to become admins. Again, thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 06:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey Iridescent. Now that your a sysop, I thought you might want to get you feet wet. Take a look at this. I tagged it for CSD G1, but I'm not sure. It seems like this editor has no knowledge of what wikipedia is, much less the use of ER. We are handling the dispute down at WP:EAR, and we usually reach solutions, so we're all set. But I think this should be taken care of. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Addhoc beat me to it - I agree there was no point in keeping it as it served no useful purpose — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of stub tags

Hi. When deciding whether to remove stub tags in biographies, could you first refer to the article talk page and make a note of the bio assessment, particularly the Class assigned to the biography? When the assessment says that the article is "stub-Class", it is obviously not correct to remove the tag. I have therefore restored such tags as are necessary, in my watched bio articles. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples? I haven't knowingly removed any from articles that didn't clearly warrant it. AWB will sometimes automatically remove the {{stub}} tag from articles that are over a certain length (I think 1000 words), but when it does that it's correct in doing so, as an article of this length is start & not stub class. ("A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing.") How an article's classified on the talk page shouldn't have any bearing on whether the mainspace article warrants a stub tag. It's possible - particularly on a very template-heavy article - that the text in the templates would push the size over the AWB limit even with little article text, but that shouldn't happen very often. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tonight, Dermot Gallagher (diff), and Chris Foy (referee) (diff). On a previous ?campaign? of yours, I had to restore the tags in some very obvious stub articles, as I recall. AWB seems rather indiscriminate (more obviously lacking human intelligence, naturally!). I believe it will also count the number of words in a reference or note as being part of the bulk of an article (and that's plainly misleading, as references and notes are merely back-ups for what is being said in the body of the article, and may be discounted when assessing stub or not). You may be able to tell from this that I'm a solid believer in the superior ability of the brain versus any automated process.

I cannot help but disagree about the match-up between the assessment on the talk page and the retention of a stub tag in the article. There seems little point in assigning a Class on the talk page, unless it is properly reflected in the article by insertion or removal of the tag. Let's also remember that one man's "stub" is another man's "start", and I believe that the assessor is the perfect foil for a neutral point of view on that. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

While Chris Foy is on the border (I'd call it start class but wouldn't argue with someone calling it a stub), there's no possible way Dermot Gallagher meets the definition of a biographical stub - it's of a far better quality in every respect than these [10] [11] [12], which are the "official" Wikipedia examples of start-class biographical articles. If you're regularly categorising articles like this as stubs, you should probably discuss the matter at WPF (the article-assessment talkpage is here), as (unlike some projects) WPF uses the same quality scale as the rest of Wikipedia (and consequently uses the same definition of what constitutes a stub). — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Off-off Campus

I'm actually the Off-Off Campus webmaster, so I wasn't infringing on any copyright because I wrote everything originally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Offoffcampus (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Underwater art

If that material was a repost, you may also want to delete Fine art/underwaterart, which seems to have the same content. I converted it into a redirect at the same time you deleted Underwater art. Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a repost of a CSD'd article - I've left a version (sans linkfarm) in place at Underwater art in case it can be salvaged, although I assume it'll be prodded before too long. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

hey, I'm trying to create an underwater art page--I started wrong, so I deleted the whole page--but now it says you've deleted my new article--before I even finish it! let me finish one first, ok? then help me with it rather than deleting it

how do I delete the first (stupid) attempt?

Lynn daylabor dlri@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daylabor (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... It's still there. I only deleted Fine art/underwaterart which was a duplicate of it, and deleted the linkfarm from the existing article as per WP:EL. If you want an article deleted, and you're the only one who's worked on it, add {{db-author}} to the top of the article & it will disappear in the next couple of hours. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Hobbes

Yeah, I saw that. Afterwards, I tried reverting back to the version of the page before all the vandalism, but I got edit-conflicted twice. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my successful RfA, which closed at 63 supports and 1 opposed. No matter how you voted, I thank you and hope to do my best. I also want to thank you for writing that I "always seem to know what (I'm) talking about." I especially want to thank Shalom for the nomination, DGG for the encouragement, and Jokestress for welcoming me. Bearian 00:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD withdrawl

I withdrawal, sense you seem to think my actions were inappropriate. I apologize. Tiptoety 01:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... It's 29 days since I !voted neutral (not oppose) in your RfA - any particular reason you're posting this now? — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

oops, oh mt gosh, i meant my AfD. I am so sorry, typo big time. No i am not upset about my RfA. Sorry for the confusion. Tiptoety 01:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah - it all makes sense. Not to worry - everyone at some point makes an AfD nomination that goes down in flames. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and i apologize if i was a bit hostile. I have had a bad wiki day. Tiptoety 01:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

you can end the AfD if you would like, i have withdrew. Tiptoety 02:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do not want to feel like i am invading your personal life, but i noticed that you have a userbox that states you are an emergency responder, i was wondering what division of emergency services you work for (feel free not to answer if you feel like i am prying) Tiptoety 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I'm not any more; formerly Metropolitan Police Service, now a civilian employee of a government information-gathering agency (still working primarily, but not exclusively, with the MPS). — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Very nice i am currently a police cadet (our unit is not part of the boy scouts) for the City of Portland. I hope to go on full time in the next few years. Tiptoety 19:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those jobs that once you do it, it's hard to imagine doing a "normal" job. Although the twelve hour shifts standing in the rain being shouted at (then) or twelve hour shifts staring at a screen & listening to static in headphones (now) do wipe out any pretence you ever have about having any kind of normal social life — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! this is very true! Tiptoety 09:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sock puppet?

I have noticed User:Rghsol im preety sure this is another sockpuppet of User:Loshgr i would recommend you look into it. It's the same name (reversed) and has done nothing but make an account (waiting for you to forget about him/her prehaps?)

Note: User:Rghsol has vandalized. Tiptoety 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it is - but looking at the contribs it doesn't seem to be making any malicious mainspace edits. If it starts doing anything disruptive, either report it to WP:SSP or let me know and I'll block it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your New Found Powers

My apologies. I have been very poor reference your RfA and its success. If I had noticed it was ongoing I would have come along to support it. Well done - you deserve it. Regan123 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... (Although the "powers" are a lot less impressive than they sound, unless you have a blinding urge to block people.) Have managed to get completely sidetracked from the roads (although I have this abomination squarely in my sights) doing assorted minor landmarks (who'd have thought you could get 15kb out of Serpentine (lake)?); barring distractions, Cromer railway station and National Police Memorial are next in the firing line.

Incidentally, can I recommend User:Malleus Fatuarum if you ever want an article cleaned up; while he tends to concentrate on Manchester, he can be persuaded to do other topics and has an amazing knack of spotting mistakes you never realised you'd made.

BTW if you ever want to run for RFA let me know & I'll be glad to nominate you - you've more than enough edits & with all your merging & deleting you've a good reason for having the extra buttons. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind comments. I have to many things away from WP at the moment to consider it, but in the future I may be interested. Regan123 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When it rains, it poars

One step ahead of you -- already salted (with Morton Salt, of course).  :) NawlinWiki 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the spelling fixes on wimax_mimo, still learning the tools in wp - aryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryansaed (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem - although it could do with some more references that's shaping up to be a good article — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for the revert on my userpage. As you are white listed in my VF, I got it so late :) --Oxymoron⁸³ 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That has to be one of the lamest vandal edits ever, as well - if they're going to vandalise userpages, they could at least be creative about it... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Police Community Support Officer

If you've a moment, can you take a look at this article? One user, Travis1985, has made a great many edits to the article today, and I am at a loss to figure out what he's doing. As I have no familiarity with the subject, I cannot say for certain that his changes are incorrect, but he has removed so much material, and then added a great deal more, that it is difficult to sort it out. It is not helped by the fact that he does not use edit summaries. He seems to be a new user, and this is the only article to which he's made any edits, so perhaps he just needs some helpful advice. If you've any knowledge of the subject (pardon my presumptiousness in assuming, as an English editor, you might), can you perhaps take a look? Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected it (for just long enough to put a break on the edit spree) and left a note regarding getting consensus before big rewrites like this. As I've written articles about policing before (albeit not worked on this one) I've also posted a request at AN for neutrals to have a look. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I say, I can't be sure he is up to no good, but he made a lot of edits in a fairly short amount of time, and someone needed to have a look. Thanks again for your quick response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they're good faith edits, which is why I've left them in place at the moment - if they haven't replied by tomorrow afternoon, I'll restore the deleted content as I can't see any valid reason for removing it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha!

