Jump to content

User talk:Iridescent/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

The Founding Ceremony of the Nation

Could I get you to take a peek at the above, presently at peer review? Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hope

Hey, it looks great! The whole month looks good, in fact. SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There is Hope, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks—so far, 1⁄3 of the day through and so far nobody ranting about it being inappropriate, so maybe it will get through unscathed. ‑ Iridescent 08:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Spoke too soon—it's now attracted it's first crank of the day. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just want to say thanks for your fine article. I had no familiarity with this painting, and I find your writing engaging and helpful. Cheers. Scartol • Tok 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It hasn't been hit as much as I thought it would be: perhaps it's too subtle for a certain... demograph? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Remember, it's only 4 pm on the East Coast and noon in California—the lunatic fringe tend to descend towards the end of a stint as TFA. I imagine the demographic in question are mostly glued to the television, anyway. Plus, this benefits from a four-character title—as a general rule, articles with very short titles tend to get significantly fewer pageviews, as the link is so easy to miss. (If it survives the day with the worst annoyance being that guy who doesn't understand WP:WEASEL and thinks it means even cited uses of words like "greatly" need to be removed, it's got off very lightly.) ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems to have gone well and it looked great. Huge kudos for writing it and getting it to the main page today. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Although it didn't get that many page views, the view rate for linked articles like George Frederic Watts—which is how one measures whether readers are actually reading things and finding them interesting enough to want to learn more, rather than just clicking the link, skimming the first paragraph and deciding it looks boring—was encouragingly high on the day. ‑ Iridescent 17:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Who thought this was a good idea? Wikipedia's admins are supposed to perform routine but necessary maintenance duties, not to be a clique of self-appointed super-users who need their own newsletter to avoid having to slum it with the peasants at the Signpost. How do I unsubscribe from this crap? ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You are not actually subscribed. The first one went out to all admins. If you want more you can subscribe. The basic premise is not in itself bad. It came about due to a number of admins expressing an interest in getting updates - changes in policy, important admin-related issues etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
What we need is some kind of central noticeboard which admins are expected to watchlist. It could be for people to post information and issues that affect administrators, such as general announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. – iridescent 2 08:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Commented there. It looks very much like a baby/bathwater proposal to me; as currently worded, technically myself and HJ Mitchell would both be liable for summary sitebanning because we've each paid for a round and not declared it on our userpages. ‑ Iridescent 10:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambigation pages

Hi Iridescent, under the page Red (disambiguation) my question was I am not sure what should go under people, and what should under people and what should going under nickname. under where it says ==People== there is a link that says
Main article: Red (nickname)
that leads to people with the nickname. which people with the name red should go under what heading? I have often wondered this about other disambigation pages as well. I often do not what to put under each heading.
@Davidgoodheart:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgoodheart (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Red (nickname) is divided into "people" and "fictional characters". If you really have to ask what the difference between reality and fiction is, then I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you. ‑ Iridescent 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Deltopia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deltopia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deltopia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I deleted this in its previous incarnation of Floatopia. It clearly refuses to die. ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking over the history I've argued to delete, keep, and delete various incarnations of this article over the years. My mind is now made up firmly towards deletion, regardless of whether it technically meets Wikipedia's notability standards—this is right up there with Radcliffe and Maconie or Howling II: Your Sister Is a Werewolf when it comes to atrocious writing, and given how many years it's existed without anyone making any effort to improve it, I see nothing to be gained by keeping an atrocious article on a topic so marginal. This is one of those cases where the reader is actually better served by Wikipedia not having an article, since if someone is searching for information on it they're better off reading the coverage an internet search brings up, rather than having an indigestible chunk of wiki-crud permanently squatting at the top of PageRank. ‑ Iridescent 16:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ooo thanks for that, I need a bad film to suggest for bad film club next month, and the Howling II looks right up their alley. Previous films for BFC include Aerobicide, Speed 2 and one of Cynthia Rothrock's finest - Undefeatable. Sadly we also had to watch one of Rothrock's not-finest in the form of Santa's Summer House - a film so bad it has a ten minute croquet montage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want genuinely bad big-budget films (not knowingly tongue-in-cheek "so bad it's good" Troma fluff, "actually not that bad, just disappointing given expectations" Phantom Menaces and Heavens Gates, or hyper-low-budget b-movies), I suggest you'll never do better than Parting Shots (with Sex Lives of the Potato Men a close second). If you want really, really, weird, dig out An American Hippie in Israel. ‑ Iridescent 18:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Have you ever seen Zardoz? I think you might change your ranking... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Zardoz isn't that bad, provided you take it on its own terms as part of a continuum of stoner-flick/kids-fantasy-epic crossovers along with The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, the entire output of Ralph Bakshi and a sizeable chunk of Disney's output in the 1960s and 70s. (Given that this is the man who brought us Highlander II and Meteor, it's not even the worst film starring Sean Connery.) Compared to something like Howard the Duck, Blindman or Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, it's a masterpiece. (If you ever want a real oddity of bad film, dig out The Dawn—astonishingly, still a redlink. The first feature film ever made in Ireland, words really don't do justice to just how weird it is.) ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oddly enough my wife has never seen Highlander, so I picked up the DVD for couple of quid the other day. Where else can you see a Frenchman playing a Scot, while a Scot plays a Spaniard? Also she might now understand our 'There can be only one' references...Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Highlander and Highlander II are very different beasts. The first is an enjoyably silly romp about immortal warriors; the second is incomprehensible gibberish about alien zombies and the ozone layer. ‑ Iridescent 10:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Its a good thing you didnt watch the third one with magic then... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There could be only one. Half-decent film. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hypothetically...

..how much trouble would I be in, if I had mentioned to a close journo relative about an RFC closure (in advance of the closure, the obvious likely result) and said relative's employer then ran a story on it once it closed? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Assuming it's the story in today's Grauniad, then none; since Jimmy Wales is on the board of Guardian Media Group, you can safely assume that any story they print about Wikipedia will be pre-approved by the WMF and thoroughly vetted to ensure it puts the best possible spin on the WMF before it's published. (Or at least, if anyone did run something negative about Wikipedia, they'd be looking for another job the next day.) The Guardian/Observer never say anything remotely negative about any of the WMF's doings, even at their most toxic (this was their spin on Lila Tretikov's reign of error), except when it's to promote WMF-approved criticism based on Jimbo's "we need to dissolve the community and appoint a new one" ramblings (example). ‑ Iridescent 23:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, quite right. In my correspondence with Mr Jackson which led to the Granuaid story, I noted that Wikipedia is essentially a "free-to-use online defamation service" and emphasized the hands-off/hands-behind-the-back-whistling stance of the WMF. Needless to say, they weren't quite as interested in that aspect. Oh well, everyone loves a good ol' bit of Mail-bashing -- it's proved to be quite a popular story. --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday, if you know how this came to the Guardian's attention, could you let us know on AN? I've just pinged the WMF communications director to ask why they issued a statement. SarahSV (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@SarahSV, regarding my use of the Mail in Hope, in that case the citation is specifically for "an unsubstantiated report in the Daily Mail claimed that". The fact that the Mail claimed that Obama was offered the painting and turned it down isn't in dispute, and is cited to an appropriate and impeccable reliable source (a book published by the Watts Gallery itself); the link to the Mail article is so people can see exactly what the Mail claimed. I don't think even the ultra-hardliners like John would suggest that there's any publication that can't be used as a reference for what the publication in question said. (As I mentioned in the FAC, on this occasion I'd be willing to bet that the Mail was correct. Since the painting is now deeply unfashionable and spends most of its time either in storage, and since Obama's interest in it was well known, it would be more surprising if the British government hadn't asked him if he wanted it. Yes, the Mail has a well-deserved reputation for fabricating quotes, but they'd be very unlikely to fabricate one from Tristram Hunt, and as someone with such strong connections to both the Brown government and the UK national art collections—and also as the person who originally suggested making the offer—he'd be very well placed to know.) ‑ Iridescent 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
But we could always say "The Daily Mail says ..." to justify including what they say. That's using the Mail as a secondary source, which is the kind of use I agree should be stopped. But not only the Mail—any tabloid journalism. I think it was a mistake to focus only on them. SarahSV (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@SarahSV, the key part is "cited to an academic source"; the Mail citation in this case is only there as a convenience to the reader should they want to confirm what the exact wording of the Mail article was. (It is directly relevant that the Mail was covering this at the time, as it demonstrates that the issue was receiving attention in the mainstream populist press, rather than just op-ed pieces in the lesser-read reaches of the Telegraph and Guardian.) I don't see any problem with a Wikipedia article saying that the Mail (or Russia Today, or Freedom Magazine, or Der Stürmer…) has claimed something, provided there's an independent and reliable source for the claim being considered significant, and provided we make it clear that the claim is uncorroborated. (To take a contemporary example, Wikipedia's Bowling Green massacre article quotes Kellyanne Conway's "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre" statement verbatim; it doesn't mean we're endorsing the statement in Wikipedia's voice.) ‑ Iridescent 11:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The main problem with the Daily Mail is that it comes up more often (it has accelerated in recent years) in queries at RSN, at arguments on talk pages etc. This is an outgrowth of its switch from merely normal gutter tabloid journalism to outright falsification in the last 20 years. There are of course always other newspapers that follow the same tactics, but they havnt been sued in as many high profile cases (and lost), they dont do it to such an extent it spreads misinformation to other normally reliable sources, and like it or not when you stick your head above the parapet you need to be prepared to get it shot off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Have I misunderstood the situation; or did someone (not being JW) contact the paper immediately the RfC had closed? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 08:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I dont think anyone contracted them directly, I dropped a link to the RFC about a week ago to a relative who is a freelancer (but does a lot of work for the guardian in the tech area) in an offhand comment, he messaged me back this morning saying he had passed it on. However I am not sure thats why they jumped on it, since Hillbilly indicates he was contacted by (the author I think) who appeared to be unaware of it prior to the RFC finishing. Personally I am not going to lose sleep over it. Its not like I contacted them directly and lied about a sitting MP sockpuppeting *cough*... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death:, yes, that's the first thing I thought of  :) but I wasn't referring to you going to the papers; I formed the impression from this that someone was in a discussion with the paper 'right after the close' and that it was 'news to' the paper; which kind of suggests what the G's source was. That's what I meant by 'Have I misunderstood the situation; or did someone (not being JW) contact the paper immediately the RfC had closed?' you see  :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 10:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah I read that as HB was contacted by the author who had not *previously* known anything about it, not that HB contacted the author - I see what you mean. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I like the Mail so much I wrote an article about them ..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(I notice Hurrah for the Blackshirts! is just a redirect.) To be honest, that should be at Enemies of the People (headline) with Enemies of the People being either a redirect to Enemy of the people or a dab page disambiguating Enemy of the people, Enemies of the People, Enemy of the state. Public enemy, Public Enemy, Class enemy and Class Enemy; "term of abuse used by the Mail against those it deems not racist enough" is definitely not the primary use of the phrase. ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
There is probably enough material to write a dedicated article on Daily Mail fascist tendencies over the years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not too fussed about where the article should live, it just seemed a bit too much information to stick it in the general Mail or Miller case articles. Somebody be bold and move it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The flirtation with fascism isn't the worst thing about the Daily Mail; there's at least the (feeble) defence there that they reflect the views of their readers, rather than attempting to guide them. It's the hate campaigns (one could probably get a decent FA out of Death of Lucy Meadows), and the willingness to fabricate stories and pass them off as news, that separate the Mail from other newspapers that have flirted with the extreme right and left over the years; the Daily Express or Morning Star might give undue prominence to material that supports their prejudices and quietly ignore material that doesn't fit their agenda, but they don't actually go to the lengths of making up their own news. (Although, now the Daily Mail has seemingly abandoned its tradition of working through every noun in the dictionary and announcing that it either causes or cures cancer, the Express has picked up that particular baton.) ‑ Iridescent 11:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

SIVOP

SIVOP is back. I tagged it G4 following your lead, but I can't locate the AfD to cite. Cabayi (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

G4 is probably technically incorrect—it was moved to Draft:Sivop under its old incarnation of Sivop, after he was sternly warned on French Wikipedia about using Wikipedia for spam; he's now playing around with different capitalisations in the hope people won't notice. I'll set up an AFD debate to clear it up once and for all. ‑ Iridescent 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Now set up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIVOP. This one is frustrating, as the company almost certainly is notable (outside of South Africa, there aren't many Africa-based multinational companies), but every version of the page thus far has been irredeemably promotional and because of the patchiness of the media in Francophone Africa, the reliable sources likely don't exist to create something viable on it. ‑ Iridescent 11:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Silverlake Lounge

Why was this article deleted? The venue was the central venue to a significant and well known rock scene in one of the biggest cities in the world. Multiple famous bands were associated with it, but as time moves on the venue has become like the Whiskey-A-Go-Go where it coasts on name recognition. It has national name recognition. Just like people know the Grateful Dead played The Fillmore and The Stooges played both CBGB and The Grande Ballroom in Detroit, if you ask people about where bands like Silversun Pickups, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Metric, Elliot Smith, Local Natives, etc made their names, Silverlake Lounge is the answer they will give.

I find the deletion of the page to be without much careful consideration. I cited local sources, newspapers, blogs, recordings, videos, etc. that all display proof of these acts being known for playing at this venue. One of the articles was dedicated to a sign that hung there that was famous on its own throughout Los Angeles. My hope was that others could add further information and sources.

If the famous clubs of West Hollywood like the Whiskey, the Roxy, etc. have their own wikipedia pages, Silverlake Lounge should too. Outside of those venues, the city has had no other more significant venue. In fact, in regard to recent history the venue is easily more significant than the West Hollywood clubs, which haven't had a scene around them in decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneytunes (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've treated this as a contested deletion and restored the article, but I'll warn you now that in its current state it has zero chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Wikipedia isn't a directory; for Wikipedia to include an entry on a venue, you need to demonstrate that independent, non-trivial, reliable sources consider that venue significant. You also need to provide a citation for every claim made in the article, rewrite it into an encyclopedic tone, and remove any claim made about a living person or group of people that isn't cited to a reliable source. ‑ Iridescent 09:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Well to survive AFD you need to demonstrate 'notability' not 'significance'. Significance is a much lower threshold than notability. IMHO as it stands now, it probably passes the CSD claim but would fail an AFD. To survive an AFD you would need multiple (not just one) sources that are focused on the venue *itself* not on the people who played there. But then Birmingham NEC has an article... so who knows. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Birmingham NEC has both "largest in Britain" and "busiest in Europe" going for it, as well as being such an eyesore that there was significant debate when it was built, so you'd be hard-pressed to claim it wasn't both significant and notable. A better British comparator would be something like The NEON, The 13th Note Café, The Silver Bullet or Korova. ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I tried to think of the most boring and least fun concert I attended at a major venue and top of the list was Muse at the NEC, the *sourcing* doesnt reflect those claims at the article though although I will take your word for it on it. Ugly was the least of its problems. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
With the combination of Muse and Birmingham, what were you really expecting? That sounds about as appealing as a Nigel Farage sex doll. Mine would be Pink Floyd at Earls Court, 1994 (not that I'm implying anything, like, but when a section of seating collapsed and the band set down their instruments and went offstage, the music carried on), with an honorable mention for Iggy Pop at the State Theatre in 1993 which was the very embodiment of "going through the motions". ‑ Iridescent 11:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The wife's family (Coventry based) are all prog fans, I went because I couldnt find a reasonable way to say no once the wife had already accepted on our behalf. I will at least say they played live and it was as good as/no worse than you can expect Muse to be. I am more of a mixture between 80's new romantics, hair/glam rock and metal, with some drum'n'bass on the side - one of my first gigs being Roni Size at UEA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 11 years ago...

Hey, Iridescent. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Haste

Hi Iridescent - you may recall your contribution to the Kendra Haste discussion, (during which, thanks for your patience), I have since persuaded the artist's agent, (copyright holder), to upload lower res copies to Commons and the article is now beginning to look quite decent. I noted your comment to Patar Knight, in which you cite CDPA §62 as being most pertinent to the use of Waterloo elephant, at bottom of the article. As can be seen here, the sculpture had been installed for 10 years to June 16, when it was professionally cleaned, and it can therefore be assumed to be there for another 10 years. Does that satisfy CDPA §62? Also the top image, ("Work in progress", artist in a private setting), given the artist is turned away from the camera, and the copyright holder has uploaded the photo to Commons, do you think OTRS applies? Will appreciate your comments. MarkDask 15:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty I'm not sure; Freedom of Panorama in the UK is fiendishly complicated because CDPA is so vaguely worded and doesn't define what "permanent" or "craftsmanship" mean so it's all decided by case law, plus you have the incoming EU harmonisation which regardless of Brexit will almost certainly be implemented in the UK (Britain and Ireland having different copyright laws would cause total chaos). My inclination would be to take a "suck it and see" approach, in posting the image and seeing if anyone complains. Realistically, any copyright violation in the case of the Waterloo sculpture will be negligible, since it's installed in such a prominent location there must be thousands of people who've taken photographs of it over the years (although if Transport for London feel they have a claim to it, that's a different matter; TfL is notorious for taking a hard line against anyone who dares to post any image to which they feel they own the copyright). This is all just my personal opinion and not any kind of policy ruling; Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is largely moribund, but you may find someone there who can give you a more definitive ruling. ‑ Iridescent 16:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
and in practice there is next to no case law, because of course no one ever takes such things to court in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
ty both - I'm gonna suck it and see. MarkDask 20:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod, Markdask; the main pieces of relevant case law regarding the definition of "artistic craftsmanship" are Lucasfilm v Ainsworth (in which it was determined that the individual elements of an artwork don't necessarily constitute artworks in their own right) and Hensher v Restawile (where the Lords tried and failed to provide a formal definition of the distinction between "skilled craftsmanship" and "artistic craftsmanship"). Neither are particularly relevant here, as even if the Tower of London installation is taken as a single work, no reasonable observer wouldn't consider the individual sculptures to be artworks in their own right.

The definition of "permanently situated" to the best of my knowledge has never been tested in English law; European courts have in the past held that it's all to do with the lifespan of the artefact (so if I make a sculpture out of butter and leave it in a public place until it melts, my intention is that it will remain there for its lifespan and thus it's 'permanently situated' and FoP applies; if I make the same sculpture out of marble and loan it to a public place for 10 years, it's not "permanently situated" because there's an intention to remove it one day, and thus I can enforce copyright claims against anyone reusing images of it), but an English court might well not agree with this interpretation. I've been caught out by that one myself in the past, and had photos I've uploaded of public sculptures in Hyde Park/Kensington Gardens deleted from Commons because they're technically only on loan to the Royal Parks.

In practice, in this particular case since it appears the artist herself has given her blessing for the images to be used on Wikipedia, the issue is fairly moot, provided she genuinely understands the implications of "edited, used and redistributed for any purpose". (For these images it's not such an issue since it's hard to imagine anything offensive that could be done with them, but in one notorious case someone uploaded a bunch of innocent photographs of Boy Scouts whose faces then turned up photoshopped into Spanking Art Wiki; "reused for any purpose" is also why North Korea refuse to release a photograph of Kim Jong-un to illustrate Wikipedia's biography of him.) ‑ Iridescent 10:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, Mz Haste, through her agent, is fully cognizant of the potential for misuse, stating at one point her concern that her work might be used in anything hunting-related. I was able to persuade her of the greater good - a source of information for, particularly, a generation of wikireaders. MarkDask 23:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Late entrant for The Lamest Infobox on Wikipedia Contest (see last archive if joining late).

[1]. This added over a hidden "no infobox please" notice. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if an {{infobox none}} would be useful. Placed in the same spot an infobox would be in, it would be harder to ignore than a comment, and it could include a "|reason" parameter. Including data fields and not displaying them would supply the metadata that is sometimes advanced as a reason to include an infobox. The same effect could be gained with a "|display=none" parameter on existing infoboxes, which might be a better approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I estimate that template would be nominated for deletion in about 10 seconds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that - it was pretty close (unlike the closer, I counted more keepers than deleters). The display=none route might work, but is rather too easy to remove, and easy to miss on a watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't such a template become the latest weapon/battlefield of the Infobox Wars? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I expect it was back then; weren't the IB wars worse then than now. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd give it a good 11. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Happy Valentine's Day, y'all. Teh wars: then and now. You decide. - Any admin around who could move the next DYK prep to queue, for some illumination? It's overdue. So far we picture "coffins on wheels" where I wanted to highlight a poet, - such is life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we could have a different poet, although not sure he had any wheels? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Next year. I just received a thank-you-click for the infobox I added to the spiritual illumination ;) (article expanded by a long-time user whose second DYK this is, not mine, - help?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
.. and to you, of course, dear Gerda! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: The editor who added that is one of Wikipedia's "colorful" characters; I really wouldn't worry about anything he says. @FIM: The infobox wars were forced into a ceasefire by Arbcom (the case originated on this talkpage, if you really want to dredge up ancient history), but both sides are still watching like hawks for the moment Arbcom appears to be taking their eye off that particular ball, and have spent the four intervening years manuvering to try to discredit their opponents, or hound them off the site, in preparation for that moment. ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As for dredging up old history, i'd rather re-open this  ;) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
"colourful characters"?? ... what exactly are you saying there? Henryevans123 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople is an example of an infobox run amok. Attempts to constrain its bloat ultimately fail in the face of a never-ending dispute between the modern day adherents to the Ottomans and the partisans of the Byzantines. Perhaps the proponents of infoboxes want to have a go at editing this one-- go ahead, I dare you-- and we'll see how long it lasts. Kablammo (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Winston Churchill is the worst example I've seen, at least on a high-traffic article where it actually matters how we present information. If anyone cares to explain why summarizes key features of the page's subject needs to include that William Houldsworth was his predecessor as MP for Manchester Northwest, I'm all ears. (The page is particularly ridiculous when viewed in the WMF's much-vaunted mobile mode, while trying to use Visual Editor on it will make your browser howl in protest.) ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
You're just being anti-Oldham  :) It's a great example of wanting to 'summarize the key features' becomes wanting to provide every feature: might as well do without the prose then. The spirit missing is what we famously stick in the first sentence, and is probably best known for: i.e. 'summarizes key features of the page's subject's reasons for popular notability.' Now I'm just waiting for that to happen... O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Iri: The Churchill article also has a succession template at the bottom, repeating much of the same information already in the infobox. The infobox itself was much larger until pruned last summer; I will tackle it again. Kablammo (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Now done, but it is still gargantuan. And those who wish to know who preceded him as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will just have to scroll to the bottom of the page. Kablammo (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@FIM: You say "might as well do without the prose", but automated processes generating prose on the fly with the role of editors reduced to adjusting the input data is exactly what the long-term plan of some of the more hardcore metadata fanatics is. ‑ Iridescent 16:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Unbelievable. What's the redundancy rate like around here? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
On the Fall article - it has that extra annoying feature of the little blobs of color that are supposed to signal ... something... to our readers. Just attempt to remove them though... (no, I'm not a fan of flag icons...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
They make sense in some contexts like sports, where it can handy for the reader to look at Barnet F.C.#Squad and see at a glance "the team is mostly English but includes players from a bunch of other countries". On the historical articles they make no sense at all, especially since most of the flags are no longer in use and I'd wager none of our readers would recognise the flag of Republican Venice. (The Fall article is particularly ridiculous, since Islamic states in this period didn't use flags so they're reduced to using File:Fictitious Ottoman flag 1.svg just to put some kind of blob next to the Ottomans.) ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You should play Europa Universalis... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually bought EU ages ago, but have never got around to actually playing it—every time I look at it, the learning curve looks so incomprehensible I never feel I have a large enough chunk of time to dedicate to learning it, and it's not something you can fiddle around with an pick up as you go along, or start on a basic level and gradually work your way up. ‑ Iridescent 03:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A new entry: [2]. I doubt it will win the title, but it does seem a particularly useless infobox with so little information. Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I deleted it. It had a duo of dubious distinctions: not only was it stupid enough to be an insulting slap on the reader's face, but it was also just butt ugly.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If you feel like going on a deletion spree, about 95% of Monks Risborough could be safely culled. Although, it's possibly the most valiant attempt I've ever seen to mask the fact that there is nothing of any interest to anyone to say about a given subject (unless you really wanted to know that the former dovecote could hold 216 pigeons). ‑ Iridescent 22:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A paltry 3,500 words. A far more valiant attempt -- with literally ten times the wordage -- is here. Drmies took an axe to it shortly after the version linked. It's a tiny area of Long Island, not far from where I work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This one is my personal favorite example of bloat; even after subsequent cleanup it's still about 30 times longer than it ought to be. Despite all the "major artery" boosterism, it's actually an obscure mostly-residential street in a particularly dingy and charmless North London suburb. Mary Hanford Ford with her 652 references, Eric Walter Elst (3900 bytes of text; 340,000 bytes of pointless table), and List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016 (well over 2000 separate citations, over 1000 of which are to Twitter, listing every single person with their own Wikipedia article who at any time expressed either support for Clinton or disapproval of Trump during the 2016 campaign) deserve honorable mentions as well. ‑ Iridescent 08:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Updating biographies from online obituaries

What is your view on updating biographies of notable people about death dates for their family from online obituaries? Sometimes this is clear cut, other times less so. The example I am thinking of here is the wife of the astronaut Anthony W. England. For obvious reasons, most of the news coverage tends to be of the astronauts and former astronuats themselves. Contemporary news sources sometimes cover the family of active astronauts (the Gemini and Apollo era NASA and news coverage of astronauts has quite a bit of that human interest angle), but less so for former astronauts. In this case, his wife Kathleen appears to have died in 2013, as detailed in this online obituary (she was born in 1942, but seems only to be found here). It is clearly the right person, though it doesn't mention that her husband was an astronaut. The marriage date there is 31 August 1962. Searching on the names they were known by (Tony and Kathi) gives a printed source here, which gives the same marriage date. This is also the date on which he retired in 1988. Children's names are there as well. From my recent (and previous) reading through NASA astronaut biographies, coverage of marriages and children tends to be there somewhere, if a bit hard to find in some cases (where it is not explicit in the official biography). Obviously NASA and other reliable sources are fine. I'm not so sure about memorial sites and 'private' obituaries published by funeral parlours and suchlike services. Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(very quick driveby comment) Official sources like NASA are fine, otherwise less so. Because of time zones the death date isn't always clear-cut at the best of times (if an American dies in China, there's a 50% chance the time of death will fall on different dates in the Chinese and US media, and both will be "correct"). Plus, especially if someone dies alone "time of death" is often not clear-cut - in the case of someone like Steve Fossett is the death date when he disappeared, when he was declared legally dead, or when his body was found and life was formally pronounced extinct? (That's an extreme example, but there are numerous cases of people dying at home and only being found a week later when neighbors report a funny smell.) If the date isn't obvious, my inclination would always be to leave it out or smother it in qualifiers. ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I was less concerned about a specific date, than reporting it at all. Anyway, moving on from NASA astronauts, strange factoid of the day: Mary Wilson (wife of Harold Wilson) is still alive and "the only spouse of a British PM to become a centenarian". Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Clarissa Eden will presumably (barring the unforeseen) be able to make the same claim soon. (While I'm on record as believing that Wikipedia's inbuilt bias is often exaggerated, Mary Wilson is a case study in institutional sexism, and could probably do with a WP:TNT complete blanking and rewriting from scratch. To sell 75,000 hardback copies of a book of poetry is astonishing, but in Wikipedia's voice we're saying "best known as the widow of former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson" and "it was generally assumed that she owed her subsequent success as a poet to her position as the Prime Minister's wife". Note that there's nothing comparable on Denis Thatcher, or even Philip May, who's such a nonentity his own business cards probably say "Theresa May's husband", and whose article was only created three days before Theresa May became PM.) ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Not supported by source, BLP blah blah. So I have punted the 'success due to being the prime ministers wife' statement. While I generally dislike 'best known for' wording, many attempts have been made to excise them and failed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh well, lets play idiot roulette. Ball has been spun, where it stops nobody knows... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pound or £, etc

Forgive the question (I remember you from Malleus's talk back when I got busted for unblocking him). I just noticed in my Trollope article Miss Mackenzie that I mention a 2500 pound loan that takes place in the novel. I'm wondering if using "pounds" is right here on WP or if I should use £? Thanks for your time. Sad to see Malleus hasn't edited in a month btw. I hope it's not permanent. lNeverCry 06:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My instinct would be in general to use £2500, $2500, €2500 for the three globally-recognised currencies, but to spell out other currencies and more obscure units (shillings, guineas etc), at least on their first appearance; writing out "pound", "dollar" and "euro" seems redundant since any reasonable reader will know what £, $ or € means, but we can't assume the same of ₽, ₹, zł, ₩, ₧ or even DM, ¥, Fr and the like. There is a pseudo-official guideline at MOS:CURRENCY, but as with most of the MOS don't take anything it has to say very seriously. ‑ Iridescent 16:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I'll switch it over to £2500. As for the MOS, I meant to have a look at it 8 years ago when I started here, but I never got around to it... lNeverCry 00:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Westcott railway station scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Westcott railway station article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 24, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 24, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to be in a position to monitor this one on the day—Redrose64, if you're about can you keep an eye on it? It's such a boring article it probably won't get much attention. ‑ Iridescent 10:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This means that all six stations in the Brill Tramway topic will have been TfA. When the last one (Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station) was TfA on 4 September 2016, it got eleven bad edits that day (plus two that were self-reverted), and one the next day. 24 February 2017 is a Friday; until recently, I always worked Fridays: but a recent rota change means that I didn't work 13 Jan, 27 Jan or 3 Feb, and I'm not due to work 10 Feb either. But I won't know about 17 Feb until about 11 Feb; and won't know about 24 Feb until about 18 Feb. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Wood Siding has yet to run, although I'd be inclined never to run it given that even by Brill Tramway standards it's uninteresting. (As I've said previously, if I had my way all of them except Quainton would be subsumed into a single expanded Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway; Wikipedia's "every station needs a separate article" policy really doesn't make a great deal of sense for these rural branch lines where the history, architecture and significant dates are identical for every station on the line.) ‑ Iridescent 23:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thank you for an "object lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Piers Plowman

Led to article by rabbithole. Lead: "Piers Plowman contains the first known allusion to a literary tradition of Robin Hood tales." Article: No reference to Robin Hood... Giant Robin Hood template at the bottom...

Is it just me or is this odd? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember PP being thought of as Robin Hood related, but it is a bit beyond my normal time frame. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Very quick driveby - they mean that PP contains the earliest surviving reference to Robin Hood ("Ich can nouht parfytliche my pater-noster as þe prest hit seggeþ. Ich can rymes of robyn hode and of Randolf, erl of chestre" - i.e., the priest is more familiar with English folk heroes than he is with the Gospels). The significance is that it proves that the Robin Hood legend had already entered popular culture by the late Middle Ages (as Langland feels safe in assuming his readers will get the reference), and isn't an invention of Restoration playwrights or Victorian romantics. – iridescent 2 17:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspected somesuch, but not being familiar with the work was hoping a TPS here would. I'm guessing that should *probably* be mentioned somewhere in the article proper. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: A chunk of Tony Pollard's Imagining Robin Hood: The Late Medieval Stories in Historical context is on Gbooks (plus usual crap restrictions), an excellent treatment though. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Surprisingly, Wikipedia's own [[Robin Hood]] is in remarkably good shape when it comes to documenting how an apocryphal medieval bandit transformed over the centuries into the Prince of Thieves. I'd have expected it to be a magnet for every crank and crackpot ranging from the organic lentil contingent earnestly explaining that he demonstrates that the redistribution of wealth has always been considered a social positive, hardline kippers rambling about him embodying the stout English yeoman battling the Norman yoke, and the in-popular-culture brigade insisting that Mickey Mouse Meets Robin Hood gets its own section, but there doesn't seem to be much of that going on. (If anything, there's not enough "in popular culture"—I'd expect to see considerably more about Sir Walter Scott, who created the whole "Robin of Locksley, who returned from the Crusades the world's greatest archer and led his band of merry men in fighting injustice" mythos single-handed.) – iridescent 2 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
On the matter of social cranks  ;) there was a Private Eye cartoon 20 some years ago, which had RH demanding of the peasants:
RH: 'Will you join me in overthrowing the cruel King John?'
Peasants: No, we'll string you up, you bleeding proto-socialist. Here's to another five hundred years of despotism!'
Or something like that anyway. Classic. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
(another quick driveby) That giant navbox certainly shouldn't be there. Just because PP mentions RH in passing doesn't mean people reading this article are looking for further links about the Robin Hood legend - it's no more appropriate than the {{motorcycles}} template would be on Terminator 2: Judgment Day. – iridescent 2 09:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I stuck the {{English Literature}} one on it instead; but would have preferred something a bit more relevant ('Middle English' say). O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Shaun Lawton

& All your tpws; I'm in the process of stubbing it, but arguably it's a work of art- 'Berlin was broke. Foreign labourers, including Irish and Geordies were not getting paid, they broke into shops, stole baseball bats and went after their money. Architects were getting shot in their homes'- could be a Mark E. Smith stream of consciousness :) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 13:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't ignore: He also made several attempts at running the notorious Lyke Wake Walk - 41 miles across the hostile terrain of the North York Moors, finally getting his time down to an acceptable 8 1/2 hours. The long miles running across treeless moor and its sometimes hallucinatory effect helped stimulate his fantasy. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D5FA:9AFC:6E2B:8DD (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant! (White)said the bloke in the paint shop Mmmm, Joe Orton should really be a FA, I would've thought. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Joe Orton would be an absolute bastard to do justice to on Wikipedia. While he's long-dead, many of his colleagues and friends are still with us, so describing his personal life would be a BLP minefield but leaving out his personal life would leave an article with all the impact of a slug falling from a gutter. One runs into the same issue on almost all pop-music biographies—unless it's someone like Lennon or Bowie where there are multiple definitive biographies to cite, pretty much anything that the readers would find interesting is potentially libellous. ‑ Iridescent 16:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
We should link to the original completed version as an autobiography. Better style than (now brutally repressed) ""He found the answers to his adolescent doubts in communication with the trees, the wind, and the Ocean… From the youngest years of his life, Michel de Séréville was impressed by the wild forces of nature." Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I moved the original as I found it to the talk page, for reference, after you made me feel like a visigoth :) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorely tempted to just do an out-of-process WP:A7 on it—or at least to revdel all the contributions of the assorted SPAs—as nowhere in that 5000+ words of stream of conscious dribbling does it actually give any indication as to why readers should be expected to want to know any of this, and this article is the absolute embodiment of "delete it and start over". My personal highlight is There was a Wat nearby where a well-known Monk had recently died. In the patch of jungle that had been cleared for the funeral guest's car park, the film crew built Hamsun's village. They built it so well that even before shooting began a Disney team, looking for a location for a new Dumbo film, bought the set, lock, stock and barrel. although The tour took in Switzerland, Poland, Austria and historical baroque theatres in Germany, including the Markgräflischen Opera House in Bayreuth, Potsdam's Sans Souci, Hannover Herrenhausen as well as the renovated Theatre Royal in Bury St. Edmunds is a close second. For the benefit of TPWs unfamiliar with the geography of Suffolk, Bury St Edmunds is an utterly undistinguished flea-speck of a dormitory town whose slogan may as well be "cheaper than Cambridge and Ipswich but in commuting distance of both", and the Theatre Royal has a capacity of 360 and is currently hosting the theatrical behemoth that is Islands in the Stream: A tribute to Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers ("features Kenny Rogers from Stars in Their Eyes"!).