Thanks for the laugh! :oD ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never felt so guilty deleting a page... Maybe I've derailed something beautiful here. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel so guilty for blocking the user per WP:U. :( Nishkid64 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If she says no, both of you are going to hell, you know that, don't you? ;o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Heather's personal Sliding Doors moment — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet stuff

Ok as I have said before I have not heard of this other user and would like to express that I am mealy a new user who has an interest in trains. I am aware that sock puppets are a bad thing on wiki and I am not the product of one or the producer of one. I am also unaware of what this check user thing is. I have never heard of it and think that a few privacy issues could arise form it, but hey that is just me. Anyway I think this other user has no intention of editing on trains again after statements read on a discussion page. I would like to explain why I raised this issue. Firstly it is a point which does need rectifying, secondly the discussion which lead to the blocking for being a sock puppeteer of this user bought the issue to my attention. This is why I thought I should continue with the issue to sort this out. I admit that setting up an account on the same day this user was blocked is in some peoples eyes suspicious, but this is pure coincidence. I had been thinking of setting up an account for a few days and decided to then. I hope we can all edit merrily form here without any suspicion. Well done for the action over sock puppets though. Cheers--Lisa666 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While it's an unlikely coincidence, I'm perfectly willing to believe it is a coincidence. To be honest, whether or not you are a sockpuppet or a different user who has stumbled in here by coincidence is irrelevant, providing you don't edit disruptively. Sockpuppetry isn't in itself banned on Wikipedia (I have two subsidiary accounts) providing the accounts aren't used to edit disruptively or votestack. (See WP:SOCK for more on the do's and don'ts of sockpuppetry, if you care.) However, assuming you're not linked to Lucy-marie, you've stumbled into a conversation in which it came to light that a user was using multiple accounts to edit disruptively on a number of articles across Wikipedia, often pushing an extreme point of view that went totally against the consensus of other editors on the article in question (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie), so a new account suddenly appearing and joining in the same conversation is bound to be treated with suspicion. I do agree that it's something that needs fixing (although the case you mention was caused by Lucy-marie unilaterally changing templates).

As I say, as long as you don't edit disruptively you've nothing to worry about - even if you do edit disruptively and you're not linked to Lucy-marie then checkuser will clear you (although depending on the disruption, you could potentially be blocked for that). I am not suggesting that any of your edits so far have been disruptive (although I'm not impressed by your unilateral redirection of Local train without bothering to clean up all the double-redirects you created - however, that's a mistake everyone's made at some point).

Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia... If you have any questions etc don't hesitate to ask! — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominican Republic

Followed your advice here [13] , but i'm having trouble with the resizing. [14] Any help would be appreciated. UnclePaco 07:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you — iridescent (talk to me!) 07:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The report of the GSRME aka the "Gibson Report"

Hi Iridescent, You wrote on the Simon Wessely Talk Page "...regardless of content the Gibson Report is a reliable source for what the Government thinks, given its official status, Gibson's position and the nature of its contributors." Could I refute once and for all, the misconception that the so called "Gibson Report" is a government document and carries official status? It has no status within government - as confirmed by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I had spent some considerable time on the Wessely Talk Page delineating the status of this document and the status of the informal, ad hoc committee which Dr Gibson MP gathered together under his own chairmanship, as a substitute for the "full and proper and high level" inquiry which he had announced, in mid 2005, that he was seeking.

There are dozens of All Party Parliamentary Groups on the Register, both on the "Approved list" and the "Not Approved list". These are set up for topics covering everything from cheese to domestic abuse. Any of these interest groups are at liberty to publish reports - but none of them would have any status within government nor any authority of either House. For an "inquiry", and any document resulting from it to carry any authority, the inquiry would need to have been commissioned, undertaken by a Select Committee etc. The document resulting from this project was not published in hard copy and had no official distribution list. There were no formal arrangements for the recording of the procedings and no lines of accountability. Copies of the report plus a covering letter were sent to all MPs and selected ministers and others. MPs and the press received a copy of the document before it had been published and reviewed by the report's constituency of interest -the ME community. So by the time errors and ambiguities had been identified, the report had already been published. A member of the ME community placed a website at the disposal of the committee, since lines of communication were so poor and there was no dedicated admin or research support. The Gibson Office failed to advertise Oral Hearings 2 and 3, and very few people other than those who had been invited to present at these Oral Hearings and their retinue, were aware that committee rooms had been booked for these two public meetings. Dr Gibson had been offered the use of two websites at the beginning of this project in order that information might be got out to the ME community for the arrangements for the "Oral Hearings" which were to be held as public meetings, arrangements for the submission of written evidence under "Written Submissions" etc but Gibson had failed to take up these initial offers.

The webmaster managed the website at no cost to the committee, who could draw on no budget for this unofficial project (some informal reports are produced with secretariat support from interest charities). Dr Gibson had said that responses from ministers and others to the committee's report and letter would be placed on the website; to date it would appear that there have been no responses. Since this is an unofficial document, ministers are under no obligation to respond to either the content or any recommendations contained within this document - a document considered by some to be little more than an opinion piece. If you haven't already done so please review the ONE CLICK response to the "Gibson Report". Martin J Walker has also published commentaries. I hope this assists with clarification. MEagenda 08:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As the assorted admins who are monitoring this article are repeatedly trying to hammer home, all of the above is not relevant. Whether or not it is an official report doesn't matter; as a published, reported source it qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But Iridescent, by that logic than anything on the One Click site should also qualify (including critiques of the Gibson Report) because it is a published, reported source. One Click have been reported on as an advocacy group in the print and other media- I suspect somewhat more than the Gibson Enquiry(I'm not advocating putting One Click material in- I'm pointing out the problem because One Click material was disallowed for all sorts of reasons claimed around 'reliability' 'notability' NPOV etc. etc.)

Suzy's comments ARE relevant here. A bunch of people cobbling together an opinion piece, the contents of which they cannot or will not verify or substantiate, on a loaned website, which wasn't reported by others on the specific issue at hand (and hardly at all on any other point), is NOT a safe source for Wikipedia to be publicising, especially as the unsubtantiated claims are emotive and inflammatory and will cause detriment to an already denigrated patient community. I really do think this is going to eventually need to be referred to some arbitration process elsewhere on Wikipedia, frankly because people are just NOT taking notice of our valid concerns here.

And by the way, I have written to Jim Wales about the defamatory comments written about me on the Admin noticeboard- yes, sadly, the D word has had to be used. That Admin provides an exemplar on how certain claims of being 'harassed', by certain prominent people, or by third parties quoting certain prominent people, are unsafe at best. Angela Kennedy 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the One Click site being used as a source for a "Some people believe... Other people believe..." section. Where I have a problem is with any source being used in a "I found a source for this, that makes it true" way. The more I see of this, the less convinced I am that we ought to have an article on Wessely at all; I'm not convinced he meets any of the criteria of WP:PROF. — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talk page & not my user talk page, as this is causing a content-fork. — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok Iridescent- can I then place your comments above on the Simon Wessely talk page and respond to them there? Angela Kennedy 12:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

page move vandalism

i recommend salting the hagger page as well, not the first time. thanks for cleaning it up! :) ~Eliz81^(C) 08:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They just keep recreating it with more question marks each time... — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

dang. we told you he was tricksy... ~Eliz81^(C) 09:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've salted the three shortest permutations (that weren't already) but don't see the point in doing every permutation - it'd be like salting every "ON WHEELS" permutation. At least this way it's obvious in recent changes

Wilyonwhe3ls

Hi Iridescent. I'd first like to congratulate you on receiving the new functions; you do seem to be putting them to excellent use. However, I just noted that you brought this to UAA saying that you were "unsure" of whether a breach was there; RFCN is for other's opinions, rather than UAA, and discussion really aren't supposed to be held at UAA (even though they sometimes are for controversial reports). Thanks again, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My fault - usernames are something I never took any interest in, and UAA was the only username-related acronym I could think of. Moot point anyway as he's now blocked — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I wouldn't know what to do with anything related to images; I guess we all have our areas of expertise. Thanks again, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans (2nd nomination)

How exacly is that vandalizm?? It's not that i changed/deleted what he said. 7 Keep, only 2 Delete, is that "No concensus"? I only added i don't agree with that. Please explain why is it No concensus. M.V.E.i. 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived talk pages are just that - archived - hence the Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. at the top. As you had already been warned about modifying archived talk pages, and still carried on doing so, it is either vandalism or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, either of which warrant a warning - and if you carry on doing it, a block. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What should I do now?