Interestingly, the most bizarre-sounding claim—to have written the lyrics to the Luxembourg entry in the 1973 Eurovision—actually does appear to check out. (The same tag-team of completely unrelated accounts who gave us this is also beavering away on Desperado Corner, incidentally, although JJMC89 has excised about 90% of the crazy.)

I feel like I ought to keep a subpage somewhere listing ridiculously over-detailed articles written by enthusiasts or article subjects with little or no regard for either notability, referencing or grammar. I'll start the ball rolling with Swansea City Centre, Pinball Quest, Heady Topper and Tara (cat). ‑ Iridescent 16:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat unfair! You won't convince someone who has a David Gentleman print of one of the gates to Bury St Edmunds Abbey on his living room wall! Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Its an Abbey. There are loads of them. I am sure people will not be missing out if they visit one that is not in Bury St Edmunds. About the best thing I can say for it is at least its not Thetford or Ipswich. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank god for Thomas Cromwell eh, or there'd be a darn sight more :) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not very unfair, given that the two gates are (literally) the only parts of the abbey that are still standing. Virtually everywhere in the British Isles has something attractive there—even Port Talbot and Cumbernauld, neither of which would raise an eyebrow if the local councils announced a town-twinning scheme with the Land of Mordor, have Margam Castle and Cumbernauld House respectively. I think it's safe to say that when compared to its neighbours in Cambridge, Suffolk, Norfolk and north Essex, Bury's shithole/nonshithole ratio is somewhat lacking. ‑ Iridescent 18:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Brits, get to work on Desperado Corner. In the meantime: Iridescent, I have a question for you. User:Lall Baxterslad and User:Shaun Lawton are CU-confirmed to be the same. Which one to block? I'll let you pick--I have to go see a man about a horse and read Twelfth Night. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to say "neither", unless Lall Baxterslad comes back to life. What I see here is someone who's written an autobiography under a pseudonym, but once it's been challenged logs in under his own name because he assumes that makes him more credible, rather than an attempt to deceive. Dishing out blocks will just mean someone else whining to the press about how mean Wikipedia were to them; if he's willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules on sourcing and neutrality (a big if), then let him continue provided there's no attempt to deceive. After all, if the sources do exist he's presumably the only person who knows where to find them. (Because we're so used to the Mattisses of the world who are actively trying to be disruptive, we tend to forget that most "sockpuppetry" cases are actually good-faith users who genuinely didn't know they weren't supposed to use multiple accounts.) ‑ Iridescent 19:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I've cropped a lot from Desperado Corner. As long as we're looking at WP:MULTIPLE, let's throw MacWulf (talk · contribs) into the mix. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D5FA:9AFC:6E2B:8DD (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
MacWulf is long, long stale for Checkuser purposes—the logs are deleted after three months—so AGF means we assume it's just a fan rather than the same guy. ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I learned something new. Not that there's any practical application away from the keyboard, but thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D5FA:9AFC:6E2B:8DD (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Iridescent is quite right about that, and about many other things, including that good-faith note. I'm fine with "no block until user X returns". Drmies (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Lall hasn't revived, but Shaun did. If either continues I'll ask that a block be considered. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page

we working on a page can you bring it back up please. :( we were still adding and citing information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangsosababy (talk • contribs)

Assuming you mean Jimmy From Da Block, no I will not. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning we only reprint material which has appeared in reliable sources elsewhere. We're not a directory; for someone to have an article in Wikipedia, every fact in the article needs to be cited to a reliable source that's independent of the subject—that is, you need to prove that respected music publications consider him important. If he's actually an important artist to the new hip hop culture as you claim, you should have no problem demonstrating the coverage in Vibe, The Source, XXL etc that proves it. ‑ Iridescent 10:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Last minute comment

FYI, I started this message before you closed the discussion, and wasn't presented with an edit conflict with your close. Wasn't trying to sneak it in there after the fact :) Sam Walton (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries at all—I think it's safe to say that nothing is going to change the course of that RFC however long it remains open, so one more or less comment either way makes no difference. (I fully expect the close to be challenged, although I hope he doesn't—re-opening it will likely drive him off altogether in disgust since he's unlikely to get a single support. I've no doubt at all that his proposal was made in good faith, he just has a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia, and the WMF more generally, actually is.) ‑ Iridescent 01:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what gives...

Hello, I had a MLA style research summary posted on the "Job Satisfaction" page, some dude kept flagging it for self promotion. Mind you, I am NOT Richard Branson. If I was, I may be on my spaceship cruising to the moon. I get nothing out of paraphrasing his ideas or noting his accomplishments. I have another version of my summary that paraphrases employees of Google, would that help? I am not trying to promote anybody, and if you think that maybe my research goes against yours, that's your opinion. I do not appreciate the antagonist reactions. JamesCorneaterman (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral tertiary source, not a blog; Branson's ramblings about motivating staff might (emphasis on "might") be appropriate at Richard Branson or Virgin Group, but certainly not on more general employment articles. And no, we don't want your research; if a credible academic source has written about Branson (or Google), you can cite that, but if not we don't want it. (Although, there's something pleasingly surreal about the idea that a company which is legendarily unpleasant both for employees and for customers, and whose recent union-busting efforts were described as "the biggest scabbing operation in recent history", is in any place to be offering tips on motivation. If Branson is really that good at motivating, he could try motivating someone to occasionally fix the toilets on his wretched cattle-car trains so they don't stink out every carriage.) ‑ Iridescent 19:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
And you can pack this game in as well; pick one account and stick to it unless you have an actual reason to be using multiple accounts. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"doppelganger" was a honest mistake; see User talk:Corneaterman. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, struck that bit out. The main point—that unless a neutral third party considers Virgin's employees unusually satisfied, we don't want to know about it since Branson isn't a neutral source on how great he is—stands. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Virgin trains are luxury compared to X-Country. At least you have power. I would trade a smelly toilet for being able to charge my phone/3DS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Pendolino toilets are uniquely foul, not like your normal smelly toilet; those big curved doors may make Virgin ahead of the game when it comes to wheelchair accessibility, but when the power to the toilets fails (as is the case around a third of the time) you're faced with the combination of "unflushable toilet", "door which automatically locks itself open" and "curved wall funnelling the airflow from the toilet down the carriage".
Arriva is an odd beast; they cynically tailor the quality of their trains to what they think the locals will put up with, so their Chiltern Railways trains (where they're in competition with other operators along every major route) are wonderfully well-equipped, their London Overground trains are clean and efficient but with no frills, Grand Central and Cross Country (which tend to go on unfashionable routes rather than commuter- and business-intensive lines) are ropey but adequate, while Northern Rail and Arriva Wales trains are just dilapidated buses on rails which give the impression they'd go back to the days of charging extra to sit in a carriage with a roof if they thought they could get away with it.
In terms of general cleanliness, comfort and facilities among British railway franchises, the much-maligned GWR and South West Trains probably actually comes out best if you don't include Eurostar. Virgin—particularly on the West Coast line—does have a lot of little touches which go above-and-beyond in the quest to make things as unpleasant as possible for travellers, such as the LCD seat-reservation system which makes it impossible to know if it's OK to sit somewhere, the power-outlet roulette where you've no way of knowing before you board whether your seat has a power socket or not, and the aforementioned Pendolino toilets. (The Govia lines—Thameslink, Southern and Southeastern—are the undisputed champions when it comes to bad service and filthy trains, with an honourable mention to Greater Anglia.) ‑ Iridescent 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding power, a USB powerpack is probably the single best investment you can make if you're going to be spending any time on British trains—you can pick up a 6700 mAh one from Clas Ohlson for about a tenner which weighs virtually nothing and holds enough power to recharge a phone from empty four or five times over. ‑ Iridescent 11:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice in mk3 toilet: 'Do Not Flush In Station'
Scrawled underneath: 'Except at Ipswich.'
:) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 11:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A few years back, a self-promoting prick performance artist called Dave Askwith actually went to the trouble of having stickers to that effect printed up and stuck them over the official notices on trains (and did the same to hundreds of other official signs). This is the sign in question; if you do a Google search on his name you'll find thousands of others. (Most of them are just tiresome vandalism; some of them are genuinely clever.) If you have money to burn, he published his 'highlights' in a book a few years ago. I'm mildly surprised we don't have an article on him. ‑ Iridescent 11:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting! you were probably right in your original assessment  :) The funny thing is though, is when I saw it it was 2004 x 2008- so either he upgraded his MO a few years later (after getting photoshop perhaps!), or he ripped it off. For the record, I made sure I flushed at every station on the mainline at some point. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 12:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally these, this, this, and these. The only David Askwiths with any coverage are always someone else: don't think they support an article (for better or worse!) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
When has "lack of sources" ever prevented someone adding an article to Wikipedia? (If you do the search on Dave Askwith rather than David you do get a few hits on him, albeit mostly blogs.) FWIW, this is my all-time favourite piece of graffiti (on Charles Hocking House in Bollo Bridge Road, west London); it's impressive enough just as an achievement (it was done with a cherry-picker) and as a painting in its own right, but if you're familiar with the area you know that the occupants of the block on which it's painted are all being evicted and unceremoniously "dispersed", and the mother and child are looking out over the ludicrously overpriced luxury development which is taking its place. ‑ Iridescent 12:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's great. Oddly, whilst there's loads of sources for the Bollo Rd thing, Stik's own article doesn't mention it at all- yet it must be their biggest yet. On a side- but not unrelated- note, we can look forward to the rich and demi-rich having to wipe their own backsides at some point, having priced those who once did that out of London... — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
My comments above about Joe Orton apply equally well to most street art articles—they're virtually impossible to write within Wikipedia policy, since almost every case (probably every case without exception) has done most of their most interesting work illegally meaning WP:BLPCRIME comes into play. (That these people are usually fiercely protective of their real-life identities isn't just a publicity stunt.) One could at least make the case that unless a particular artist has explicitly claimed authorship of a work—which most of the big names rarely do—we cannot attribute it to them in Wikipedia's voice.
Plus, they don't get reviewed in the same sense as other artworks. The Shoreditch-twat tendency, Guardianistas and Radio 6 types would write a fawningly obsequious "work of genius" review if Inkie or Sickboy scrawled a cock and balls on a toilet wall (Banksy in particular has churned out more bland formulaic posh-wallpaper over the years than Tracy Emin, Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol combined, but I challenge you to find a single negative review of anything he's ever done), while those outside the bubble just ignore it completely, so it's difficult-to-impossible to write the "critical reception and legacy" sections which underpin every arts article. I certainly wouldn't want to touch any of their articles with a bargepole, so it's understandable that they're in poor shape.
(There's also the issue that illustrating them is a legal minefield. Does a piece of graffiti, painted under the assumption that it's likely to be painted over by someone else at some point, count as "permanently situated in a public place" or does the painter retain the rights? How do you attribute something that's been created anonymously and quite likely by committee? If it was painted on a building without the owner's consent, does the painter or the landowner own the repro rights? Is a stencilled image a "graphic work" or a "work of artistic craftsmanship"?) ‑ Iridescent 00:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Or, "can anyone actually claim copyright on a work created in violation of law"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
True. And- since the council are likely to come along with whitewash at some point- how bout WP:15MOF? ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 09:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Stik in particular isn't we really want to pick a fight with, as he's got a history of suing people who reproduce his images without permission. (That particular case was more clear-cut, as the image in question was painted on his own building, but the WMF aren't going to want to pick a fight with someone so beloved in the rich-lefty circles in which Jimmy Wales circulates.)

WP:15MOF doesn't really apply to temporary artworks provided they got sufficient coverage when they existed—try to AFD Goddess of Democracy and see how far you get—although in Britain it has a major effect as to whether Wikipedia can host images of it, as FoP only applies to works that are "permanently situated in premises open to the public".

The test case for "can anyone actually claim copyright on a work created in violation of law?" in the US (which is the only jurisdiction Wikipedia cares about) was Rime vs Moschino last year, but while I can find lots of sources for the case beginning I can find nothing for it finishing. (As it was at a NYC court, Newyorkbrad might know what eventually came of it.) Since the implications of either "criminals can claim copyright on images of the crime scene" or "if it's in public view it's fair game" would be dramatic (are paparazzi photos in the public domain if they were taken unlawfully? If I steal an unpublished manuscript do I have the right to publish it?), I suspect there will be considerable pressure behind the scenes for all parties to settle out of court rather than open that particular can of worms. ‑ Iridescent 11:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I've tracked down the case you have in mind, albeit in California federal court, not New York (unless there was a second case). Like so many other cases, it settled. The terms of the settlement aren't given on the docket and I haven't been able to locate them elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

AGM

What is it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A bunch of Theeasytarget socks who've decided my talkpage would be a good place to hold a conversation with themselves. Just ignore them. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
If only there were some free widely available reference work lying around that could answer your question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thx, now I look rather silly... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, that looked snarkier than intended. Should have used a smiley or something, it was supposed to be more banter-y and less smug. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it was Leslie Neilson from Airplane II:
"We're going to have to get them to hospital"
""Hospital? What is it?"
"It's a big building with patients in. But that's not important right now."
Classic! :D — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 19:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly the stuff that makes people think you're a prick.  ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Fuc.... no, that would probably not be very smart. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
So sockpuppets have air-to-ground missiles now? Who knew. Another reason I'm glad not to be an admin. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Script issue

You had a broken script load in your vector.js file, which I fixed. This might cause script behaviour to change for you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and grovelling apologies for my not spotting that in my .css page—I'd skimmed the vector.js page for anything that might be causing the weird sizing, but it never occurred to me that it could be something in my .css (which I'm not sure I even knew existed, let alone have any memory of editing). ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

No problem ‑ Iridescent 20:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Why I "adore" WikiData....

This diff wherein someone changes the religion of Offa of Mercia to "Muslim" is a good example. Think if this was propagated across a bunch of wikipedias? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion from a month or two ago looked like it might lead to another RfC on when Wikidata should be filtered out of en-wiki, but it's been dormant for a while now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That was probably a good-faith edit. The notion that Offa was a Muslim convert, based on the coin in the BM, is a genuine theory, albeit one which circulates only among the hyper-fringe, so the editor probably thought they were being helpful. The IP geolocates to Cairo, and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Offa's coinage is one of the standard examples in textbooks in the Islamic world to demonstrate how far Islamic influence had penetrated into Christian Europe in the Middle Ages, in the same way the Nestorian cross or L'Anse aux Meadows are wheeled out in the west as an example of cultural spread.
It's more an indication of how risky relying on Wikidata to generate Wikipedia fields is—on Wikipedia Offa of Mercia has a respectable number of watchers and a high number of readers, and something like that would be reverted in seconds—on Wikidata, things can languish for years. (To dig out my go-to example, this edit—to the English/Description field, the highest-profile field on WD as it's what generates the summaries for the mobile app and the internal drop-down menus, and on a fairly high-profile article—was in place for well over a year.) ‑ Iridescent 20:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's hope that Wikidata does nuance, at least. Lake Tauca, Lake Manly and Lake Manix all have infoboxes with some detailed information on the outflows to account for limited information and contentious theories, it'd be a shame if they were boiled down to "Pilcomayo River", "Colorado River" and "Bristol Lake". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Karen Wetterhahn
Born(1948-10-16)October 16, 1948
Plattsburgh, New York, U.S.
DiedJune 8, 1997(1997-06-08) (aged 48)
Lyme, New Hampshire, U.S.
FieldsChemistry
InstitutionsDartmouth College
Known forWork on toxic metal exposure, dying of toxic metal exposure
On the subject of infoboxes, I have a new nomination for "my favorite unintentionally funny infobox". ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Until the WP:NFCC#9 Compliance Police gets you, that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
meh, let's save the bot an edit. ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The Noid
First appearance1986
Last appearance1995
Created byMathew Thronton
Voiced byPons Maar
Information
GenderMale
OccupationRuining pizza

Just gonna put this here. ‑ Iridescent 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Cappadocia Vocational College

remove a big chunk of waffle I have never heard waffle used like that but i'm cracking up...thanks for the laugh. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Inevitably, we have an article on it. ‑ Iridescent 15:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I discovered waffle isn't just a tasty breakfast item shortly afterward. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Waffles are a breakfast food? Clearly they are a dessert! #wafflegate Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Chrissymad If you think "waffle" is bad, consider a conversation I had many decades ago with somebody over from the US lodging with us, when I complained the laundry basket "stinked like a tramp's y-fronts", and she tried to work out what "y-fronts" meant in the context of what Americans call a "tramp". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Herein I attempt to explain to the Ent 'Bog-standard'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I mean that could technically apply as well by the american meanings of those words, it's just doubly gross. :P CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

XfD closure

You appear to have misunderstood the point: as stated, many are irritated with me for my application of A7. But here I am, still practically preaching to the community. Many have said I had no business writing it in the first place. It's to the point I began to see my page as potentially problematic. So this was as much a "Should this page exist?" issue as it was anything else. Or at least that's how I saw it. With frequent accusations of me making things up, I feared that my essay could be seen as exactly that. Adam9007 (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I've misunderstood nothing; when you start an XFD nomination with I do not actually want this deleted you're making an explicit statement that you're intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and when you conclude it with I would like the community's opinion on whether this is worth keeping, you're making an explicit statement that what you're actually doing is deliberately trying to hold a policy discussion in an inappropriate venue. (If you did think there was the slightest possibility that that could ever have closed as anything other than "keep", then you have such a misunderstanding of how MFD operates that I strongly suggest you stay away from it altogether; Wikipedia practice has always been that as long as it's Wikipedia-related and not grossly divisive or offensive or an attack on individuals, people can keep pretty much whatever they like in their own userspace, and that's a practice which is never going to change.)
Clearing the deletion queues is a tedious and thankless task at the best of times, without people intentionally trying to use XFD as a pulpit for their opinions on why it's Just Not Fair that the community don't appear interested in implementing their proposal, or as a mechanism for an attempted end run around the usual decision-making processes. If you want Wikipedia policy or practice to change to match your views, I'm sure you can manage to find WP:Village pump (policy).
Don't take this as a threat—I won't be the one to pull any trigger (although I reserve the right to participate in the probably-inevitable arbitration case regarding you)—but just as a warning; just in case this ANI thread and the literally dozens of WP:CIR warnings on your talkpage regarding your approach to deletion (most recently by a current arb) haven't served as a wake-up call, you're sailing extremely close to the wind. Despite its reputation, Wikipedia does in general do its best to be a welcoming environment and to recognize that different people have different views; however, there are limits, and your dogged insistence that your personal and highly idiosyncratic misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy must invariably take precedence over the opinion of virtually every other editor on the project are well beyond the point at which most editors would have been at the very least topic-banned from deletion related activities, and potentially blocked or banned. As should be obvious from the ANI thread, that you haven't been blocked or topic-banned up to now is owing to the community being willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that you'll stop being disruptive, not that there's the slightest realistic chance that consensus will ever change to match your views.
While I've long been an advocate of the principle that people with extremist views should be allowed to edit Wikipedia provided they don't let it affect their neutrality when it comes to article writing (and have annoyed quite a few of Wikipedia's great and good in so arguing), that does not mean I have the slightest inclination to want to engage in conversation with people who define their own public identity in terms of wanting to "involuntarily repatriate" me, and someone with a home-made "This user is a British Nationalist" userbox is not welcome on my talkpage. Any further posts from you on this page will be reverted on sight (and I give explicit consent to TPWs to revert any further comments from you of any nature, including formal notifications). ‑ Iridescent 08:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
With old crones sitting at the bottom of the steps with their knitting... ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Somewhat appropriately, the lion on his BNP userbox isn't actually some monumental sculpture embodying the Glorious British Race Who Are The Winners In The Lottery Of Life, but one of the ornamental stone lions from a derelict brewery in Lambeth. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
If he's recently lost his meat-and-two-veg, it might explain why the lion has such a pained expression on his face. ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to gently wade into this dispute (since I seem to be on a roll in upsetting people today) and suggest Adam XfDed it because he was simply worried if he didn't somebody else would do anyway. So in that respect, it's kind of similar to somebody tagging an article as A7, me disagreeing and reverting, them reverting the A7 back on, and me taking it to AfD with a summary of "edit war over speedy, I'm neutral, duke it out here folks". I think he's simply read what you, me and SoWhy (amongst others) have written about people being a bit too itchy on the A7 trigger finger at times (though more often than not I can look at 15 speedies at CAT:CSD and conclude "yup, all crap" and delete the lot of them), and is trying to apply that in a sort of cargo cult encyclopedia writing, if you see what I mean. Similarly, I think his "British Nationalist" userbox is simply him being naive about its meaning, and not an assertion that he thinks John Tyndall was the greatest human being to ever walk the earth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(A fairly brief reply, since it's extremely poor form to talk about someone in a forum where they can't answer back.)
AGF has limits and the only point at issue is which side of the line Adam9007 is on, not on whether he's near the limit; we're not talking a good-faith editor who's made a couple of mistakes, we're talking someone who has been systematically and deliberately disrupting Wikipedia's deletion processes for almost two years in pursuit of his process-is-more-important-than-quality crusade (as best I can tell, his first warning regarding his misinterpretation of A7 was in September 2015).
Where A9007 differs from you, me or SoWhy is that the latter three can grasp the notion of "I might be wrong about this", or even "I don't think I am wrong about this but I can see everyone else disagrees with me so I'll let it lie". The "procedural nomination to gauge consensus" routine is certainly a thing—on that AFD-analysis tool they use at RFA I look like some kind of clod-hopping troll, as "declined prod/speedy, bringing it here to get a broader consensus" counts as a delete vote for their purposes. However in this case we're talking about (a) someone who thinks that the non-existent "rules" trump consensus and whose reply to "there's an overwhelming consensus against you" is usually to trot out the "if fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" line, and more importantly (b) has never shown the slightest interest in the concept of procedural nominations up to now. Indeed, one of the main reasons his participation in deletion is actively disruptive rather than just a mild nuisance is that he never creates procedural nominations (understandably, since he's explicitly said on previous occasions that he believes his own interpretation of "the rules" automatically trumps consensus); he just removes deletion tags and dumps the articles back into mainspace ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] are all from the last two days).
Regarding the userbox, I find it hard to imagine that anyone in Britain over the age of twelve could possibly not know what "British Nationalist" means, given the assiduousness with which the extreme right seeks publicity and the nudge-wink willingness of the right-wing press to give it to them, and simply him being naive about its meaning is stretching AGF to its extreme given that the "About me" section of his userpage looks like the decor of a Tilbury pub. That said, given that way back in the mists of time I defended the "I genuinely didn't know what it meant" line regarding "white pride", I suppose equity insists it's only fair to extend the same good faith here. ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, I decline speedies all the time with a summary of "decline, try PROD / AfD" on the simple grounds that I want to actually follow WP:BEFORE than sticking up procedural AfDs, and assume the tagger has already researched the article and is hence a better place to file an AfD. I think the subtle but important difference between me and Adam though is that I'll then turn up to the AfD later on and !vote delete, or tell people that going to AfD on a declined speedy is perfectly fine. I have given him some fairly straight talking and suggests he bones up on his history a bit, which shouldn't be that hard given that it's what we're kind of here to do; if he actually reads Tyndall's article from top to bottom, he might learn something. (FWIW I seem to recall when I first started playing in bands around 15, one of the potential names was "Final Solution" which sounded like some sort of cool sci fi thing until somebody pointed out what it really meant to most people). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it takes established fame and / or arrogance to pull that kind of reference off in popular music, certainly. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes you can get away with that—one of the best indie record shops in London was called Vinyl Solution, while Joy Division/New Order, Bowie and some late 70s/early 80s punks built whole careers out of flirting with offensiveness. (What's so annoying is that it wasn't even a wicked book—it was just silly-shocking, and sensible people ought to have seen that.) ‑ Iridescent 16:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm possibly being a little more hair-trigger than is entirely fair—recent experiences with Mishae have comprehensively drained my AGF tank when it comes to people playing the "Asperger syndrome gives me a licence to be disruptive" and "I didn't know [racist comment] was racist" cards.
Since he appears to be letting it go—looking at his recent history there's only been two unambiguously incompetent tag removals ([11],[12]) since this thread started (while the third of his most recent tag removals, Valerie Sununu, will undoubtedly be deleted at AFD it's just-about defensible that A7 doesn't apply there on a very strict interpretation of "significance")—I suggest now is a good time to draw a line under the whole thing unless and until he goes back to shit-stirring at CSD or attacking people who disagree with him. ‑ Iridescent 16:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually I don't think Valerie Sununu is an A7, but unlike Adam I would have silently redirected without further comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice to meet you at WP Medicine

I respect your comments there. Please take the time to look at Pascal and Carr, the two last Wikilinks in my reply to you. Otherwise, please note, I understand the futility of the argument at that Project page, as the person leading that project is a chief participant in self-publication of medical imagery, and any proscriptive decision we make means he needs to change practice. As well, despite being a Doc, he does not always manage to remain focused enough to argue the philosophical/conceptual point being discussed (i.e., does not remain focused on the issue, see the diversion to the oral hygiene image example). And as I and most others deeply respect him, it is well nigh impossible to develop a consensus there without him. In this case, as he chose not to recuse himself, and but instead was first to respond to the proposals, his voice will ultimately carry the day at WikiProject Medicine. The process of "yeah, what Doc says" has already begun.

Even so, things will change, by hook or by crook, and sooner rather than later. When the watching media and public, collaborating journals, etc., understand that we allow first-time, unrefereed publication of medical information (descriptive, diagnostic and other images), and do so without uniform assurance of information accuracy, or assurnace that the submitter obtained patient consent—we are in for a world of trouble and bad publicity. And while being aware that persuasion in that Project venue is near impossible—hopeful insights and comments arose a few times, but in the face of the Doc's pronouncements did not persist—it was nevertheless a critical context for the discussion, before it proceeds elsewhere. Had to try there, first, out of respect for Doc, and the way the org and WP process works. Cheers, don't forget Pascal and Carr. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

WT:MED#Is a picture worth a thousand words, or not, for the benefit of talkpage watchers.
Assuming you mean Doc James, be aware that he's a recent former trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation, which as the owner of Wikipedia is the ultimate arbiter of Wikipedia policy, while WhatamIdoing works in Community Liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, and I'm a former member of the Arbitration Committee (the de facto final court of appeal of Wikipedia). While Doc James in particular can be somewhat abrasive at times, bear in mind that although everyone in that thread is expressing personal not official views, we all do know what we're talking about when it comes to Wikipedia policy. Because Wikipedia's writers on any given topic include contributors with a very wide range of expertise, from genuine experts to complete amateurs with an interest in the topic—and because our articles are aimed primarily at readers with little or no knowledge of the topic*—the standards required for Wikipedia articles are very different to those of formal academic publication. Practices which would horrify academic publishers are often welcomed here; likewise, academic publishers engage in practices which would immediately get an editor blocked for disruption on Wikipedia. Complaining that Wikipedia works to different rules than Elsevier is like complaining that your car's repair manual is no use when your horse gets sick even though both your car and your horse have the same primary function.
With regards to images, the sole purpose of images on Wikipedia is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter—and that is formal Wikipedia policy—so every other consideration other than legal and ethical issues regarding copyrights and inappropriately intrusive images of recognisable people is irrelevant when it comes to the use of images on Wikipedia.
I do stand by what I said in that discussion about your posts there. People edit Wikipedia in their spare time, and are going to get annoyed if they feel it's being wasted—regardless of the validity of any given comments, things like this are just going to turn people against you, while regardless of whether you're signing your logged-out posts, constantly flicking between editing logged-in and logged-out is going to annoy everyone concerned while serving no useful purpose, as it makes it virtually impossible to follow your contributions to see who is saying what and where. ‑ Iridescent 21:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
*"Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so.", if you want the exact quote.

Did I miss something?

I am very puzzled by the exchange here. While the world will hardly come to an end if I don't figure it out, it looks to me like you missed something and given the comment about reading comprehension I'd like to figure out if mine is not working properly. You said "OR is claiming is that false claims of harassment are rare". Presumably OR is Opabinia regalis, but OR said "it would be nice to be in a world where few people are genuinely harassed (and where any individual person's risk is therefore low as long as they stay out of trouble), but that's not really the case." (Emphasis added.) I read OR as saying that the number of people who are genuinely harassed is not few, which I think supports your point. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Short answer - yes you are. Long answer:
I said "Many people claim harrassment, very few actually are.",
OR replied "It is widely believed for some reason that false claims of harassment are frequent. That is not consistent with the evidence that I'm aware of, either specific to Wikipedia or about online harassment in general.",
Iridescent replied: "No, not really; "many claims of harassment are genuine" doesn't equate to "few claims of harassment are false"."
The point he (I assume) and I were making was not that there are not (lots) of genuine claims of harrassment, but that many of the total number of claims of harrassment are bogus. The part you quote "it would be nice to be in a world where few people are genuinely harassed (and where any individual person's risk is therefore low as long as they stay out of trouble), but that's not really the case." was supplementary to the point - that many people claim they are harrassed, very few (of them) are actually being harrassed.
My underlying point was that I am unhappy with allowing a non-transparant process based on a small usergroup - in whose own interest it would be to reduce scrutiny - to allow them to effectively circumvent the community process in place to vanish and retain advanced tools. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My comment is in reply to "It is widely believed for some reason that false claims of harassment are frequent. That is not consistent with the evidence that I'm aware of, either specific to Wikipedia or about online harassment in general.", which is complete hooey. OR is speaking from the perspective of Arbcom, and most of the harassment claims she sees will at least have some legitimacy to them, even if they're ultimately dismissed, given the number of procedural hoops that have to be jumped through for a complaint to reach that level. However, in the broader picture of Wikipedia as a whole false claims of harassment on Wikipedia are extremely common—a standard tactic when losing a debate is to go to ANI and claim "harassment" in the hope that the original issue will be lost in the ensuing argument. Because of OR's position as a current arb, readers will reasonable assume that she's privy to privileged or not-widely-known information regarding Wikipedia's administration, and that what she's actually saying is that all claims of harassment should be treated as genuine, which is clearly not the message she's intending to convey. ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I thought the disagreement was about whether genuine claims are rare. Apparently, the debate is whether false claims are common. I agree with Iridescent that they are common, but in the context of this discussion, which involves people who have gone through the clean start process due to harassment, my guess is that few of those claims are bogus. So I see the simple question "are there a lot of false claims of harassment" very dependent on the universe. Amongst all editors and all forums? Lots. Amongst admins seeking a clean start? Probably rare. However, I think that the comments of OR were applied to a broader group, so I agree with Iridescent and disagree with OR.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The point I intended to make is that people who make a serious harassment complaint - in this context, complaining to arbcom about it - rarely turn out to be bullshitting. The point I actually made, as it turns out, is that it's really easy to get stuck in the arbcom bubble ;) Most people's experience of "harassment accusations on Wikipedia" is dominated by specious or manipulative complaints, often about others' perfectly legitimate actions, and by mutual shitflinging fests. OK, arbcom does get the occasional bullshitter ("The CUs are harassing me by finding my sockpuppets!"), and we do get cases where a person is genuinely upset but the conduct they're upset about isn't really "harassment". But we don't get too much ANI-style stuff. So yes, as you say it depends on the "universe" of complaints you're comparing to. The purpose of my post was to emphasize that people at the point of considering vanishing because of harassment are not likely to be making unsubstantiated complaints or just trying to evade the consequences of their own poor behavior, and rejecting that clean-start proposal on the grounds that harassment complaints are often nonsense is judging from the wrong baseline. So I think we all mostly agree on the facts, but are describing them differently. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that one issue here is that the word "harassment" means different things to different people, and in different contexts. If I opine that "Jones has been harassing Smith," it may mean one thing if I say it in a casual conversation; another thing if I write it in an arbitration decision; and still another, much more serious, thing if I write it in a letter on my legal stationery. If User:X claims that User:Y has been "harassing" him, and on investigation it turns out that User:X has followed User:Y's edits for the last two days and reverted them all without a good reason, in one sense Y's claim of "harassment" is absolutely true, but in another sense it is false, or at least exaggerated. If a Wikipedia editor disagrees with something I write in an article, and calls me (once) on the phone and yells me about it, that editor would likely wind up blocked for "off-wiki harassment"; but if I call the District Attorney and try to file a "harassment" complaint, I'm not going to get very far. So we need to be careful of our terminology, perhaps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this is similar to, although not exactly identical to my comment about the relevant universe. I field a lot of emails in OTRS and watch someone alleges harassment by some editor. In most cases, what they label as harassment is the reversion of an edit or a civil disagreement about some editorial point. I don't want to suggest for a second that genuine harassment claims do not exist, but the term is used casually and incorrectly often.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Well quite, my original comment stated "Likewise the definition of 'harrassment' varies from person to person." straight before the above exchange. And I was already factoring in wikipedia's wider usage of the word - If (as one of the more common forms of genuine wiki-harrassment) wiki-stalking occurs, thats one thing. If an editor notices another editor is making a load of the same mistakes, goes through their editing history and reverts across a wide range of articles - thats not harrassment (or wiki-stalking). The problem is that wikipedia editors (and admins are not exempt from this) are too easy to see 'OMG X HAS REVERTED ME TWICE THEY ARE STALKING ME!' and scream harrasment. (This is a result of course, of the human mind's innate talent at pattern recognition, and the the similar talent of interpreting it in the worst possible way) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree entirely—"harassment" and "stalking" are both words that have been given Wikipedia-specific meanings, probably because language hasn't yet adapted to an online world and we don't have a one-word term for "intentionally being annoying to try to provoke a reaction from a specific individual", other than "trolling" which means too many different things to different people. (One of the old Wikipedia Review's criticisms of Wikipedia that was entirely fair was WP's co-opting legal terminology to describe social situations.) Someone needs to invent a term for "pursued a course of conduct with the intention to cause annoyance" that doesn't have the "alarm or distress" connotations of "harass" and "stalk". ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I always thought 'hounding' worked quite well in that context. Where the hound is a small yappy dog that barks and barks until you just want to punt the thing into next week.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
"Hounding" has more of a connotation of single-minded pursuit than what we're necessarily talking about here—while there are some cases where editor A devotes all their waking hours to editor B, what's much more common is that editor A periodically looks at the contributions of editor B to see what they're currently doing, and heads over there to needle them every couple of days. The trouble is that the English language is such that the most accurate terms (WP:Persistent irritation, WP:Interaction beyond coincidence, WP:Constant needling etc) all sound like support bands at a Rick Wakeman solo show and don't have the gravitas for what can be a genuinely distressing experience for those on the receiving end. ‑ Iridescent 17:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the wording you are looking for is something like "intentionally annoying behavior"—or more accurately, if less succinctly, "intentionally annoying behavior not serving a valid purpose." (If the word "annoying" seems to trivialize the idea, perhaps "irritating" would do. And yes, I know that this sort of definition, has been held to be unconstitutionally vague in the context of RL criminal laws, but it's perfectly fine for a policy on a wiki.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
But "intentionally annoying" doesn't really cover it, either—when we talk about harassment/stalking, we mean a course of conduct, not a one-off incident. Pretty much anyone can snap and lash out on occasion, and we say no more about it provided they cool down and shake hands; where it becomes an issue is when there's sustained provocation. ‑ Iridescent 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course, but as I start adding more and more of those qualifiers, the wording starts to sound like—well, something that I would write. The actual legal definition of "harassment in the second degree" in New York includes a defendant who "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person ... engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose." (Of course, that introduces yet another complication, which is the "objective or subjective test?" question. But I digress.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The case which clarified the definition of "harassment" in English law includes the ruling that "it might not be in the public interest to allow the law to be set in motion for one boorish incident", which sums my opinion up quite nicely. (WP:Persistent Boorishness has a nice ring to it.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
"Dickishness"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The Thought Police have done for the word "dick" on Wikipedia; only "jerk" is permitted now. (The Swedish version of WP:Don't be a dick jerk translates as "Do not be a shit-boot", a term which deserves to be introduced to the English language.) ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If there's one hole in the argument against 'arsehole' I'd like to see it filled.... ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 20:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The WP:BELLEND link is still available ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Gender specific, that is what did for DICK in the end. It needs to be either non-gender-specific (so Arsehole would suffice) or non-bodypart related (shit-boot would be fine). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Bani Seri Speedy deletion nomination

Hi, I realised that you have rejected my speedy deletion of the article Bani Seri under criteria G-11 after someone removed the promotional contents. However, shouldn't it still be deleted due to deletion criteria A-7? Thanks,Dark-World25 (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, of course not. Out of curiosity, what part of "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" do you think applies here? ‑ Iridescent 07:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to read the non-criterias, my bad. Failure to assert importance but not an A7, A9 or A11 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7, A9 or A11 under those criteria. Should've brought it upon the talk page.Dark-World25 (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In some benign wp:CANVASSING

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, why would you want to hold a discussion like that on a user talk page, especially a user talk page with a near-legendary intolerance of opinions that go against the user in question's personal prejudices? No matter what's decided there it can't possibly be considered consensus; we have a perfectly good policy village pump if you want to try for a major rewriting of policy. (Just looking at your initial post there, you seem to be under a major misapprehension in thinking that WP:PROF et al mean their subjects are held to a higher notability standard than other biographies; the reason we have WP:PROF, WP:NFOOTY et al is to introduce lower notability standards in specific fields because so many of their entries were being deleted for failing to meet the general notability guideline that people were complaining of systemic bias.) ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Figur'd people sorta congregate there, wuz all. So many consider Dr. Wales (honorary)'s opinions pretty creaky, eh? He generally probably likes to guard whatever the status quo might be w/rgd his baby. (er um baby he'd sired, left with its nanny co-founder mostly for years, then came back to claim full right to parent into fuller adolescence, 'at is-?)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do chime in, tho.
Notability within bio (more specificallly
application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!
I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, this is just a complaint about a deletion debate which you didn't agree with. NYPA. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Claudia Mahnke

I enjoy to see Claudia Mahnke on the Main page today, with your lovely wording, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

article stub for Thomas Whitfield Baldwin / I'd like to appeal its speedy removal

Hello, 

 I wonder if you're the administrator who chose to delete via speedy removal a page stub on "Thomas Whitfield Baldwin" around the last week of March, first week of April.  If so, I'd like help requesting that page's restoration or in making an appeal from the decision to remove it.