[15] UnclePaco 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Boitumelo McCallum page

(Pasting in the below from the Boitumelo McCallum page)

Your Comment: As I noted on the AfD, this article has some serious problems:

Cleanup is needed throughout the entire article. The headings are currently incorrect formatted; external links should be changed; the MySpace links should probably be removed (the profile is set to private, anyway), although right now it's poorly placed The tone of the article isn't very good overall. The title 'The Jealous Boyfriend' is the most obvious example: this is either pure PoV or written in a non-encyclopedic way. More of the article suffers from the same. (NOTE: THIS TERM WAS TAKEN OUT BY IMMORTALGODDEZZ WHEN I INFORMED HER OF THIS - --MurderWatcher1 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

The neutrality of the article. Indeed, I have WP:BLP concerns over the way the boyfriend is portrayed. Her boyfriend hasn't been convicted, and so is only accused of killing her, he is not a murderer until the day (if it happens, which we are not to speculate over) he is found guilty.

I've started doing some of these changes but there's a lot of it and any help - especially with where to tone some of the PoV stuff re: the boyfriend - would be much appreciated. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been planning to get to this sometime tomorrow-ish since the originator asked me to look over it in the first place. Anyway I'll try to pitch in. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into this Wikipedia reference and I had let ImmortalGoddezz know of its creation when I put the page up on Wikipedia. If changes are needed, that's okay, but there is considerable research done here and I vote to keep the page. FYI, as I indicated above, and ImmortalGoddezz commented to me about this, the term 'Jealous Boyfriend' has been modified. The girl is notable as she did a lot of volunteer work and was in the process of becoming a possibly famous person in her own right. Also, there is the prominence of her parents, and the affiliation with the United Nations - these items alone should keep the webpage on Wikipedia. I also spoke with her mother on the phone yesterday to let her know of the page's creation, I knew that I wouldn't be online until today, and she seemed pleased that it was created.--MurderWatcher1 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boitumelo_McCallum"--MurderWatcher1 16:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - maybe I'm missing something (if so, apologies), but I can't understand why you're posting this here. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You DO have after your Username the text (talk to me!) so that's what I'm doing. I really want to keep this page!--MurderWatcher1 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But none of the comments you quote above were made by me! I think you're replying to the wrong person... I won't be closing admin for this AfD, and the only place the closing admin will read your comments is on the AfD. This article appears to me to violate a number of Wikipedia policies (most importantly WP:NOT#NEWS, and indirectly WP:BLP1E), and you need to give arguments on the AfD as to why. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Archive 1! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Police Camera Action! 2007 series criticisms

Sorry, removed the {{prod}} tag without thinking, was on autopilot looking out for spam and stuff, I thought someone had placed it there incorrectly, and didn't check the page history. Sorry, --Solumeiras ^talk 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's been a hard day for me today here in the United Kingdom, thought I'd log on to Wikipedia to take my mind off stress-inducing issues, but I ended up making it harder for myself!! Guess I really must check page histories next time.

Anyway, what articles you working on... at the moment I'm just doing a spam/NPOV cleanup of articles... not exciting, but someone's got to do it! --Solumeiras ^talk 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

please stop!

please stop deleting my pages of charlie and the candy mountian Do you know that I am olny a beginner and I do not know how to make good pages!~ but what I think about you is hearting my feelings I especially but on my page... LEAVE MY PAGE FOR A FEW DAYS yes you may not like ny page but at least leave it on for a few days!!!!!!!!!! (sniff sniff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Making fiends 7 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; we don't have it in for you, but this is an encyclopedia, not a review site, and you're posting reviews. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (films) for guidelines on what you need to include for the article to be kept. (It also needs to be created under the correct name of Charlie and the Candy Mountain.)

You might want to edit the page in userspace, where it doesn't have to follow rules so strictly. To do that, create it at User:Making fiends 7/Charlie and the Candy Mountain, and select "move" at the top of the screen when you're ready to move it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Observation

Pulled from Siva's RfA: "This user's certainly been around long enough to have picked up policy by osmosis" - Haha, I found the osmosis comment incredibly funny, even if it wasn't intended to create humour :-) - I was going to indent and tell you it was funny on the RfA but then realised the candidate probably wouldn't like that. Thank you for making me laugh, take care :-) Scarian^Talk 23:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the metaphor - and it does sum up the way things are supposed to work (as well as the whole "once the vandals get to know us they'll stop vandalising" idiocy policy) — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about deletion

The pages that you deleted of mine were information regarding what each respective company does. I do agree that the Better Cost Control page was a little too much, however the MPLS-Experts site was actually very informative and just gave a company history and overview of what they do, no advertising. I was wondering if you could give me your input on what you would change/edit/delete so both of these would be Wiki-worthy. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwacker1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can recreate the pages in your userspace if you want - that will let you edit them without them being subject to (all of) Wikipedia's rules. The most important rules that these articles were failing were reliable sourcing, notability and advertising - because Wikipedia's a tertiary source it can only cover things that have already been covered elsewhere. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like a plan. How do I access my userspace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwacker1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in your userspace at User:Cwacker1/MPLS-Experts. Be aware that this does need a complete rewrite; as well as the concerns above, it also violates the neutrality policy. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page violate the neutrality policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwacker1 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just some examples from a 2 minute skim-through:

• "MPLS provides increased overall productivity, lower telecommunications costs, and increased reliability"
• "simple to manage, easy to deploy"
• "You have the reliability & security of legacy technologies like Frame Relay with the routing flexibility of IP"
• "Better Performance"
• "Future-Proof the architecture of your network so it can respond rapidly to changing business needs"
• "clients get the best service at the lowest cost"

This reads like advertising for the company (which I assume it is). Unless claims like this come from reliable sources, they should not be on Wikipedia. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying now. I'll work on that or even just eliminate it altogether. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwacker1 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be best just to eliminate the benefits and business model sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwacker1 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting the request at Requests for Feedback, as I don't have the technical knowledge to judge what part of this is legitimate comment and what is advertising. Be sure to provide a link to the userified version of the page (User:Cwacker1/MPLS-Experts) so people can read it. One thing I can say for certain is that they'll say it needs references - in general, two references from reliable sources is an absolute minimum for Wikipedia articles. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NCFC POTY

Hi. It's getting close to FL quality now. I need to find a RS for the list of winners (!) and wikilink the years in the table to English seasons. The Rambling Man's going to work on my dodgy reffing. Anything else you can think of? A pic of the trophy is a dead loss, but shouldn't be a bar to FL, should it? --Dweller 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As an RS for the list of players, as a last resort could just use the EDP for the next day each year, since each award would have been reported (although it would make a huge list). Why the list isn't on the website is beyond me, unless they don't want to distract from the Hall of Fame. Even old programmes in this context would be an RS. I don't think not having a pic of the trophy would be a problem, although it would be nice to have one. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable or notorious antisemites

These (what you mention on my Talk page) are not areas of a particular interest to me. However, I appreciate that homosexuals iget abused, and convicts often suffer undeservedly. But are we going to give in to the irrational? As encyclopedists we have an obligation to the truth. You are not yet making any headway with me with your suggestions, or implications, that we exercise self-censorships because we're going to be unable to defend ourselves against all the idiots in the world. Best to you, Ludvikus 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally think the article should be deleted, and have nominated it procedurally because I know from experience that it will be nominated. For what it's worth, the nearest precedent (List of bisexual people, nominated in February for the same reasons) passed its AfD and I assume this will as well. (Even List of unusual topics survived AfD.) The reason I nominated now, as I hope my nomination made clear (if not, I'll happily reword it) is that I know someone will nominate it when they stumble across it, and it seems better to me to get the arguments out of the way before editors have spent time adding names & referencing it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, a mistake was made. I did not wish to start an Original research Article. I wanted a Category. It turns out that a fine British [Wikipedian] chap, like yourself, helped me do that. But I'll give you a bit of a hard time knowing exactly what I mean at this moment. Best to you, --Ludvikus 15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Category:Antisemites was deleted a few months ago so you may get opposition in creating it. Not from me, as I think it's an important category. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Well than, if you tell me your age, I'll tell you if you qualify for membership in an organization I'm thinking of forming. It will be called the Elders of Zion - antisemites maybe gave us a good idea which we may have overlooked. Do you think we could create such an entity? It's aim, of course, would be world domination.