 I was told it was removed because there was no justification offered for the person's "importance".  T.W. Baldwin was a Oxford scholar.  Here's a link to a related page at

Oxford Reference:

 http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095442688


Thomas Whitfield Baldwin

(1890—1984)


Quick Reference


(1890–1984),

American scholar of copious and exhaustive learning. His Organization and Personnel of the Shakespearian Company (1927), William Shakespeare's Five-Act Structure (1947), and Smalle Latine and Lesse Greeke (2 vols. ...

Thanks for your help.

Proximity1 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

(talk page watcher) @Proximity1: Hello! Yes he is undoubtedly a noted academic- but, unfortunately, not necessarily a notable one. Wikipedia has its own particular guidelines on notability (see, for this subject, WP:NPROF for the minimum requirements to be met). This suggests that the requirements are not met. Cheers — O Fortuna velut luna... 08:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Proximity1, that article in full read Thomas Whitfield Baldwin author, scholar, professor birth 1890 death 1984. It was given a full 24 hours after it was created, to see if you were going to add anything to it; when it wasn't, it was deleted. Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything—the usual estimate is that there have been approximately two million university professors—and if you want Wikipedia to include an article on any given topic, the burden is on the person wanting the article included to demonstrate that the subject is considered notable by independent sources. (For people, the best indication is usually a published biography by a reputable author, or at the very least a chapter in a book.) For academics, the standards for inclusion are a little lower, as we recognise that some academics are significant to their fields but don't necessarily have a high profile; the alternative standards for academics have already been given by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi above, but you still needs both to prove that the subject meets these standards, and (non-negotiably) cite every fact in the article to an independent reliable source. ‑ Iridescent 03:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Selina Rushbrook

Hello! Your submission of Selina Rushbrook at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. As far as I'm concerned the purpose of DYK is to showcase the range of topics covered by Wikipedia (for which this article is exemplary, given that she's currently the only actual biography in her category, although when I get around to it I intend to add a few more), not to play "who can get the most pageviews" or to act as ammunition for one side or another in whatever fuckwitted game TRM and Cwmhiraeth are playing in any given week. If you don't mind a lesson in wiki-history, the first five DYKs were Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"?", ...that in 1971, Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad was indicted on charges of conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger?, ...that jumping plant lice and aphids are considered to be the "primitive" group within the Hemiptera order of true bugs?, ...that the Tokyo Monorail, which travels at speeds of up to 80 kph, was constructed to coincide with the 1964 Summer Olympics?, ...that the Balkan comic opera Ero the Joker was first performed on November 2, 1935?; this idea that DYKs are supposed to excite the reader was certainly not the intention of those who set it up. If you want to pull it, I really have no strong opinion. ‑ Iridescent 03:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like that discussion is already settled by the time I got round to seeing it, but I entirely agree that it should remain at "film series". An overarching article about the topic may be a noble aim, but would either be horribly unwieldy and bloated, or so condensed that the paragraphs about individual TV shows, videogames etc would be meaningless. ‑ Iridescent 03:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

New favourite phrase

I have a new favourite clunky phrase, as found on Wikipedia: "actuated attack". See Westminster attack (details of the arguments over disambiguation vs redirect can be found here). Also, given your comments on the Daily Mail matters, did you see their comment on Wikipedia's accuracy in relation to that article? It is in the 'This article has been mentioned by a media organization' box at the top of the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Flash butt welding? ...'what do you do then?' > 'Hey, babe, I'm a flash butt welder' :D — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Every so often I consider writing Donkey boiler just to see how many hits it would get on the main page. ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I take it you've forgotten the great Aeroplane Airplane Aeroplane Airplane Fixed-wing powered aircraft editwar? And did someone say "Tree shaping"? ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
...The 3RR-Busters?! The First at ANEW...?! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 17:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The most lunatic rename-war of all time was the one documented here, which makes Tree shaping look like a gentlemanly chat settled by a handshake—that thread should be required reading for all the people who claim the early days of Wikipedia were some kind of Golden Age. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
How many blocks and ban evasion sockpuppets did it engender? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want another glimpse of the halcyon ease of life in the Golden Age of Wikipedia, I give you this. ‑ Iridescent 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Sheds a tear at the historical impertinence of all of this. Kind of ironic that the very people who worship historical information refused to allow Wikipedia this small piece of its own history.... Risker (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm amazed that I seemingly managed to miss all the kerfuffle around the weather in London... I vaguely remember at some point being aware that people used examples for unlikely redlinks that turned out not to be that unlikely (i.e. later became articles), but somehow I must have missed out on all those discussions. Apparently there were edit wars over Talk:The weather in London as well... (where a lot of the discussion history is documented). I see Wikipedia:Red link now uses like this one as its canonical example. I wonder how often the example used for plausible red links has had to be updated? The current one there is driving in Madagascar. Ah, here we go: 1 September 2015 it was changed from driving in Bangladesh (created as a redirect on 17 June 2015‎ to Transport in Bangladesh, which had existed since 25 February 2002) to driving in Madagascar. Of course Transport in Madagascar has existed since 25 February 2002 as well (looks like an import of transport stats from somewhere seeded a lot of those articles). Clearly Driving in Bangladesh needs to be edit warred over as to whether it too should exist... The one before that was driving in India, replaced on 25 April 2015, and this had previously been driving in Germany which was replaced on 12 October 2014. Sadly, that appears to be the end of that little historical segue, as the country 'driving' articles as plausible links section was created on 23 December 2010 by Sbharris, who will doubtless be delighted to learn of the 6.5-year history from Germany to India to Bangladesh to Madagascar. Carcharoth (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that's almost like watching a time-lapse of a tree growing. Most anti-red linkers have very evanescent arguments against the things: "Somebody put that in there two years ago, and IT'S STILL THERE, glaring away balefully like the eyes of a florida gater at night in the sawgrass. I'm going to be sick. Probably it will still be there when the pyramids collapse. It cannot be aesthetically tolerated that long. I'll DIE without seeing it go away, oh my god. I can't STAND IT.

But viewed across geological or deep time, you see that these things do go away, turn color, are hunted down, and gradually disappear. Makes you feel small, no? SBHarris 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The logs for Red link—which in an interesting bit of synchronicity I appear to have been the last person to edit—make interesting reading as well. There was some serious throwing of toys from prams by a lot of people who should have known better when the hilarious joke of "Red link" being a red link was spoiled. ‑ Iridescent 03:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Well per COMMONNAME it *is* Petrol ;) *gets coat* Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
"Petrol" actually trails quite badly in terms of usage. Even in British English, its lead over "gasoline" is surprisingly small (although I suspect a lot of the things being flagged as "British" are actually UK reprints of US works—people in Britain are about as likely to actually use the word "gasoline" as they are to say "rutabaga" or "person of color"). ‑ Iridescent 12:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Quiet you with your facts! Although its a failing of commonname that it refers to published sources rather than common usage - the former preferring technical wording, the latter whatever is easiest to say/remember. Its generally why I avoid getting drawn into a google search/ngrams discussion, as the books ngram will show what is most common in published books. Rather than current usage. I did have someone at work describe someone as a coloured person the other day, and had to explain why I was laughing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Noel Park scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Noel Park article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 10 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh goody. That one's almost a decade out of date, but I don't care enough about the topic to fix it up (I doubt it's changed much). I'll give it a skim-over when I get the chance, but it likely won't be for a few days.  ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Redrose64, DavidCane, Noel Park is a railway town, albeit an atypical one in that urban sprawl subsequently swamped it; can you give it a quick skim over to make sure there aren't any glaring howlers in the bits dealing with the assorted railway lines don't contain any howlers too glaring. ‑ Iridescent 19:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll have a look when I've got a moment. I always felt rather sorry for Ernest Noel's third wife - married to a 78 year old when she was 31, she probably expected a relatively short marriage - but he lasted another 22 years. You seem to have been quite popular/ill-favoured (select your adjective) at TFA recently.--DavidCane (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a part of London that I'm not familiar with: Alexandra Palace is about the closest that I've got. Maybe Thryduulf (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@DavidCane, it's because after scheduling three I'd written in very quick succession at the end of 2015/beginning of 2016, including Charles Domery and Youth and Pleasure (IIRC the highest-traffic TFAs of 2015 and 2016 respectively; Domery in particular attracted an army of assorted cranks and POV-pushers), I expressed strongly worded opinions regarding what the TFA schedulers could do with themselves, and they agreed to leave me alone for a while. Now we have a fresh batch of schedulers, but in the meantime I've had a backlog being build up so I'm now being over-represented.
@Redrose64, I'm not losing much sleep over it—Im reasonably confident that the timelines are accurate, and extremely confident that nobody will care—but there's the potential for error here as there were so many different railway companies running through the area that I may have mixed them up, and because it's a geography/architecture article rather than a railway article, the crowd of trainspotter types who normally check these things won't necessarily have looked at it. ‑ Iridescent 18:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Starting this year we're rotating the months among three TFA schedulers, and that's going to make it easy for us to mistakenly schedule two articles by the same nominator close to each other. I wasn't aware there had been a problem in the past, but I'll try to avoid scheduling one of your articles for a while, and will let the others know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
There shouldn't be many problems with mine from now on, as most of the ones I've written that have yet to run* are part of the relatively uncontroversial William Etty series (although that raises its own problems if you schedule them too close together). The two that are likely to set off firestorms if-and-when they run are Tarrare and (especially) Pig-faced women; the former because it's likely to go viral and attract a lot of vandals, and the latter because despite actually being a fairly inoffensive folklore article that's no more inherently sexist than Werewolf or Mermaid, too many people are only going to read the title and demand Wikipedia BAN THIS EVIL FILTH. I assume that The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate will rack up a huge number of viewers thanks to the title, but it's not particularly interesting to anyone not already interested in the topic so probably won't be too badly hit.
London Necropolis Company has potential BLP issues with regards to the former owners of the company. The article as it stands is fine, but people will likely try to add in good faith the colourful histories of the people involved (for obvious reasons I won't go into detail but Google Erkin Guney, Diane Holliday and Ramadan Guney and make up your own minds) and leave themselves open to legal action in so doing—I read this comment from the head of WMF Legal as being the WMF washing their hands of responsibility for defending anyone who gets in trouble for any additions to it. While the problems have lessened considerably as it's now been taken into public ownership, given that it's an article of minimal interest to anyone I'd be inclined to say there's no point ever running it, since doing so would be of minimum benefit and cause potential problems and it's hardly as if Wikipedia is about to run out of articles. ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
*At the time of writing, After the Deluge, Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret, Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as She Goes to Bed, The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished, The Dawn of Love, The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate, London Necropolis Company, Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed', Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, Pig-faced women, The Sirens and Ulysses, Tarrare, The Triumph of Cleopatra, William Etty, Wood Siding railway station, and The World Before the Flood.

Back to the park: nice to see it today, thank you for efforts, including "Believe me, I looked (to the extent of walking the streets looking for Blue Plaques); despite a hundred years of history, I really can't find anyone notable who's ever lived there, other than Charles Christopher Watts"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm mildly surprised that the usual nitpickers who descend on every TFA didn't manage to find fault with it, given that I haven't been watching it for a decade and I very much doubt anybody else is. As some guy called "Malleus" said on its talkpage many years ago, in my opinion that kind of article is what Wikipedia does best; if Wikipedia were to disappear tomorrow the readers would have no trouble finding an alternative source of information on Amsterdam, Chicago or even such places as Thimphu, but when it comes to these small towns there may be fewer readers, but Wikipedia genuinely is the best source there is for anyone not in a position to wade through a stack of old books digging out the pertinent information from among the "local interest" trivia. (I do cringe when I look at those photos, though. As is fairly obvious from looking at them, when I went out there to take them the weather was a foul mix of snow and pollution, and consequently in every photo the streets look deserted and the general atmosphere looks extremely grim and unwelcoming. They really don't do justice to what's actually quite an attractive area, especially when one compares it to its legendarily ugly next-door neighbour). – iridescent 2 03:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a view I didn't think about, but agree. It would be easy to find things about Handel's Messiah but has proven (too) hard to find background for Why seek ye the living?, - even the little is more than you seem to find anywhere else. - The weather is great, - you could take more photos! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Noel Park is far enough away from me that it would take a special journey, and while it's not particularly remote - about 20 minutes from central London by train - it's an uninteresting enough area that I don't feel particularly inclined to waste a day trekking up there just to get some marginally better photos. Realistically, 99% of the people reading this under normal circumstances will be people who live or work there and are already well aware of what it looks like. This article was part of a now-abandoned project of mine to get River Moselle (no, not that Moselle, the other Moselle) into a featured topic, as for such a short and insignificant river its valley includes an extraordinary mixtures of architectural styles - I don't have any particular interest in the area that would draw me back to it. (I abandoned the project halfway when I realised that it would mean having to tidy up the trainwreck articles on White Hart Lane and Muswell Hill, as well as having to do something with this abomination, which has been cleaned up slightly since then but had a decent claim at the time to be the worst article on Wikipedia.) – iridescent 2 02:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Understand, thanks for explaining. - I gave up the Easter egg when half of it was removed because a score everybody sings from is not a RS. I am still surprised that a powerful piece with a prominent biblical Easter text shows no recording, and only little mentioning in churches' evensong programs, - I had to add it to the list of compositions of a composer who has a FA bio, - strange. My DYK today: become cheerful, my mind, - a lot easier when observing "let go" and "ignore". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin expert full-content copy/paste replacement?

Hey. If I may ask a question, do you know any admin who knows the ins and outs of full content copy/paste replacement of article text, etc.? In about a week or so I'm gonna replace the entire content of Bengal famine of 1943 with User:Lingzhi/sandbox. Yes I know that bickering and perhaps even edit warring will ensure, but that's a later hitch in the road. I need to know if I need someone to do a history merge, or can I just skip that bit? And what about the relevant text on my sandbox's talk page? [I know I need to leave a relevant explanation on article Talk and use a descriptive edit summary too. Those are easy enough.] Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lingzhi:Can't do a history merge on this case as the history of your sandbox does not neatly fit into the history of the target page, because that page was edited after you started editing your sandbox (the WP:PARALLELHISTORIES issue). The edits look substantive enough to merit attribution though, which you can do either by listing the authors (here) in the merger edit summary or by moving your sandbox and its history to Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution, converting it in a redirect to the article and keep it around for attribution only (I can perform this procedure if you so like). No opinion on the suitability of your text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. My question would be, is there any reason why I would have to choose one option over the other? Or would it disadvantage me in any way? If it were up to me, of course I'd just settle for the easiest way – writing a descriptive edit summary. But would anyone argue etc. over that option? i wouldn't want different troubles down the road. If an edit summary will be OK, then that's easiest I think.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, did you ever use User:Lingzhi/sandbox for anything else? If no, the redirect for attribution solution should work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes I used it as a sandbox to work on 3 or 4 articles, maybe more, before Bengal...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Depending on when you did, I presume that I could split off the history of the s-box text that pertains to your version and use it in an attribution redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Belatedly, agreeing with JJE's solution. Sandboxes are great for working in without having to worry about edit summaries and NPOV, but they can be a serious pain if more than one person has contributed substantively to the sandbox. ‑ Iridescent 12:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Letting you know I replied on my talk page. I take the problem seriously, and I'm working on it ... if we make significant headway, I'll let you know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Noted, thanks. As I've said elsewhere in the more meta-level "main page redesign" discussions, the more I think about it the more I think a serious conversation needs to be had about deprecating TFA altogether. Back in 2004 when the elements of the MP were created, there were clear purposes to all the sections—DYK to demonstrate that the project was growing, ITN to demonstrate that the project was current, OTD to demonstrate that the project wasn't recentist and TFA/TFP to demonstrate that not everything on the project was as shitty as the contents of DYK, ITN and OTD. Nowadays, every reader is aware of what Wikipedia is, and that some articles are very good and some of them are terrible.
Whenever Guy Macon proposes his Simple Main Page idea he gets shouted down, but there's a lot of validity to the idea—the visitors to the Main Page nowadays aren't thinking "I'm curious as to what this Wikipedia thing I've heard about is", they're people who are looking for information on something specific and just want to find the quickest way to navigate to it. If you consider that the MP gets 20 million views per day, then even an ultra-high-traffic TFA like Youth and Pleasure is only getting 1⁄200 of those readers (even assuming that all those readers are following through from the blurb, and not people retweeting or redditing links to it). TFA seems important to those involved in it, as it creates a lot of work for all those involved, but as far as the readers are concerned it appears they generally don't care. ‑ Iridescent 15:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I get that, but there's another problem that nothing else on the Main Page solves. I've asked Google to give me Wikipedia-related articles on the news feed for years, and one thing that comes through loud and clear is ... even people who are writing an article about Wikipedia know nothing about Wikipedia. Many people assume it's just another part of the social web. If people click through to the articles at ITN, DYK or OTD, then they'll get the idea ... but as you say, we're getting 20M hits per day, and only a small fraction click through. If all people see is the Main Page, I wonder if they'd really get the message "this is an encyclopedia, this is what an encyclopedia looks like" if they didn't see TFA ... those other 3 columns don't look anything like encyclopedia articles (until you click through). TFA is meant to demonstrate by example that encyclopedia articles can be better than what's generally out there on Web 2.0: they're accurate, the writing is good, we know how to get to the point, the language is precise without being too technical, we use links well, we deal well with controversial and difficult subjects ... the list goes on. A good example beats, and defeats, the hand-waving I generally see in things written about us. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Hi, I saw your comment on Dan's page, sorry to see that you aren't happy with the discussions there, I can understand why. I've just done a provisional spreadsheet for May's TFAs, and I've put Wood Siding railway station for 19 May. Is it OK to run that still? If not, could you please let me know as soon as possible so I can put in something else, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, I don't have any particular objection to it although you might want to leave it a bit longer. Westcott railway station ran at the end of February, and the two articles are very similar, which may generate legitimate complaints from readers about repetition. (Per my comments when Westcott was scheduled, Wikipedia's "every station needs a separate article" policy really doesn't make a great deal of sense for these rural branch lines where the history, architecture and significant dates are identical for every station on the line, as it means the articles share so many elements they look like cut-and-paste jobs. ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It's three months since I scheduled Westcott, which I think is a decent gap. There are some categories like fungi that run at least as often as that. Might be just as well to remind me if I schedule another station in September though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lenin

I saw your note that you'd be disabling Echo because of the TFA discussions, so this is just to make you aware of this discussion, since you were a reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TFA coordinators , Mike Christie, quite aside from any issues in that thread I'd really strongly suggest pulling Lenin from the queue. November 7 this year will be the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, and (unless Soviet Union itself can be worked up to FA in the meantime, which ain't gonna happen), it's totally perverse for Wikipedia to have an FA on Lenin and not to run it on that date. As you know, I'm not a big fan of the liturgical calendar approach to FA scheduling, but this was arguably the most influential event in modern history and every TV station and newspaper in the world will be running huge features on Lenin and his impact. ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Iri here - save Lenin for 7 November. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
No objections to pulling it but I can't till this evening when I get home from work. Midnightblueowl, comments? I'll leave a note on the article talk page too; or if one of you would I'd appreciate it as I'm at work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

By-election question

Random question, but would you know when the last time was that a by-election writ was (or had the potential) to be superseded by the calling of a snap general election? This relates to Manchester Gorton by-election, 2017 (possibly there will be a WP:LAME edit war over whether to keep the page or redirect it). I suppose another way of looking at it is to ask what the shortest period is that an MP elected in a by-election had before having to stand again in a general election? Actually, there is a records page somewhere. A whole category in fact: Category:Parliamentary records of the United Kingdom. And, here is the answer: United Kingdom by-election records#Shortest-serving by-election victors. Nice to know Wikipedia can still come up trumps. Goodness. 1998 was the only year in British history without any parliamentary election. Never knew that! Ah, and this talk page discussion leads me to United Kingdom by-election records#Countermanded Poll (which I had managed to miss when skimming that page earlier). Sorted. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC) PS. I know the answer is in the lead section of the by-election article, but that was the last article I read, which was silly of me as the answer was there all along. Carcharoth (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: This subject was actually mentioned in the House yesterday. See Angela Smith's question and the response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Assuming United Kingdom by-election records#Countermanded Poll is correct (a big if, given that it's completely unsourced), the answer in Hansard is actually wrong and the most recent one was in 1924 not 1923. For what that's worth. BrownHairedGirl is the one you want to talk to about elections and by-elections. ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the 1924 precedent is being distinguished because in that case the writ was issued by the Speaker during vacation rather than, as in 1923 and this year, by order of the House. (Or perhaps whoever did the research for Mr. Lidington just missed it.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Plus the 1924 one was for a university constituency, and I suspect every (establishment) party would prefer to gloss over the fact that they ever thought such a thing was a good idea. ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
True, but anything that brought A.P. Herbert to parliament couldn't have been all bad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, both. The Hansard link was a useful reminder of the variable standard of debate carried out by politicians, contemporary UK ones at least. On a completely different matter, this edit from 2004 by Opus33 reminds me of how people used to write articles back then (have pinged Opus33, in case they may want to comment). Today's version of that article is here. I came across that passage (including the rather idiosyncratic passage beginning 'From all this it is tempting to imagine the invention of the bow') when researching musical bows today. Made me smile a lot, as well as wondering where that text came from. Didn't think it would date back all the way to 2004! The joys of wiki-archaeology. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
On the subject of bows, it's not that long since this article was promoted to FA. (Not to be cynical, like, but that promotion may possibly have had something to do with the fact that some guy called "Larry Sanger" wrote the original.) ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: FYI, for an update, see Manchester Gorton by-election, 2017#Cancellation, based upon today's action in the House. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Strategy 2017

Randomly came across Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017, which has some interesting thoughts. More here. That looks organised (it is certainly ambitious), but is it more impressive than it looks? (If you or anyone reading this wants to actually suggest ideas, probably best done over there, rather than here.) The pros and cons of trying to establish a strategy in this way, is more what I was thinking about here. Is it possible? I suppose this may trigger a recent potted history of the WMF... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" sounds a bit optimistic on a project where the average editor only lasts a couple of years at most, especially given that when it comes to the internet anyone who claims they can predict five years into the future is a charlatan or an idiot. I imagine that whatever the good intentions, this will just become yet another talking shop for the pondlife that hangs around on Jimmy Wales's talkpage to posture about how visionary they are (the names so far are wearily familiar).
The best recent history of the WMF is this one by GorillaWarfare, of whom I have to admit my opinion has risen steadily recently. Unfortunately, it fizzles out in early 2016—I don't know if that's because she got bored, or just because Katherine Maher has been so low-key that the WMF may as well not exist.
In the unlikely event they want my answers:
  1. What will guide our work together over the next 15 years?
    Nothing; Wikipedia has got by fine for 15 years without the WMF "guiding" it, and every time they've ever tried to do so it's without fail been a complete fiasco.
  2. What impact or change do we want to have on the world over the next 15 years?
    None—the idea that the WMF has to be a force for change is one of the more pernicious legacies of the Free Culture element from the early days. The reason Wikipedia works is that it doesn't try to anticipate peoples' needs; it's just there for readers and reusers to use as they see fit.
  3. What is the single most important thing we can do together over the next 15 years?
    See 2 above. Quit trying to create Happy Shopper knock-offs of Google or Facebook, and just concentrate on providing a framework within which both the WMF projects and everyone else who uses MediaWiki software can operate.
  4. What will unite and inspire us as a movement for the next 15 years?
    Tracking down people who write guff like this and giving them a shoeing? Seriously, does anyone except Jeremy Corbyn and the kind of right-wing fruitcakes who cut out their favourite pages from Atlas Shrugged and pin them over their beds actually talk like this?
  5. What will accelerate our progress over the next 15 years?
    Why would we want to? Wikipedia is the embodiment of slow and steady incremental change, and every time the WMF tries to "accelerate progress" from outside it's led to fiascos like MediaViewer, the Knowledge Engine and WikiVoyage. The fact that the asker presupposes that "accelerating our progress" is unquestionably desirable just shows how detached from reality the WMF is.
  6. What will we be known for in the next 15 years?
    'The one that finally knocked Napster, Jennicam and Boo.com off the top spots in "most influential defunct websites" lists.' Probably with a paragraph explaining how Wikipedia worked fine for a decade but then got derailed by a few people at the top pissing money and goodwill away on their pet projects.
You're welcome. ‑ Iridescent 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I was invited to this shindig and had a happy few days in Berlin. I must admit I thought there'd be discussion about enwiki but was pretty mistaken. my main reason for going was to look at ways to preserve/improve content but that went nowhere. It was way more global, and really focussed on looking at worldwide coverage and input from the third world etc. The morale seems to have improved dramatically in the past year. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
A bit beside your actual point, but just wanted to reply to Unfortunately, it fizzles out in early 2016—I don't know if that's because she got bored, or just because Katherine Maher has been so low-key that the WMF may as well not exist. I've intentionally left it be more or less since Lila's departure, mostly because it was intended to document the fiasco that was her tenure and the Knowledge Engine project. I've been meaning to update it to indicate that it is more of a historical record than anything; I'll do that now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: "It was The Greatest Show On Earth"... Well, I for one would look forward to Part Two; although, unless they sorted out their retention problems, I imagine it'll be pretty short :D — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 05:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
+1 when it comes to wanting a Part 2. If you don't do it, then when the history comes to be written we'll end up with either yet another Andrew Lih style hagiography, or the usual suspects from Wikipedia Review and whatever remains of Larry Sanger's posse rambling about how everything that goes right would have happened anyway and everything that goes wrong was the fault of whoever they currently happen to be in dispute with. ‑ Iridescent 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: there was some discussion about Lila era in Berlin, so I do feel a bit more enlightened now (not that there were any surprises really). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent, apologies in advance, but I pinged you accidentally- I had just read GW's timeline above, and it was on my mind. Sorry about distracting you. Right, carry on. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem—I have Echo turned off, so pings don't have any effect on me anyway. I've replied to the comment in question at some length. ‑ Iridescent 14:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Requests for Angry Mobs

I sense a humorous essay being written in my near future... Thanks for the idea. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

About the inadequacy of ANI in resolving non-trivial disagreements? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Firing of Bill O'Reilly

Hi. Yesterday was one of those days that led me to visit WP:ITN/C. After browsing the day's headlines and stories on my phone, I wanted to at least skim the discussion regarding the firing of Bill O'Reilly. I was surprised to discover that nobody had even proposed a blurb. While it's probably not major news internationally, it's the top-half of the front page of the New York Times today. The story is certainly "in the news" and notable by objective standards, though perhaps not rising to the level of a mention on the English Wikipedia's main page? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Was an item on BBC Radio national news in UK this morning. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd oppose a blurb were it suggested, as it would set a horrible precedent; "Bill O'Reilly is a creepy asshole" isn't really world-shaking news. The story ultimately boils down to "TV presenter who hasn't been convicted of anything is nonetheless fired to prevent employer being brought into disrepute", which isn't particularly unusual, even at the kind of high-profile level at which O'Reilly operates. (Cosby was something of a special case as he was a genuinely iconic global figure; I doubt one person in 20 in the US and one person in 10,000 elsewhere would recognise Bill O'Reilly if he were standing next to them.) If we included a blurb for this, we'd also need to include things like Sachsgate, the Jian Ghomeshi affair, the fallout from Suicide of Jacintha Saldanha, and whatever the Kiwi, Irish, South African etc equivalents are. ‑ Iridescent 15:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I guess in some ways I was surprised that it hadn't even been brought up for discussion given the wide coverage in the outlets I happen to read. It also happens to be, in this case, that the Times was involved in his ouster (by reporting about the cumulative settlements), so they may be covering it more heavily than they would for another individual.
While I agree that we don't typically include CEO ousters or equivalent, Mr. O'Reilly is a pretty big figure in U.S. media. If it were a prime minister or any other head official of a government, I imagine we'd automatically include a blurb if they resigned amid scandal. What we consider notable/newsworthy continues to fascinate me in some ways. I feel like someone will one day write an interesting dissertation about the English Wikipedia's "In the news" section. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but O'Reilly isn't equivalent to a prime minister or president, as he didn't have the power to actually make decisions even within Fox, let alone that affected the outside world; had Rupert Murdoch been fired, that would be a story.
As a comparator, everyone in the world except Arsène Wenger knows that Wenger is on the verge of being fired. I guarantee that Wenger is a more recognizable figure worldwide than O'Reilly (other than spikes for O'Reilly on inauguration day and when the scandal started to break Wenger consistently gets significantly higher views, and when you look at views in other languages O'Reilly's views barely rise above background noise even in Spanish where you'd expect there to be at least some interest from Mexicans and Hispanic-Americans in what he has to say, while there's still consistent interest in Wenger) and when the hammer drops it will be front page news in Britain and France and the main back page story in every country globally other than the US, but there's no chance that when it happens it will make it to ITN.
Realistically, when you strip away the froth O'Reilly's dismissal was a straightforward "media outlet decides that one of their presenters is unpopular enough to be costing them viewers and advertising" decision of the type that gets made every day. There is a more significant meta-story here, in that Fox is currently engaged in a multi-billion-dollar takeover bid for Sky which will probably fall through if it's proved the Fox management were paying hush-money to a level that would constitute racketeering, but that's a slow-burning story which will likely take months to work its way through assorted courts and regulators. ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harikrishnan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asif Ali. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you been on the gin today, bot? The only edit I've ever made to that page was correcting the capitalization of "Malayalam". In 2015. ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Bizarre! :) -a bottle of gin, presumably... — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The bot was confused by the pagemoves, presumably. JaGa might know why. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Iri,

Thanks for reclosing; I'm fairly sure doing it myself would have been a Bad Idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Closing - is it really always necessary?, it appears we've inadvertently stumbled into the release of bees from bonnets. As far as I'm concerned, if the two people whining about "premature closure" really feel the urge to keep it up, despite neither of the actual people the thread was about appearing to have any problem with a close first time round, they can do so on their own talkpages rather than on a page where every comment anyone makes wastes the time of multiple people. ‑ Iridescent 15:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The confusion about when to close threads doesn't suffer from a lack of enough rules, it suffers from a lack of clueful people doing it. I've seen them closed too quickly, to slowly, unhelpfully re-opened, and helpfully re-opened. The problem is there's no way to legislate wisdom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
ANI is one of the very few instances I can think of where the introduction of Flow would actually be a positive. If people could watchlist individual threads, we could just quietly untransclude them from the main page and let the participants bitch and whine at each other until one or the other got bored. (Looking at that thread more closely, I see that one of the people demanding it be reopened so everyone has a chance to kvetch, despite no-one actually requesting any admin action, is yet another legacy admin from the early days who's made a couple of token edits each year to keep the bit. At some point, "reconfirmation" is going to have to become a thing.) ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to go back and find the discussion(s?), but I've proposed before that every new ANI thread be on a new subpage, transcluded on ANI. Kind of like AFD. Rather than just have ANI watchlisted, the drama hyenas would at least have to watchlist each thread they were interested in. Might slow them down some. And if a thread gets too stupid for words, you can just unwatchlist the one thread. The idea was shot down as unworkable, unfortunately. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why that would be unworkable; that's exactly the system FA uses at WP:FAC and WP:TFAR, and that Wikipedia as a whole uses at WP:AFD, to allow people to only watchlist the discussions in which they're interested without either having their watchlist clogged with posts to threads in which they have no interest, or to risk missing an important change because someone subsequently makes a minor edit to something else which hides the substantive change in the watchlist. It leads to a proliferation of subpages, but it's not like we're suffering from acute subpage shortages. Besides, being forced to come up with a new name each time would force people to stop creating threads with stupid meaningless titles like "Discussion of interest to regulars", "Abusive image usage" and "Trolling talk pages" (all of which are genuine ANI threads as I write this). ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds eminently sensible to me too. Where was the discussion where it was shot down before? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Dancing Monkey

It's been a year. May I put it back? 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello Iridescent,

Do you think that users would name themselves from the person they are trying to write about? That's what I thought when I nominated Sonu sinha for speedy, and because that was their only contribution, besides one edit to their sandbox. -- 1989 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think he's trying to write about himself? User:Sonu sinha just looks like a straightforward "hello, I'm new on Wikipedia, this is who I am", of the type we encourage new editors to write. (There are some Wikipedia editors who have userpage autobiographies the size of small novels.) If he were to write a great long spiel about how great he is, or a long ramble with no relation to Wikipedia, that would obviously be a violation of WP:WEBHOST (as you've presumably noticed owing to your watchlist turning red, I've just deleted a huge stack of these), and if he were to start writing an autobiography that wouldn't be forbidden but would warrant a quiet word about WP:COI, but I can't see anything problematic about Devendra​ prasad sadan is located at oriawan ,nalanda bhiar.In this sadan owner is late davendra prasad.. he born in oriawan.at 1945. Mr Sonu sinha is great personality even a Mr. Amitabh bachan ..So he works on as programming developer...And he also help in social activities..In oriawan Mr. Sonu Sinha as popular person... other than the usual ESL grammatical mistakes. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's the issue. The user is not using I in the text, referring "himself", it's saying he. What made you come up with the conclusion that the user is talking about "himself"? -- 1989 19:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
In my experience that's fairly common with Ind/Pak editors—I assume pronouns work differently there, but I've often seen "I", "you" and "he/she" transposed. Even if that's not the case here, people writing about themselves in the third person on their userpages isn't particularly unusual—User:Acdixon is one who springs to mind. As I say, if the editor starts writing puffery, giving out their phone number, or any of the other things spammers do then by all means it will be deletable, but given that we're explicitly telling new users "usually one's user page has something about oneself", it seems rather harsh to then start tagging them once they try to put something about themselves on their user page. ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. My apologies. -- 1989 19:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD Pontus Åhman

Hi Iridescent , hope you well. I noticed that you have reverted my CSD for Pontus Åhman. That's ok. But I would suggest you to participate in this discussion about sportspeople here:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. I believe that Pontus Åhman fails notability on multiple levels. Junior driver, no significant achievements, no winnings, no significant media coverage/references. The fact that he is competing, does not make him significant or notable. In the near future I will do PROD so others can join the discussion re deleting this page. I would highly appreciate your feedback, thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The A7 speedy deletion criterion is credible claim of significance and has nothing to do with notability. The subject can be the most non-notable person around, but if there's an indication that anyone considers them important—which is the case here by definition, since he has a podium finish—then it's not speedyable unless it meets another speedy deletion criterion (spam, coypvio, etc). I know it seems bureaucratic, but it's worded this strictly for a reason; speedy deletion is only appropriate for those circumstances when an article is unambiguously and incontrovertibly inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP Addresses on Air India article. Request for protection on the article.