More to the point, I think I'll surprise you with the following Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. We agree. So way don't you place your vote to Keep here [16]? --Ludvikus 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My faith in Reason and Humanity maybe restored - thanks to you. --Ludvikus 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Euston railway station

I am at my last revert. There is a persistent editor 159.104.212.40 that keeps inserting text regarding rodents, beggars and rough sleepers. It is all NPOV, and I have issued a level 4 NPOV warning. I can do nothing more, so I can only turn to you for guidance. Canterberry 11:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1 week block for NPOV violation after a final warning. Hopefully should be long enough for them to find something else to do. — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I greatly appreciate your support. Canterberry 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

List of...WTF?!

W..I see MANY articals like mines so what is the problem sr?--Hoshi no hate 12:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Siva

Minor correction to your reply to oppose #20 - if you wish to fix, feel free to remove my reply. :) Orderinchaos 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for the support, but I think I'm going to wait for a while. Corvus cornix 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:D

Tag team. I'll tag and you delete, or failing that you often get to articles and delete them before I even tag them! See you around :) Oh and it looks like we both welcomed that user. Phgao 00:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're watching recent changes, keep an eye out for ClaimJumperPete's socks - they seem to be out in force today — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Phgao 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Green

Cheers for having a look in at this one: I appreciate it. Terrypin 08:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Bedfordshire Football League Premier Division

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I am aware of this but recently, I have noticed that quite a number of level 11 clubs have their own articles. To make this consistent, I have decided to create articles on level 11 clubs. I am aware of the notability issue, but my articles are backed by verified reliable sources. I feel that level 11 clubs should now have their own articles to make this project more substantial in nature. There are also quite a number of level 11 clubs having their own articles which I have not created. I hope to have your understanding in this matter. I am alsograteful and thankful that you would not prod these articles. Lastly, allow me to assure you that I will not create any level 12 clubs of the English football pyramid. I agree with you that these clubs are not yet notable enough to warrant their own articles. But I will religiously continue to create articles on level 11 clubs until all possible clubs have been covered. This includes clubs which have played at least one season in the 11th tier of the English football pyramid. I hope that the community would agree with my views on this and not delete these clubs. Have a good day!! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have any comments on this, please reply on my talk page. Thanks! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you when I can become an admin

I've got less than 50 edits so can I tell you when I have got 50 edits or more. Beko120 17:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You need a lot more than 50 edits - while there's no fixed limits, a RFA from someone with less than at least three months experience and 2000-3000 edits is very unlikely to succeed, and you need to demonstrate an understanding of policies. Have a look at some successful and unsuccessful RFAs to get an idea of the sort of thing that is required. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And ideally don't do that or that again too. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You want to help me figure this out?

This is the weirdest thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I did not make this edit. I fixed an internal link, but made NONE of the other edits. And what's stranger, is that with all the content that was replaced and removed, it shows that only 1,430 bytes were affected, which would be exactly right for my single edit. What's even 10 times stranger is not only that content was removed, but the article was re-worded. I'm at a loss. the_undertow ^talk 00:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Problem solved. I'm a tool. the_undertow ^talk 04:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and belated congrats

Thanks v much for dealing with that porn-spammer last night. When I checked up this morning after reading his snarl on my talk page, I was pleasantly surprised to see you as the blocking admin, because I didn't think you were an admin ... and then I found your RFA. Drat! I'd have given the proposal my strong support if I had seen it, but I'm glad to see that it passed nearly-unanimously. Sorry these congrats are late. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Always a pleasure... Deliberately didn't mention the RFA to you, Ali etc as I knew Certain People watch your talkpage & would see it. RFA is enough of a trainwreck already without a six-month-old stale argument spilling across onto it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably wise, and in any case a mention might have been regarded as canvassing. But still, it's good to have you as an admin. Someone else to share the headaches ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Broadwater Farm photograph

Dear Iridescent

I am publications manager for east London charity Community Links (see [17])

We are in the process of completing production of a book of essays "Making Links" where various contributors reflect on the issue of "community" one of the articles in the book discusses the community on Broadwater farm - as well as other issues and to illustrate this piece I would like to use your photograph ([18])

The book is a not-for-profit project and will be produced in a short-run edition of 1,250 copies. Please confirm that you would be happy for your picture to be used in this way and let me know how you would like to be credited in the publication.

Thank You Richard McKeever Publications Manager Community Links 105 Barking Road Canning Town, London E16 4HQ

t: 020 7473 9671 (Direct line) t: 020 7473 2270 (Switchboard) e: richard.mckeever@community-links.org w: www.community-links.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.87.93 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied via email with explicit authorisation — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kenarchism

Excuse me but i would like to know why the article on my religion was deleted...could you tell me why it was deleted? Because if it was because of the content I wont remake one, but if the creator simply did something that caused the deletion I would (maybe) like to make a different, appropriate entry on it. Kenarchist 12:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

i would also wish to know why it was deleted. I made* the entry because i couldnt find any article ON my religion. i dont believe i did anything inappropriate like the person above may have suggested, but if so, please tell me. And to the person above me, personally, i find the name to be somewhat offensive towards my religion (which is also yours). in my opinion, it is very much like naming a child God, which to some people is viewed as a taboo. Anyway, please tell me if i did anything wrong, thank you. *I created a new acount because i dont know whether i can simply change my username* Seiji-Reiskin 12:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continuously delete my Kenarchist article? I dont understand why you constantly feel the need to delete an article on my religion simply because you dont believe in it. Has Satanism or Christianity been deleted from this encyclopedia? In fact, even Zoroastrianism is allowed on this site even though its a dying religion. I dont see what's so wrong about my entry unless it has some vulgarity or it has insulting content, which i did not add. Seiji-Reiskin 22:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Christianity has reliable sources
• Satanism has reliable sources
• Zoroastrianism has reliable sources
• Kenarchism has no sources whatsoever. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that insultive as it is both MY and my family's religion. I find this to be very intolerant of other cultures and religions. Simply because something may not have been open for seven year olds to view our beliefs on the internet or in public libraries, does not mean it is simply a hoax and that it isnt a religion. As you can clearly see, i am NOT the only follower of this religion and that i did not create a "cool little club" one day when i was at school. Seiji-Reiskin 07:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that this religion exists? Provide two and it's more than welcome to stay. Otherwise, please stop reposting this article. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I show you the book? like, online? Kenarchist 22:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenarchist (talk • contribs)

Provide at least some of: an ISBN/ISSN/LCCN number; a DOI number; an OCLC; an author; a date/place of publication; pretty much any other information listed in the {{cite book}} template, and thanks to the Magic That Is Teh Internets you can indeed show me that it exists online. Since this book is not listed in any catalogue - including the copyright libraries - I am highly unconvinced that this information exists but am willing to be convinced. If you can't provide reliable sources, then please stop uploading this article as the joke is wearing very thin. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find a single source for "Kenarchism" either. Nonetheless I can find a lot of source for "Jedi". This link [[19]] tells me that in the last UK census that there were more "Jedi" than Sikhs, Buddhists and Jews!! Canterberry 23:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

SSR spellchecker thanks!!

Many thanks for fixing the spelling problems on the sosuishi-ryu page!

		The Martial Arts Barnstar
		Awarded for excellence in copy-editing!!

Thanks! — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrmph. Two in one day! I'm awarding it anyway. :)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your dedicated attention to upholding & improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. Moonriddengirl 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a particular admirer of your work at CSDs. Truly exemplary, in my opinion, is your balance between tagging and responding to tags. Go you! --Moonriddengirl 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly building up an odd mix - thank you! — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

YOu deleted the article under the band CaRiMi. The same band that has been referenced in the following wiki articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitasyon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti

Another band that has less sucess then them in the same genre was able to create a wikipedia entry. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp231 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Mp231 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Mp231 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, User:NawlinWiki deleted it. Before you recreate it, read WP:N and WP:RS, both of which the article currently fails. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Block user Iomegacorp

I think blocking him temporarily is not a good idea. Maybe could you try to block him permanently because it is a corporation name? It's a violation of the username policy. Bigtop 21:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said on AN, the 24hr block was a placeholder whilst it was reported to UAA; I've no doubt it will be extended to permanent as they're editing articles on Iomega products so it's a clear promotional name — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize if I've been escalating to lv4 if it wasn't appropriate. I admit that I don't always view the talk pages carefully, and I'll try to do a better job of it in the future. The third example you provided of me doing this, though, was just a level three warning given after a level two. And about my proposal, you seemed upset that it might prevent legitimate shared IP editors from editing. I only proposed it in the case of user accounts, because a vandal might just log out of the account and create a new one when he receives the final warning.--Avant Guard 17:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin

		The Original Barnstar
		I'd like to thank you for doing a great job with the admin tools! Great work! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Although whack-a-mole blocking is, in all honesty, not the hardest thing in the world... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pam Stone Show

Just a notice. The edits to the Pam Stone Show was a result of the talk about the Pam Stone wiki on the Pam Stone Show... The edits are by Show listeners and are not hoaxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.81.227 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIO before you continue to reinsert this material, or I will reprotect the page and/or block you from editing as necessary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan club. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So if Pam Stone herself were to make the changes, how would that be handled?

Exactly the same as if anyone else were to; they'd be reverted unless she was able to provide reliable sources. Wikipedia is not Myspace. If anything, they'd come under more scrutiny as a conflict of interest. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So unless she provided a photo of her funky "claw" toe, it could not be posted? Also, her frequent viewings of "Bleak House" have been referenced on the show multiple times, so is that admissable?

Also, could it be mentioned that on the October 6th show, Pam and crew referenced the wikipedia article, Anthony Michael's ban from wikipedia for posting his Gastonia website on the Gastonia page and that the administrator Iridescent was also talked about on the show?

If you provide a reliable source. How many times do I need to say this? — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, no need to be snippy, I am just wondering how to go about this. Should I pop a link to the podcast up there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.58.109 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Will you please actually read the policy I'm repeatedly referring you to. If there is not multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage of a topic it should not be on Wikipedia. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So in sum, Pam is not a reliable source about herself? Ok. Thanks.

Kenarchism (Again)

could you please reply to my questions on the Kenarchism subject above? Seiji-Reiskin 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just saw it

I urge to you withdraw the afd on Antonio in the Merchant of Venice--regardless of article quality, we wlll look like fools if the media sees it. DGG (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Moonriddengirl has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Great follow-through with the Kevin Erskine situation from you and User:Into The Fray. :D --Moonriddengirl 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Give JGordon (I think it was) the credit for cutting the waffle and just deleting the whole mess. I look forward to its recreation...and again... — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Killjoy. :P (We'll deal with it when it happens.) --Moonriddengirl 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of all things wiki-joyful, I came over here to toss a smile at you too, Iridescent. But, you know, I think one smile per person per day is enough. So I'll just...uh. Yeah, say, you know. Thanks. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you're both experts at closing cans of worms, maybe you can suggest a solution to this trainwreck which won't end up with someone being blocked? — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't always agree with him, DGG's corrected me a couple times and I have great respect for his opinion. Hence, I have his talk page in my watchlist, because his ideas of notability are generally strong ones that I find myself agreeing. So, blahblah, I had already looked over that dispute when you posted to his talk page and, really, I agree word-for-word with everything he said. Some, if not all, of the articles are notable, but written in a very slanted, unacceptable way. I can add a comment to that effect, if you like, but I don't see it resolving anything. That editor is here to push an agenda, clearly. I don't think that we could find a resolution acceptable to them. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I put in my two cents. (I'm guessing it's worth about two cents. :D)--Moonriddengirl 01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Shawish

Hi there. I see you deprodded Shawish. Are there any other articles on Wikipedia about whole families? Also, can you help me get the author to find resources to corroborate the claims, as none of his references source the claim to notability for the entire clan, and only one individual seems to be verifiably notable? Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not an article about a family, it's an article about a surname, and there are hundreds if not thousands of such articles. Smith (surname) is the most obvious (and probably the best written) example, but they certainly don't all need to come up to this standard - plenty such as Arbuthnot (surname) consist solely of a laundry-list. I disagree that only one seems to be verifiably notable; the physicist & the PLO commander for Ramallah would certainly pass. Remember that most sources for these people will be in Arabic or Hebrew so won't be showing up on a Google search. As I said when deprodding it (for the second time!), take it to AfD if you want, but I can't see this not being kept. — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

History of nationality in Cyprus

I tagged it again. Phgao 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to it. Even though it's horribly bitey, I think I (or you, or someone) needs to go through all his contributions as he seems to be a prolific creator of worthless content forks — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk as well, I think you were fine and explained yourself, so it doesn't seem bitey to me. Phgao 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look at AN/I. You also mentioned [20]. It seems you've gotton yourself into a few contentious issues, but I believe you're acting in good faith and I would be inclined to delete them as well. (opinion having not read all of the arguments) Phgao 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that of the seven AfDs I was of "harassing" Billy on, I only even commented on three of them, and every single one resulted in a unanimous delete vote... — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Read through...you do hold a very clear case for AfDing them. I just made the click (ok it's late at night) the username MurderWatcher1 is a bit well spooky (can't think of a better word). And i'm off to sleep... Phgao 16:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC Golden Film

As a native speaker of English, you recently helped reviewing the article Golden Film. Currently this article is a featured article candidate. Maybe you are interested in commenting to the article or supporting/opposing the candidacy. – Ilse@ 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I'm not particularly good at FA reviewing. You might want to approach User:Malleus Fatuarum, who is very good at cleaning up articles to get through GA/FA. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. I will contact User:Malleus Fatuarum. – Ilse@ 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Confused by editor behavior

Hi. :) If you get a minute at some point, would you mind taking a look at User:Ashtoman3333? I'm not sure what this fellow is up to, but he's been busily about it since the middle of September (according to his talk page). Just take a look at his deleted contributions. For a while I wondered if he was content forking. Now I wonder if he isn't gradually attempting to create an article on a faux-musician, lifting a bit from the career of Chamillionaire. What do you make of this? --Moonriddengirl 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like an elaborate hoax - there's enough that is verifiably untrue that I think he's well past the good-faith limit. Personally I would say the huge pile of warnings on his talkpage constitutes a de facto final warning, and since there doesn't seem to be a valid edit in their history there's no reason not to block as a vandal/troll account. — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Since I've been involved in deleting so many of his articles, I'd feel a little uncomfortable blocking him personally. Should I report this at WP:AN/I, do you think? (Never done that before. :)) --Moonriddengirl 14:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea - neither of us are experts & it's possible someone will defend the contributions. (Can't see it happening myself.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All righty. I'll try to engage him directly first. He's so far not answered anything on his talk page, but who knows? Thanks for the input. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's way easier said than done. :D I consider myself a relatively diplomatic person, but it's hard to find a diplomatic way to phrase this. Having started about four letters and stared at the page for a while, I think I'll wait and address him when he next creates an inappropriate article. His history suggests it may not be long. --Moonriddengirl 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion needed :)