Hello Iridescent, I saw that you protected Dhaka Airport's page because of repeated vandalism by unregistered users or IP Addresses. I'm very thankful to you as you protected the page because it was being highly vandalized. Can you please do the same for Air India's page too? as this article is also getting vandalized by IP Addresses. Hoping for a quick reply. Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Normally, this is asked for at WP:RFPP but the latest edits do not look like vandalism to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As per my comments when I protected the airport, I'm very reluctant to protect airport and airline articles for any significant length of time unless they're obviously being overwhelmed with inappropriate edits, which doesn't appear to be the case on Air India. Transport articles are one of the traditional entry routes for new editors joining Wikipedia, as the information changes so frequently and is usually well-publicised so is easy to source. Consequently, when protecting an article like this one has to take into account that potential new editors who have something useful to offer are being confronted with a rather off-putting warning, which has a reasonable chance of driving them away from Wikipedia altogether, so one needs to factor whether the potential damage caused by leaving the article unprotected is outweighed by the potential loss of editors.
As established editors, we never see just how unwelcoming Wikipedia is to new editors. This is what a new editor attempting to edit Shahjalal International Airport currently sees:
While of that wall-of-text is there for the best of purposes, in trying to make it as transparent as possible why the editor can't edit the article and what they need to do, imagine how off-putting it would be to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, who's only trying to make a minor edit like standardising "Puducherry" and "Pondicherry". If they're genuinely good-faith, they'll presumably try to follow the instructions, which will entail them reading the entire talkpage (itself likely to be full of incomprehensible-to-newcomers WP:AGF WP:BRD WP:DAB jargon), then clicking the "edit request" button which will take them to this equally incomprehensible page filled with gibberish like {{subst:^|Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. }}}} ~~~~. And then bear in mind that many editors on Ind/Pak/Bang articles have only a limited grasp of English and are probably unlikely to know what words like "tilde" and "verbatim" mean. Yes, protection is a vital tool for holding back the tide of grey goo, but some admins dole it out far too frequently—even semi-protection should be a last resort when negotiation, blocking and rangeblocking have all failed, not the first stage in dispute resolution which too many admins seem to think it is. ‑ Iridescent 15:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting; do you thnk, then, that actually blocks should be distributed sooner than protections? Because, as you know, I think that's almost the opposite to cutrrent thinking. But- a block only hurts one editor, but protection can deter many? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option (my emphasis) is the formal policy regarding when admins can apply semi-protection, and has been ever since semiprotection was introduced back in 2005–06; the fact that certain admins dish out protection at the drop of a hat (only a small handful are responsible for the vast majority of protections) even when only a few people are involved is an artefact of (1) the "legacy admin" problem meaning there are a lot of admins who've been admins for a decade or so and feel that the rules no longer apply to them, and (2) the fact that slapping protection on a page and driving off into the sunset is a lot easier than having to get one's delicate admin hands dirty either talking to the peasants about what they're disputing and trying to negotiate a solution, or blocking someone who happens to have a vocal friend and risking having the "you're suppressing the editor's god-given right to edit Wikipedia!" whiners all come out of the woodwork screeching at you. Wikipedia has always had a problem with admins who either feel policy doesn't apply to them, or that they can ignore policy and just do what they feel is right, but IMO the problem is steadily getting worse. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, according to this I've averaged roughly 20 protection per year in the period I've been active as an admin, and I've been one of the more active ones. If you take away the dozen or so trigger-happy admins, protection is really not very common. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course: what you highlighted there, on consideration, must rarely be the case- I mean, how often is it that blocking the parties to disruption isn't feasible? Slightly bizarre sentence that actually. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
More often than you'd think, particularly when it comes to anything high-profile (if you can work out a way to pre-emptively block everyone who plans to vandalise Donald Trump or Lion, do suggest it). Take the Dhaka airport protection that sparked this; if you look at the history the rangeblock required to catch all the IPs involved would literally knock Asia off of Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 18:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair point: I was thinking of registered editors, and circumstances in which it would never be feasible to block one. But IPs, and their ranges, do make en masse rangeblocks problematic perhaps. I seem to remember there was discussion some time ago of blocking Australia; it seemed to come to nothing, mind you  ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
IIRC, back in the days of Awbrey and Moulton (if you need to ask, you're happier not knowing) at one point we had Massachusetts and Illinois both under permanent rangeblocks. Qatar would regularly be collectively banned from Wikipedia back in the days, until they abandoned the practice of routing every connection in the country through a single IP address. ‑ Iridescent 18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
*Imagines a vista in which the whole of South London was range-blocked* <g>
(talk page stalker) The problem I've got is that the tools we've got are too over-reaching. Often, all you really need to do is block one person from one article, and that's it. But your only options are to block them from every article (and have a side dish of abuse if you're really lucky) or protect the article and lock everybody out, stopping any improvements. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I did put in a "Block per article" feature request on Meta some time back (can't find the link) and it was very popular, but didn't make it high enough up the priority list. I think if we had that, we could solve a lot of grief we have over blocks, as then editors could still get on with unrelated work elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: While the "block per article" would be another useful tool, I doubt it would make much of a dent in the number of protects. Only a small amount of full protects are issued. The significant majority are semis to stop disruption from multiple IPs/throwaway accounts/socks. One or two uncontroversial blocks doesn't stop the disruption. --NeilN talk to me 20:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to get more involved at RFPP. Not every admin response has to be "protect" or "decline". --NeilN talk to me 18:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I dip in and out of RFPP when the backlog builds up (hence this thread), but when I'm clearing backlogs I tend to focus on the deletion queues. When something isn't protected that ought to be it's a nuisance; when something isn't deleted that ought to be it can cause genuine issues. ‑ Iridescent 18:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
20 protections per year or this does not seem to be dipping in and out of RFPP. I'm not trying to be snarky here. You made some strong statements above and I'm wondering if you would still make them if you worked at RFPP on a much more frequent basis. --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not "making some strong statements", I'm quoting the protection policy verbatim. That when blocking users individually is not a feasible option has been a part of the protection policy since the protection policy in its current form was created over a decade ago (before that, semi-ing was governed by WP:SPP which phrased is as "if it is the only reasonable option left"). If the RFPP clique feel that Wikipedia's policies no longer apply to them, then we should be looking at the future either of the policies or of RFPP. ‑ Iridescent 18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Or you could roll up your sleeves, actually work at RFPP, and show how you think policy should be applied. --NeilN talk to me 19:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
If there's a backlog, then I would take a guess that, like at e.g. UAA, it is at least in part caused by editors filing unnecessary reports. So, like there, Education, education, education! Improve the quality of the reports, and the numbers go down (how much, is the question I guess). Although we must admit an element of logic to Iridescent's basic point- that if the editors whose actions were causing the need to protect were blocked, then protection wouldn't be required (or asked for, even?). Interesting discussion, thanks both. None of my business, of course, apoologies. Happy Fridays all round! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

*Ouch*

...upgraded your Millais to something more colourful eh :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Donkey punch.png
Which picture you get is randomized—the Millais My First/Second Sermon is still in the mix. If you purge the page it will start showing you a fresh one, of varying degrees of offensiveness. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(adding) This piece of Commons's finest is probably my personal favorite at the moment, for embodying everything there is to say about Commons in a single image. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting guidance

Hi
I would like to redirect my userpage to talkpage. How i can do that? Like you did. Thanks. :-)
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Greetings, you just need to replace the content on User:Usernamekiran with #REDIRECT [[User talk:Usernamekiran]] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks a lot for the reply. This is just like the article redirects. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, Iridescent. You have new messages at Talk:P.D. Jain Homoeopathic Medical College.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(Replying here as this is more a meta-issue regarding your conduct, than an issue affecting a particular article.) I agree entirely with JJMC89's comments at Talk:P.D. Jain Homoeopathic Medical College#Sources, and urge you to actually take in what's being said here; you seem to have completely misunderstood what the non-negotiable requirement that Wikipedia articles be sourced to independent, non-trivial, reliable, secondary sources means. A directory listing can serve as confirmation that something exists but if the secondary sources don't exist on a topic then it doesn't get a Wikipedia article, and if you feel a topic should be included on Wikipedia it's down to you to find the sources beforehand, not to write unsourced articles and then demand other people find sources because you can't be bothered. (While editcountitis should be taken with an extreme pinch of salt owing to the way automated scripts can distort the counts, in Boleyn, JJMC89 and myself you're edit-warring single-handedly against editors with over half a million edits between them and a combined total of 22 years experience on Wikipedia—you may want to consider that it's possibly you who is misunderstanding Wikipedia's policies here.) ‑ Iridescent 16:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Museums criterion

No need to reply, I simply wanted to note Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals actually makes it clear "museum collections" is in fact a notability factor and it's one that has been included for as long as the page has existed. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"Represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" can make an artist notable, but the lack of such isn't an indication of non-notability. (To be honest, I think this is an even stupider SNG than WP:NFOOTY—because of the means by which reception pieces function and the fact that big galleries tend to operate archives, someone can be utterly insignificant and still have their works held in the collections of multiple major institutions—the V&A alone has over two million items in its collection. If I were in charge, every SNG would be abolished and be replaced by "either the independent sources exist, or they don't".) ‑ Iridescent 16:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS; Closure

Can you help me to understand, please? I already(!) saw multiple complaints about an existing local consensus. Getting a neutral expert opinion is a good idea in general, but if you risk getting an undue number of fan opinions instead, then the notification is probably not appropiate, in my opinion. I asked myself: Does posting an issue about sports notability criteria on sports wikiprojects risk getting significantly more biased people involved in the discussion? My answer was yes. So tell me, how does a notification of interested local projects, under these circumstances, not go against the word and the spirit of WP:CANVASS?Burning Pillar (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As every other person you have spoken to has told you, you're seriously misunderstanding how Wikipedia operates. If you propose something that is going to affect pages covered by a particular project, you're supposed to notify the members of that project, since they're the people by definition best placed to know what the issues will be. Primefac wasn't canvassing, he was rectifying your incompetence in failing to notify the projects in question. If you really want, I can re-open the thread, but you're highly likely to regret it if I do; you won't find any support for your position, and Wikipedia in general takes an extremely dim view of people who refuse to abide by consensus when that consensus is clearly against them. I'd also strongly advise withdrawing this trainwreck before it starts and pretending it never happened; the likelihood of Wikipedia deciding to overturn multiple long-standing guidelines on the insistence of someone with twelve mainspace edits in their entire career—one of which was this—is not high. ‑ Iridescent 00:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Good lord, am I? I'm not sure my (few) medical articles are really what the creators of WP:MED had in mind, as they're all oddities like Biddenden Maids rather than anything any reader could ever possibly find useful. ‑ Iridescent 23:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
We are a small community of editors. Being broad in scope is also important :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, I see you are one of the regular writers of art-related FAs. I have recently been working on Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, an interesting topic because of the image itself, and the history of the portrait (stolen by the Nazis and the subject of a long law suit before restitution and sale for $135 million). Would you have the time or inclination to pay a visit to the new peer review for any comments? Many thanks if you are able to have a read through. Thank you, and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look (may not be for a couple of days) but I'll warn you that I absolutely loathe Klimt so might be a bit uncharitable. If you haven't already, you probably want to gently prod Victoriaearle, Ceoil and Wehwalt for this one. You also want to rustle up at least one German speaker from somewhere (probably the authors of de:Adele Bloch-Bauer I—I assume at least some of them will speak at least basic English), as I wouldn't be surprised if this is a case where German/Austrian opinion isn't necessarily going to match the views of the English and American press. ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If memory serves, @Gerda Arendt: speaks that language. I do so as well but art is not a subject I have much knowledge in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I will look, but not before next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably would be about the same time span for me. Although I don't think that Maoist painting gives me credentials in art ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of you so much in art terms, as in terms of who's best placed to pick nits. (If I were thinking in terms of "who knows about artwork" Johnbod would probably be top of the list.) For a topic like Klimt I imagine there are enough fans out there reading it that outright errors are unlikely to be an issue, but I know from experience that when writing about individual artworks it's very easy to slip into jargon or to presume readers will be familiar with a particular piece of background, and it needs reviewers who aren't familiar with the jargon to spot the bits that won't make sense to general readers. ‑ Iridescent 08:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I can look now. - Iridescent, thank you for the supply of images about disagreement ;) - Let your friends know that I will not agree nor disagree on John Gielgud, - not interested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Belatedly ✓ Done ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A hishap of words in old post of mine

Hi, months ago I sent you a post saying that you sent me and email, and what I really meant was a post, so sorry for the mishap of words. Also Wikipedia has just thanked me for my ten thousandth edit and have spent countless hours writing for Wikipedia as I am valuable to your cause so I hope that you can understand that I take being an editor very seriously. Also I have a question about a disambiguation page that I created about a month ago about need to ask you something about it and it's content. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Sloppy (disambiguation), all I'd say is 'lose the "all articles whose titles include the word sloppy"' link, which is about as useful as feet on a fish—dab pages are meant to disambiguate multiple items with the same name, not to be directories of everything no matter how tangentially related, and nobody searching for Lonely Christmas (Sloppy Seconds EP) or Sloppy Meateaters is just going to enter "Sloppy" as their search term. ‑ Iridescent 19:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
"feet on a fish" - must remember this formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Appologies

Sorry I misclicked on my watchlist and rolled back the addition you made to ANI. I undid myself but just wanted to apologies if there was any confusion. PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries at all—we've all done it ‑ Iridescent 20:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Questions regarding my ability