I've involved myself in this sticky AfD, I would dearly like and value your opinion here. Thanks and good day! Phgao 03:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Put my 2c worth in — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Oh can I ask why I see one on your user page? Phgao 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No particular reason - there just aren't many images on Commons where the interesting part is at the correct point not to be obscured by the WP logo or the navboxes (although I've a soft spot for this version of it as well). — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OHHHHHhhhh (edit conflict) After closely looking at it, it is one of those famous experiments! Um... I can't remember by who though. Phgao 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Léon Foucault — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict; yes that's it!!) Yes indeed I do like it too... satisfying in a way. Also I found the pendulum experiment; I thought I'd read it somewhere; here! Phgao 14:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, that fact is gonna stay with me forever now... it's doomed to fester in my brain... *evil laugh* Phgao 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Did anther user take offense to the bomb on top of wiki logo the reason we have to be amused by a pendulum now? ;) Phgao 15:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No - I got irritated by the grainy resolution & jerky animation. If someone uploaded a better quality version I'd probably restore it — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is a justifiable reason to let one of them loose so we can get a good gif sequence. For Iridescent <end bad joke> Phgao 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

<- I think I've found the editor that has been blocked the most without being perm banned. [21] Phgao 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In some defence of Rex, the reason he has so many minor blocks is because following an incident last year, he's on 1RR and so has a lot of automatic block triggers for actions that wouldn't get you or I blocked, not that he's a particularly bad editor. Most of those blocks are down to a group of pro-German POV-pushers who deliberately needle him until he lashes out - see this, this or this for example; there are dozens more. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Antebellum Bulldog

Regarding the copyvio, the text has been rearranged in the article versus the web page, but the sentences are verbatim. For example, look at the Appearance section in Antebellum Bulldog and compare with the Appearance section on the web page. Note that the beginning and end of the section are identical, but the middle of the section in the wiki article has extra information. However, that text was copied from the last parqagraph of the Confusion with other Breeds section in the web page. Also look at the Temperament section for each where you will find again copying, but with some text from the web page missing from the article because they are personal observations. Regards. -- Whpq 18:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have redeleted it — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Iridescent,

Thank you for responding to my inquiry. The Antebellum Website is my own. I thought that I released all of the material under the GFDL aggreement, it should have appeared that way, however being new to this Wiki work, I was obviously mistaken. I was intending to introduce a reestablished breed of dog, which has taken 10 years of work to do. This has been substansiated by the Animal Research Foundation as well as Genetic Monotering. I am not selling the breed, just introducing it to a big world of dog lovers. I did copy and paste material the wiki site, it was easiest for a novice like myself. It is my material in whole and I have full ownership, which I gladly share with whom ever would like it. What do I have to do? Thank you again for looking and helping, I know that you are very busy, especially with all the lists on your talk site. Thanks Very Respectfully, Cole Maxwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole maxwell (talk • contribs) 01:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Iridescent,

Kurki has agreed to let me update the material (remove copyright infringments and/or correct them)and has made a site for me to work on it. I appreciate your interferance and Hope that it has not caused a problem for you. You were initally the only one I could get a hold of and I did not mean to drag you into it.

Your professionalism and endulgence is greatly appreciated and I want you to know that I am greatful that you stepped in, even though what you stepped in smelt funny. I will work on it to get it right. I will keep you posted on my progress.

Thanks Very Respectfully, Cole 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If the website's yours, and you mark it to show content is valid under GFDL, then it is valid for Wikipedia as well - but be aware you're granting anyone the permission to use and modify it. Alternatively, follow the instructions here to email consent to the Foundation. — iridescent 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was hoping someone would say. I will follow the instructions. Thank you for the warning. Hopefully my contributions will not attract enough attention to have it modified in a negative way. I do not mind sharing. That is what Wikipedia is about. Thanks a million, - Cole 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC) p.s. How do I modify my username with the neat fonts I see every where?

The instructions are at WP:SIG, but they're not easy to follow. Basically, design the signature, then go to "My Preferences", paste the HTML into the "Signature" box and check the "Raw signature" box. For example, my signature is:

<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">''iride''</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">''scent''</font>]]</font>

which displays as — iridescent, and for a complicated signature like User:Hmwith's the code is:

'''[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#c0c0c0;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">нмŵוτн</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#888;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]'''

which displays as нмŵוτнτ. It's generally good practice to keep the signature to less than three lines of code; plus, while you can include links to anything you like, at least one of the links has to be to either your user page or your talk page. The easiest thing to do is find someone else's signature you like the look of & modify it - WP:RFA and WP:AN/I generally attract a lot of people with custom signatures.

If you do customise your signature, don't get offended if people modify it back to the standard "short" version, particularly on long talk pages.

Further warning re copyright violation - even with permission, the page may be automatically tagged by CorenSearchBot, which automatically compares Wikipedia pages to google searches to tag possible copyright violations, so be prepared to keep defending it. If it gets tagged and deleted, let me (or any other admin) know & we can undelete it. — iridescent 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous films

According to the Netherlands Film Festival Flesh & Blood is a film from the Netherlands, since the film won two Golden Calves which are awarded to films from the Netherlands ("Nederlandse films"). The film The Alzheimer Case is a film from Belgium. The film is correctly categorized in Category:Belgian films and Category:Dutch-language films. As you might know, 58% of the Belgians speak Dutch (Flemish). – Ilse@ 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lorelei7

The bizzare image on your user page has one problem – all images uploaded by that user Lorelei7 (talk · contribs) say educational use on Wikipedia.org. It does not explicitly allow for commerical use, which was prohibited on May 19 2005. Can you use leet admin tools and just delete all of these, per WP:CSD#I3? Would rather not want to muck around IFD. hbdragon88 07:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it off the user page as it's status is unclear, but I won't delete it altogether at this stage. Although it's got a dubious copyright status, it's a relatively high-profile image (used as an illustration for Wikipedia-related articles on a number of WT:BADSITES), and deleting it out-of-process would set off a firestorm of bad-tempered recreate-delete-recreate-DRV arguments. It's worth pointing out that it has been manipulated & edited ruthlessly for use by a wide variety of other sites (this for example) with no complaint from the uploader. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd nominate it for IFD, but I don't want you to hate me. Your work on saving Antonine Centre was...brillant. Heh heh. hbdragon88 02:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mindnumbing" is the word you're after there, I think... (Although I've managed to get another shopping centre to the verge of GA status - it is do-able!) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No Brilliant, as in Brilliant, lustrous, or colorful in effect or appearance. It was a play on your user name. hbdragon88 07:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

POTY

It's open! --Dweller 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Wasn't clear about that - I checked the template doc page and it didn't say you had to be an administrator, although I thought I read that somewhere. Toddstreat1 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:68.249.7.59. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This user had vandalized my userpage. I wouldn't do that to you.--MurderWatcher1 19:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This user hadn't vandalised your userpage; while I think they took it to extremes (I won't delete content from userpages unless it's actually offensive/libellous), your userpage undoubtedly does violate "What may I not have on my user page?", and they were making a good-faith attempt to remove inappropriate content as per WP:SOAP, and didn't warrant an attack on their talk page. The Jimbo-commandment in question, if you're looking for a source for the policy, is "Using userpages campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Collision on Fashion Designing And The Career

It appears we had a TW edit collision on Fashion Designing And The Career. You added {{prod}} and I added to AFD. If you feel the Prod is more suitable (and will stick), let me know, and i'll withdraw AFD. Toddstreat1 00:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

May as well leave the AfD up. While I can't see anything on Google, it reeks of a copyvio as well — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. The "obnoxious template" issue you mentioned is certainty legitimate. As I have said it was a mistake to create that template, an honest attempt to create a template that would apply to all unencyclopedic list (i.e. be general in that it would apply to not only a References in Pop culture list, but also a trivia list, for example), but still be firm enough to get the point across just came out horribly.

As to the edits to articles that were deleted - well I obviously addressed that on the page, I presume to your satisfaction.

Thanks again for the feedback and hopefully if I ever decide to run again I will have improved enough to gain your support. Thanks again!--danielfolsom 22:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my comments seemed so negative - I think a lot of the problems stemmed from the word "obnoxious" (I honestly don't see how using the term can't be considered a personal attack on whoever wrote the material you tag with it). I appreciate you want to keep a list of everything on your userpage, but I really would recommend removing it. If/when you run again, I'd also recommend explaining the deleted edits right from the start - one of the first thing RFA reviewers (those that have the access, anyway) do, is check deleted contribs to see if the editor's tagging articles correctly and if they've written a lot of invalid content. As I think a lot of people said, no-one seems to have raised any issues that aren't easily resolved. — iridescent 22:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pont Champlain from Mont Royal.JPG

Hi. I finally got around to looking at these pictures and I expanded on some of the descriptions, just to give a few hints about what's what. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - given that Montreal's such a creative & media hub, it's always puzzled me how few photos there are of it compared to other cities of similar size — iridescent 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie

You were right, the other account definitely is the tip of the iceberg. While looking at Talk:British National Party (which I stopped editing a long time ago due to disruption and trolling, apart from a brief comment on the current state of the article recently), it's obvious she's also been taking part in the same discussions logged in and as an IP.

84.66.110.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the IP being used. For example there's this edit and this edit from the IP in one discussion section, and there's this edit from Lucy-marie in the same section, note the identical arguments. Similarly in another section there's this edit from the IP and this edit from Lucy-marie. The IPs limited contributions also overlap with Lucy-marie on various articles as well - Lancing College, Template:G8 nations‎, Rounders, Declaration and forfeiture, Eurozone, Murder of Amanda Dowler - can you hear quacking? It's probably a bit late for anything preventative to be done, although it might be worth you pointing out the sockpuppetry on Talk:British National Party? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. By an amazing coincidence, the IP's not edited since Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie, so it may have given up. — iridescent 21:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That might be because it's a dynamic IP, and it looks like she's also been using other IPs, firstly - 84.67.181.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Firstly there's the repeated EU removal on Template:G8 nations, which was done by the other IP (see above) at the end of August, and Lucy-marie has long wanted the EU removed from that template. Then there's the interest in Top Gear (UK TV show in case you weren't aware), and if you check Lucy-marie's contribs you'll find plenty of edits to Top Gear related articles. Then there's edits to Crossrail‎, which Lucy-marie edited the very next day. In addition to charming edit summaries there's also this attempt to speedy delete a template which will become significant shortly. The following day it's a new dynamic IP - 86.145.251.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Again there's edits to Crossrail, Template:G8 nations (including discussion "stacking" on the talk page), and another speedy attempt on Template:SevenDirtyWords. Note the IP admits they are editing not logged in here, and with the poor spelling and overlapping editing interests it's pretty obvious it's Lucy-marie. The IPs were both blocked for a month on 12 September, so there's also been block evasion going on as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim Murphy

I've added a comment to Talk:Jim Murphy, which I hope may help move this article forward. I'd be grateful if you'd look at it and if necessary add comments. Grblundell 09:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, but my only edits have been minor edits such as typo fixing (the repeated changes to the article tend to rack up a lot of typos & style changes). It's a WP:WEASEL way out, but as long as the article can stay stable for a week or so the issue will hopefully be in the past. — iridescent 19:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

???

You womped Itub's comment.[22] Was that intentional? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea how that happened - must have inadvertently highlighted his paragraph and overtyped. Sorry! — iridescent 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Canterberry vs User:SouthernElectric

I am a multiple account user, and I admit to being a pedant and a vandal in respect of SE. The account names should be obvious by now User:ALECTRIC451, User:Sheepcot, User:Canterberry, User:Electrostar and User:Four Ceps (I loved the play on words of that one). I think that I also created User:Maidstone as well. I also admit that I got a little frustrated with SE over some recent articles, and I did do naughty things to his talk page, but nothing nasty. To be fair, he gave as good as he got, and did much the same to my talk page, so I call that "evens". I am going to stop, because I do believe in "consensus", but I also believe in "action not words", so perhaps I use WP:BOLD a little to often when I should apply restraint. My creation of multiple accounts has never been to indulge in sock-puppetry, but more to "walk away" from edit conflicts so that I could resume my (hopefully) productive work in peace. I admit to straying over the line with SE, but thats simply a clash of personalities that I refused to back down from (some people want, and deserve a good confrontation). Anyhow, I want to bring this to a head, and end it. I consider myself (through all of my accounts) to be a positive contributor, and want to continue. I pledge to cease my attacks on SE and to behave properly from now on. Naturally, I shall need to create a new user account to mask my past, but thats just me. Adios amigo, and please be kind if you are asked to block me for being a "sock puppet" ... that just ain't my style (though like smoking, I have tried it in the past, and it did nothing for me). Canterberry 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I found another account for you to block (it ties up the loose ends) and thats User:Miner2049er.Miner2049er 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tidied all of my accounts, and put the text My IP address is about to be hard-blocked, so its "goodbye" on all of them. When I "quit" as User:ALECTRIC451 I really did think that editors should be registered before being allowed to change articles. Under one of my other names, I felt that editors should not be allowed to edit articles unless they belonged to a particular Project, and I feel that even stronger as I face the guillotine. This place cannot survive if it is simply a place/podium on which to conduct an argument. Anyhow, my time is up and I wish this place my best wishes. Canterberry 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral renaming of every LU line

User:Sunil060902 has just renamed every LU line from Northern Line to Northern line etc with no apparent discussion or consensus to do so other then this festival of sockpuppetry , breaking dozens of links in the process. As there's no consensus as to what the proper form is - Capital Transport always uses upper case, TFL uses the lower case form, and Wikipedia policy would normally be to capitalise it as a proper name, does anyone have any opinion on this? I'm willing to rollback all the changes made, but don't want to do do so without a consensus as - while I don't agree with it - a case could be made for keeping them in this form. — iridescent 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please could you provide a list of which links are broken in the above articles? I'll gladly reinstate them. Once again I remind you: it's mixed upper/lower case on all London Underground-branded literature, maps, signs and even some trains! Moreover, disambiguation does exist in relevant cases (eg. there are other Northern Lines around the world). Should we refer to c2c as "C2C" to provide a counter-argument? Regards, Sunil060902 09:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What entails sockpuppetry in this case? - 194.80.106.135 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Four participants in the discussion; Ninjainabowlerhat (talk · contribs) with five edits, four of which are to LT related articles; Mr Thant (talk · contribs) with around 20 edits, almost all of which are to this discussion and to carry out some of the page moves agreed in the "discussion"; Sunil060902 (talk · contribs) with an edit history starting at exactly the same time as User:Mr Thant; 194.80.106.135 (talk · contribs), with an edit history consisting solely of edits to the same pages edited by User:Sunil060902, plus edits to the article on the name Sunil. Assuming good faith is one thing, but there comes a WP:DUCK point. If you honestly believe the first priority of two simultaneously created new accounts and a new IP is going to be bulk unilateral page moves of London Transport related articles, with no consensus and no attempt to contact the relevant projects (this discussion is the first time the matter's been discussed on WP:UKT and this is the first time it's been raised on WP:LT), I'm more than willing to have a checkuser run & see what it flushes out. — iridescent 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hand on my heart I am nothing to do with any of the named Users listed above! But I am willing to own up to 194.80.106.135 - that is merely me forgetting to log in properly (and now you know my IP (oh dear!))! However I must point out that my alter ego did NOT take part in the aforementioned discussion...Also as you can probably tell, I only used this IP from 17th September onwards. best, Sunil060902 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found a discussion from back in the past about this, May to be precise. See Talk:London_Underground#Names_of_LU_lines. Simply south 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, it must have completely passed me by... As there were three participants in that discussion arguing for lower case, two of whom were indefblocked earlier today for abusive sockpuppetry on railway articles, not sure I'd take any "consensus" reached there very seriously. — iridescent 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also added the LU link to WP:LT, but before i saw your reply. Simply south 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Raincoats Kitchen Tapes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Raincoats Kitchen Tapes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It gives a perfectly valid fair use rationale and I have consequently removed the notice. — iridescent 00:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

BCB is looking for images that do not have the article name linked in the FUR. That is part of NFCC10c that has been causing massive uproar when BCB comes along and tags it. Spryde 10:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe my opinions of BCB are on record... — iridescent 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil' Eazy-E

I took the liberty of closing. Hope it's okay -- Samir 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure - didn't realise they'd used the cunning "add an apostrophe so it's treated as a new title" ploy — iridescent 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick question about "NIGGER CRACKER"

Hi Iridescent,

I got a notice of the speedy deletion of the article with this name due to the fact that, after tagging it for CSD and noticing that it had already been deleted twice, I created a new page redirecting to the article on the 1964 Philadelphia race riots in an attempt to prevent its recreation or at least make it a little harder to create again (reasoning that new editors have a difficult time figuring out how to edit redirects).

So my question is whether the version you deleted was the redirect or whether it had been edited to include the content that had been deleted twice already. I ask because if it was the former, then that teaches me something I didn't know about Wikipedia's deletion policy. Thanks! --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was the redirect - as a term no-one is ever going to search on (and certainly not in quotation marks and all capitals!) it serves no useful purpose as a redirect and leaving it up is potentially offensive. While Wikipedia's not censored, I see no point in keeping something potentially offensive if there's no useful purpose served by keeping it. If you can make a valid argument for keeping it, then by all means recreate it but you'd probably better put a good explanation as to why it should be kept on the talk page or it will just be re-deleted. — iridescent 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my only reason for creating the redirect it was to make it harder for the article to be recreated. Now that you've protected that page to make it impossible for it to be recreated, I see no reason to use my inferior little trick again. Thanks for the explanation! --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a general thanks for all the pointers you've given me over the past few weeks. They're appreciated. Cheers. Toddstreat1 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't take it as digs at you for doing things "wrong", as it's not intended that way - purely that as I spend a lot of time closing the deletions you're tagging I run into you quite a lot. — iridescent 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - I've learned a lot from you and others. It's all good. Toddst1 11:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rdsoxfa

Thanks for your note, I've unblocked in good faith. Between the several reports of spamming and vandalism, it looked like an WP:SPA spam account, but with your input, I've gone ahead and unblocked. Hopefully you can help guide the user along... Dreadstar † 01:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me...! I may have been a tad too quick on trigger with that one, but I've offered a helping hand to the user; and if there's anything I can do to help you, drop me a note! Dreadstar † 02:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CloseAFD

I think I solved the problem you were having with CloseAFD. =) See the long explanation at WP:AN#Script question. Can you give it another try? -- Gogo Dodo 05:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be working - at least, the "close" and "relist" tabs are there - I haven't tested it as there (ironically) doesn't seem to be anything closable at the moment! — iridescent 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that it appears to be working. The script doesn't automatically save the closure, so you can test it without worry. -- Gogo Dodo 02:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Saluting your wikignomeness

		The Minor Barnstar
		I caught some of your fixes on articles I edit, and thought you should be recognized for your Wikignomeness. Thanks for the help. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Always a pleasure - it's a mindnumbing task, but I think typo-fixing's a much-neglected field - an awful lot of undeserving material gets nominated for deletion for "looking sloppy". — iridescent 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Well that's quite a shame, people should be thinking about WP:RS and WP:V, not deleting stuff because it doesn't look nice. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

re User:Rdsoxfa

I have re-instated the indef block for the recreation of the previously deleted article Matthew Costa following a report to AIV. I see no evidence that the user is going to agree to not creating the article, as is made clear by his comments. I did note, when placing the notification on the talkpage, your previous comments so I am letting you know my actions and reasoning. I will accept a lifting or variation of the tariff of the block but would be unwilling to do it myself. LessHeard vanU 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No argument from me unless he posts a valid unblock reason. The first block was I thought unfair - he'd posted four good faith links to photobucket & facebook pages which had resulted in four spam warnings - but since he doesn't seem to pay any attention, a block seems the only way to get him to stop. — iridescent 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the response. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A148

In Response to your comment on the A148, This Line Is from the page "The by-pass was built on the old track bed of the Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway. At 35.8 miles the road from the left marks the point were the by-pass rejoins the old route of the A148. Just before this junction is Holt Station on the preserved part of the afore mentioned railway". There are only two short streches that are built on the route of the railway. they are at Holt and in the case of the A149, at North Walsham, the Major part of these roads are an ancient By-way.Stavros1 08:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Student project

Firstly as an aside, I feel it is a bit of a misuse of Wikipedia's bandwidth to embed http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Foucault_pendulum_animated.gif/164px-Foucault_pendulum_animated.gif in your page since it is 6 megabytes in size. (Weird Image:Foucault pendulum animated.gif is only 1 Mbyte!

I saw you do a minor edit to Sensory art for young children. I believe this is part of a student project which probably needs watching. See this list of contributors. I might not have spotted them but they are cross-editing their stuff in a bewildering way. Eg. user:CassandraSenger appears to have drafted Analytic phonics but Justintylerclark actually posted it. -- RHaworth 08:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the background image to the previous version, which is only 120kb. I've had Sensory art for young children watchlisted since it was uploaded (which is why it's been included in my periodic spellcheck pass) as it looked like a potentially valid article with a long way to go & I wanted to see how it developed. To be honest I agree with the prod as it doesn't seem to be improving or easily improved. I'll try to keep an eye on the accounts' contribs but am unlikely to be able to do much for the next few days, thanks to the joys of the 12-hour shift pattern. — iridescent 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BloodSweatTeacover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BloodSweatTeacover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Piss off! — iridescent 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your protection of Sister Roma, Sister Boom-Boom, and Hot House Entertainment

I believe that in protecting the above-referenced articles you have acted precipitately and with an excessive reliance on the word of the editor(s) who brought the articles to your attention. Editor Jeffpw misrepresents the situation in saying that the articles are now sourced -- the articles are not sourced. Yes, sources are given, but in many instances, in both "Sisters" articles, the content is not found in the reference cited; other content is not referenced at all. Please check and see for yourself. The Hot House article is not referenced at all. I believe that Jeffpw, along with Benjiboi, Excirial and WJBscribe are culpable in an anti-Catholic bias with respect to the "Sisters" articles, and a pro-porn agenda with respect to the Hot House article. One of the "Sisters" is employed by Hot House, "coincidentally." These editors wish to impose their POV on these articles. Based on my observations, I think you ought to investigate the activities of these editors, along with SFdrag, for sockpuppetry.

72.68.125.19 01:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Benjiboi ought to at least familiarize himself with the rules for citing references before he edits any further. He (and the others, if they're not all one and the same) could look into the concept of NPOV, too. 72.68.125.19 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Correction: I see that another admin, Jéské Couriano has protected the Hot House artice, and not you. Everything else that I wrote above still applies. I also see that the amateur Benjiboi has made several additions to the Sister Roma article: an entire paragraph discusses the Folsom Sreet Fair in an article about Roma, and not the Fair. It's irrelevant filler material intended to give additional notoriety to the subject of an article that is otherwise unimportant, except to some editors at WP with an anti-Catholic and pro-porn agenda.

72.68.30.122 10:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The pages aren't indefinitely protected (unless someone else has done so). I semiprotected them for 48 hours to allow both sides to calm down in what appears to be a truly lame edit war. If you think the articles violate Wikipedia policy, send them over to AfD. If your only problem is that you dislike the sources, fix it. — iridescent 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi continues with his anti-Catholic agenda in the Sister Roma article

Benjiboi has seen fit to include a picture in the Sister Roma article which depicts an event mocking the Passion of Jesus Christ. The article is not about that event, it is about the drag fag Michael Williams. Whether or not Williams co-hosted that event is irrelevant. Articles about persons -- term used loosely in the case of Williams -- ought to have pictures of that person, not events s/he has hosted. The only reason Benjiboi had for including the picture is to give presence and greater notoriety to an anti-Catholic event. In this way he fulfills his anti-Catholic agenda.

72.68.30.122 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See above - if you think the article's so bad, AfD it. Personal attacks aren't exactly helping your case here. — iridescent 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Malvinas 2032

An article that you have been involved in editing, Malvinas 2032, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malvinas 2032. Thank you. Percy Snoodle 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)