Sorry to bother your weekend, but this is in about a response to one my NAC's on AN/I. I find Cassianto's comment: Firstly, who are [you] to close a discussion at ANI? annoying at best, seeing as a) there was an informal request at the bottom, b) anyone can close any discussion within reason, c) I have been doing a whole bunch of NACs and archiving to help keep the bloated AN/I usable. What answer should I give? Is there an answer? "Well you see, I'm just a brand new plebe who doesn't know what they are doing and who disrupts AN/I just for fun" probably won't go over well. I don't mind a disgruntled IP demanding my boss's name right before I sign off, but Cass is a big boy with 30k edits since 2009, not a drive-by. Thanks for helping, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Butting in here - but Cass said "Please mind your own business. Your stupid comments are not helping the situation." You took that to mean Cass called someone stupid. Do you see how that's not quite the same? Yeah, Cass shouldn't have said it anyway, but it doesn't help with people jump to an assumption about what was said that isn't quite correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth, I apologised for jumping to conclusions, even though his latest reply is worse than the first. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Note before this very long reply: This is all my personal opinion, not any kind of formal warning or even a formal statement of Wikipedia policy, there are numerous precedents for topic-banning overenthusiastic editors from particular internal processes of Wikipedia, but you're certainly not at that stage yet. As you can probably tell from the above threads, this page is watched by quite a few people with a very wide variety of philosophies towards Wikipedia and Wikipedia editing, and I'm certainly not arrogant enough to assume that my interpretations of Wikipedia's policies and unwritten custom are automatically the correct ones. If any TPW does feel I'm being unduly harsh here—or has any other advice for either L3X1 or myself—do feel free to chime in.
I'm not entirely clear why you're asking me about this, given that I've AFAIK never had any interaction with you and had no input on the NAC in question, but I'll do my best.
Firstly, as Ealdgyth says above your reaction appears to be based largely on a misapprehension; saying that a comment is stupid isn't (necessarily) an attack on the person making the comment.
This is going to sound harsh, but having looked through your recent contribution history while I'm not seeing a smoking gun I'm seeing a lot of things that raise concerns to me. Looking at recent edits to ANI, you have made twice as many edits as any other editor; indeed, over your entire Wikipedia history you have more edits to ANI alone than you have to all article talk pages combined. (To put the figures in perspective, at the time of writing you've made 470 edits to ANI in a little less than a year. In a decade as one of Wikipedia's more active admins, I've made 702 edits to the same page. Even Newyorkbrad, who has a decent claim to be the anthropomorphic personification of Wikipedia's bureaucracy, has only 1300 edits to it.)
Additionally, a lot of your edits are unilateral thread closures. While it's not forbidden to close threads, and indeed it can occasionally be helpful for a thread to be closed so those reading the page know to skip it, it's never uncontroversial since by closing a thread you're explicitly saying "nobody else's opinions on this matter are appropriate" (see this thread for some recent discussion on the matter); the only time you should be closing threads rather than just marking them resolved is when there's no realistic possibility that anyone will have anything further to add to the discussion and the thread is so long that a {{resolved}} tag has the potential to be missed by readers. (There's another circumstance when it's appropriate to close threads, when a discussion is getting so heated that an admin feels that it's in the interests of those involved to choke off the discussion and force it either into a less public forum, or to formal dispute resolution, but that's always going to be extremely contentious and should be left to experienced admins or very experienced editors who have the standing to force a contentious decision to stick and know how to deal with the inevitable fallout.) To hover over noticeboards unilaterally closing discussions regardless of the wishes of the participants in the discussions, which is what you appear to be doing, just makes you look officious and obnoxious, regardless of your intentions. I'm also seeing you doing a hell of a lot of inappropriate archiving of threads from noticeboards; the reason the archive bot waits 72 hours before archiving is intentional, to ensure as many of those as possible who potentially have an interest in the topic have the chance to see it. Again, there are rare examples where it's appropriate to archive a thread early, but doing it routinely, as you appear to be doing, just gives the impression that you feel your opinion is the only one that matters.
Further to that, a lot of your recent comments (both on ANI and elsewhere) to me appear to be in what comes across as an aggressive, belittling and arrogant tone. (I hate to use buzzwords, particularly one as contentious as this, but "microaggression" actually does seem to be a pretty good descriptor.) I'm not (necessarily) saying you are aggressive and arrogant, and I know from experience that Wikipedia is an environment in which it's very easy to slip into an inappropriate tone without realizing how you're coming across, but in your case it's very clear and consistent and you really need to stop, or you're very likely to find yourself on the receiving end of a warning block at best and a community ban at worst. Take the example of your initial post in this thread; you're an editor with less than a year's experience and (as far as I can tell) no substantive writing experience, calling one of Wikipedia's most experienced writers "a big boy" in a thread about you complaining about other peoples' perceived rudeness. If it were a one-off I'd just put it down to frustration, but there's a clear pattern both of you making unnecessarily rude comments, and of making inappropriate jokes.
Remember, while you may feel a dispute is trivial, every one of those posters at noticeboards is a real person with what they perceive to be a real problem. Wikipedia already has a serious problem with outsiders feeling that it's dominated by a clique of insiders who just sneer at and belittle anyone who isn't part of the gang, and while I realize you didn't start it in this particular instance crap like this is never appropriate. Wikipedia/Wikimedia's only asset is its contributor base, and every person who walks out because they feel it's a toxic environment or that they're not being taken seriously, is another person Wikipedia can't afford to lose.
Just looking over your Wikipedia-space edits from the past seven days (and leaving aside the numerous inappropriate closures and early-archivings, and the assorted pointless drive-by comments in AFDs) we have:
  1. Inappropriate edit summary (whatever your opinion of an article, it's something someone has devoted a significant chunk of time to; except in the case of obviously unconstructive edits, language like "nuke n pave" is never going to be appropriate; likewise the "disgracing Wikipedia" and "unfit for human consumption" in the same thread);
  2. Sneering edit summary belittling someone else's language skills;
  3. A bizarre and disruptive aside which I assume was an attempt at comedy (in a discussion about Nazism in the United States, for god's sake!);
  4. I don't know what the hell this edit summary is, but I can't imagine it's appropriate;
  5. The (not insulting/belittling this time, but certainly odd) creation of one pointless redirect to another pointless redirect which in turn points to a pointless page;
  6. Possibly the single most pointlessly spiteful comment and edit summary I've ever seen; again, these are real people you're talking about, not targets in a video game or "the enemy" from whom Wikipedia needs to be defended at all costs;
  7. Inappropriate NAC complete with your own personal opinions, rather than an explanation of why the thread has been closed, in the reason field;
  8. This comment isn't prima facie inappropriate (albeit fairly pointless), but given the high number of "per GNG" and "per nom" comments in your history there's certainly some mote/beam issues here, especially given that the very next edit you made was this;
  9. This ridiculous overreaction in which you spotted someone writing a short story on their userpage; yes, this is inappropriate use of Wikipedia and the page was rightly deleted, but you slapped a warning on her userpage for "creating an attack page", which appears to have cost us an editor (you then boasted that "user has not edited since", as if driving someone off Wikipedia is some kind of achievement);
  10. Referring for no apparent reason to a good-faith editor as "bro"; followed up a few minutes later by "my bet: you're gonna get the indef bro" in an edit summary, and a few minutes after that by yet another inappropriate edit summary. The editor in question wasn't even a drive-by vandal (in which case your aggressiveness would still be inappropriate, but would be less of an issue as the editor's loss wouldn't unduly trouble us) but one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors with over 200,000 edits since 2005;
  11. The NAC your original report relates to—I assume by now you're aware of on how many levels this was inappropriate, but if you're not I strongly suggest staying clear of all noticeboards for the foreseeable future;
  12. Complaining about someone else making what you consider overly-hasty closures on ANI (!!!);
  13. A completely inappropriate edit summary ("if he comes back (big if) and resumes his ways it will be an indef")—this decision isn't yours to make, and indef blocking is a last resort when all else fails, not a shortcut to make a problem go away when we can't be bothered to discuss it.
Bear in mind that these are just from a single week. I know it's cherry-picking to some extent—and 13 problematic edits out of ≈150 edits is a rate of less than one in ten—but it's enough to be of concern. Particularly with regards to AFD and ANI, remember that these are the two most unpleasant environments most editors are ever going to encounter on Wikipedia, and consequently are the stress points at which Wikipedia is most likely to lose editors. While I think I speak for all admins in saying that non-admin input is both welcome and necessary, that welcome doesn't extend to having someone hovering around the noticeboards pot-stirring, regardless of how good that editor's intentions are.
I know the above looks harsh—it's always a bit unpleasant having someone go through your contributions—but I really do recommend toning it down several notches, and unwatchlisting ANI and avoiding it altogether unless you actually have a specific reason to visit it that can't be addressed elsewhere. A general rule of editing on Wikipedia is "only make edits if they're an improvement", and that's a rule which is especially pertinent in high-stress environments like the admin noticeboards where you're dealing with individuals with knowledge, experience and cultural backgrounds that are often wildly different from your own, and who are often under a great deal of stress. Although you're clearly operating in good faith, and I've only looked at your very recent history so this may just be a blip, at present your improvement/nonimprovement ratio in admin and admin-related areas appears to me to be far too high. ‑ Iridescent 18:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent, I'm so sorry. I realise now I look like a complete jerk, even though that wasn't my intention for any of the above situations. If you want I can explain most of those, but I don't want to look like an defensive editor who thinks he is perfect. I'll definetly steer clear of AN/I for a good long time or unless involved (involved with a few threads at the top). Thanks for responding to me. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't take the above too hard. My intention wasn't to make you feel like a jerk, but to point out that you can come across as a jerk, which is not the same thing at all. Because of Wikipedia's nature, it's very easy to slip into an us-and-them mindset; it's also a natural tendency to want to help in all areas even when helping isn't appropriate. There are still numerous areas where I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting (remember, a lot of people on Wikipedia are genuine experts); "I'll keep out of this" is nothing to be ashamed of. Approaching every edit—both in article-space and behind-the-curtain—with the attitude "is my making this comment going to improve anything?" is always a good way to approach things. ‑ Iridescent 20:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Jumping in here since L3X1 is a value member of my glittering salon of (talk page stalker)s. L3, Iridescent wouldn't be investing so much time in you if he/she/it didn't think you were worth it (and that says something). Just keep your head down and concentrate on article editing and before you know it no one will remember this stuff. Nothing builds you a reserve of goodwill you can draw on when (as we all do sometimes) you put your foot in your mouth, as being respected for your good work on Article X and Article Y. EEng 20:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Wood Siding

You asked:

Have you a source for that? While the station building was pulled down then I'm unaware of the bridge being demolished at the time of closure, which would go against standard GWR and LRT practice of leaving structures in situ unless there's a reason

From the photo of the site today, the caption of which even mentions "the remains of the bridge", it is clear that the bridge is gone. So obviously it was removed, and that's what I said, in order to make the connection from the removal of the station structures and the gap over the GWR tracks. I carefully did not say when this happened, let alone "at the time of the closure"; I do not know when, and suspect you are right that it was at a later date. If you should come upon a date, that would be a plus. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of a source, you don't get to make up what you think the facts ought to be. Your wording (Wood Siding station was demolished shortly after closure. The span of the bridge which carried the station and sidings was removed; the abutments of the bridge remain intact.) has at minimum a strong implication that the bridge was removed at the same time as the station structure, and also implies that the bridge was intentionally dismantled. If you have a reliable source to say that the bridge was intentionally removed rather than collapsed in a storm, destroyed by enemy action etc, feel free to state it as fact, but it would seem unlikely; not only do railway bridges continue to have a useful purpose even after the track is lifted, but the South is littered with disused post-Depression/Beeching bridges-to-nowhere precisely because dismantling them is such a costly and complicated undertaking. (In this particular case, demolishing the bridge would have involved closing the Chiltern Main Line while works took place, and I can't imagine either the GWR or BR being particularly keen on that unless it were operationally necessary.) ‑ Iridescent 17:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Facebook and Wikipedia as social media

I recently came across Wikipedia (and Wikia) listed in an Open University booklet as examples of social media. The booklet doesn't appear to be online, but is described here. There were a dizzying array of sites listed as examples of social media, ranging from photo sharing websites to blogging websites, to dating apps to other websites as well. Almost any website where you can log in and create an account and interact with others. That seems like too broad a definition to me (I tend to think of social media as more the social networking side of things), but I can see the point being made. Anyway, I was reminded of this when reading How Facebook's tentacles reach further than you think (BBC article). For historical reasons, Wikipedia hasn't turned out to be a 'data collection engine' (the description there of Facebook) in the sense used there for personal data, but could it have turned out that way, and could it head that way? Either on its own or through link-ups with other sites? Maybe someone who has time to look through the ShareLab website might be able to say more? See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a social networking site. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia hasn't turned out to be a 'data collection engine' (the description there of Facebook) in the sense used there for personal data" - as a group no, however data collection on individual user's article habits certainly takes place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
You'll find no mention of it in the Transparency Report—which is very carefully worded to give the impression that it deals with all data=harvesting while actually only listing formal requests for disclosure—but the WMF harvests more user data than they like to admit. There was a thread on Jimmy's talk when the policy change was slipped through, which is a Who's Who of Wikipedia's paranoid nutcases but they're nonetheless raising legitimate points. (Yes, they may well hide the usernames, but from "a list of pages visited by a logged-in user" it's trivially easy to work out who that user is since they're almost certainly going to primarily visit their own talkpage and pages on which they've recently edited.) There's all kind of weird crap happens behind the scenes under the "Research" and "Research:Data" banners, which I'm certain most readers and editors aren't aware they're signing up for—see this website for as many dubious "research studies" as you could possibly want. ‑ Iridescent 15:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Your comments at ITN regarding ISIS...

Reminded me of this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, I got a popup ad on that link for "Munchies Fried Chicken, Ilford". Apparently, NewsThump's advertising department are the only people remaining who haven't yet grasped the concept of "geolocation and IP tracking don't work in Britain". Although it raises the interesting questions of "is their algorithm assuming that anyone reading about ISIS is likely to have an interest in fried chicken?" (which may well be true—some racial stereotypes exist for a reason—but surely breaks some law or other), "who the hell orders fried chicken online?", "why would anyone in Britain need to get fried chicken delivered since in any place with a population above about twelve there's invariably going to be a chicken shop within a two-minute walk?", and "what on earth was whoever was allocated the 92.13.130.183 IP address before me reading?". Oh, and 'just how drunk would you have to be before thinking that eating anything from a place called "Munchies Fried Chicken" was a good idea?' ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Raises hand* Myself and the wife order fried chicken on Just Eat - we have the problem that there is (where we live) an excess of excellent and bad food shops. So I could walk 2 mins to the horrible greasy Miss Millie's (talkpage stalkers, this will pin me down to about 4 locations) a KFC-clone. Or I can order it from the Jamaican place that is 2 miles away, across a number of major roads, that would take me as long to drive or walk than just having it delivered, that sells delicious crispy fried chicken, hand-cut chips (with skin on) and stuffed jalepenos. Granted I dont think 'Munchies' is the same quality. Much like a "restaurant" I once visited named 'Abrakebabra'. (Runner up: The Kebabery) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Did you ever get the chance to sample this place before it closed? Owner Ali admitted to deep-frying his utensils instead of cleaning them with the proper anti-bacterial wash has got to be the quote of the day. ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Not to say zip-raising!
  • Ah city road, an all you can eat buffet of food safety violations. Adonis - Not personally, however my flatmates at the time did. City road does have some good places, Tenkaichi is hands down one of the best sushi & ramen restaurants I have ever eaten in. At far more reasonable pricing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Although if there are any locals reading I'll undoubtedly get an anguished complaint that despite being about eight minutes from Cardiff it's technically the other side of the Glamorgan border, but Mojo has possibly the nicest food I've ever eaten if you can forgive the air of pretentiousness and the pompous dress code (you're on the shitty side of what's already an unremittingly depressing town, not Fifth Avenue or Chelsea Harbour). It's also only a few minutes from probably my favourite pub (until it gets kicked out by property developers in a few months, anyway). ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well Lepub's days were numbered, however thanks to some hefty campaigning, live music venues in general are getting a boost after the Womanby St protests against Wetherspoons. Now developers who stick residential/hotels areas up next to existing live music venues will have to make all the provisions to prevent sound complaints. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not an expert in Wales (to say the least) but assuming it follows the same pattern England did a few years earlier, you'll get a polarisation in which the property bubble destroys the live music and clubbing scene in the city centres but causes a renaissance further out, particularly in the university towns. All the campaigns in the world won't change the fact that in prime locations near the stations, the freeholders can make more money converting properties into flats and offices and allowing the Chinese and Russians to use them in money-laundering schemes allowing offshore trusts to invest in them for use in the buy-to-let market; but once you're out of those prime locations, the disintegration of heavy industry means the councils get considerably less snobby about having the yoofs raving and boozing if it means creating jobs and bringing high-spending students into their areas. (As a concrete example, Swansea has recently decided that Wind Street is a vibrant attraction, not a national embarrassment.) If you plot nightclubs and small/medium music venues on a map over time for London, Birmingham and Manchester, you can literally see them moving outwards in a circle like a smoke ring. (Yes, London still has Fabric in the dead centre, but that's sui generis; it's across the street from Smithfield Market* and even the best estate agent is going to find "non-stop artics overnight and 10,000 dead cows on your doorstep each morning" to be a hard sell.) ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    *On which, unbelievably, Wikipedia doesn't have an article.
  • Cardiff certainly has moved away from that in a sense. As the home to two universities (and a campus for a third thats a close train ride anyway) It has actively been building huge amounts of cheap student housing (mostly in the form of good quality serviced small flats/bedsits) quite close to the city centre. The aim is to free up affordable housing stock currently used for buy-to-let student accomodation slightly further out (the Cathays and Roath areas around City/Crwys Road expecially). As a result, this is meaning the students are boosting all the city center nightlife, which is I suspect why the live music venues have had such success (in Cardiff) against developers. Cardiff planning understands where the money is going to come from long-term. If the long goal is achieved, it will free up hundreds of properties for buyers - the new regulations in Wales for landlords have already seen them divesting themselves of huge amounts of property. Not being able to offset rental income against tax/mortgage will put a big downer on being a slumlord - coupled with the regs that require large amounts of 'identification' of landlords. Its a multi-pronged attack on buy-to-ket profiteers which stands a good chance of benefiting everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Shame Engerland not dealing with its own Sheriff Fatmans either. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Buy-to-let reform in England is a Nixon-in-China situation; it's something that could only be implemented by the hard right, since even the most devoted acolytes of Saint Jeremy or the moderate Conservatives can see that with Scotland and Wales lost, "bursting the property bubble and plunging the populations of London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool into negative equity" will wipe out the entire support base of the Labour Party and centrist Toryism alike. If Team Strong & Stable win so overwhelmingly it destroys the left for a generation, they can dress up property reform as "British homes for British people" and consequently draw the fangs of the Daily Mail and stare down the inevitable rebels in the South, but a reform of the housing market would hardly be a price worth paying for living in a country run by a bunch of dimwitted B-teamers who weren't bright enough to be appointed to the Cameron administration, with no effective opposition. ‑ Iridescent 15:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Just when I think wikidata can't get weirder....

I see this diff. It relates to this help page and this "about" page. While cool - it's just yet another agregator of data without any great deal of indication of where the information comes from. Oi, vey. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO Commons has re-gained its place from Wikidata as the WMF's most fucked-up project, especially now everyone's favorite creepy sex-case Neelix has taken his disrupt-o-bot over there in the wake of his unpleasantness on en-wiki and is enthusiastically spraying loopy categories around like a machine-gunner. (I know that when I think of "Freedom from Want", my first thought is "Norman Rockwell's painting by the same name included a stick of celery", or "The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate really needs its own category which in turn should be a subcategory of Category:Back Hugs in art".) ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I notice that commons:User talk:Neelix has a few complaints over the cat work already on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I wish that Wikidata would do proper edit summaries. Recently I split off a few interwikis from 1257 Samalas eruption (Q15830869) because they were referring to a different topic, but you can't tell that it wasn't vandalism from the edit summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Neelix is like a terminator—he'll just keep going until someone actually takes action to stop him. (The history of his en-wiki talkpage—which has nine enormous dedicated archives just to hold the deletion notices regarding pages he created by mistake—could politely be described as "striking".) Regarding Wikidata, I imagine their refusal to allow edit summaries is like their refusal to demand reliable sources—a conscious decision, intended to differentiate themselves from Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Or apparently we are supposed to be able to. Through an API, not through the interface. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure that makes sense to someone. (I've said it before and I'll say it again; unless and until WD gets their act together, their data should be blocked completely from appearing on WP. If they're not willing to commit within a reasonable timeframe to at least making token efforts towards sourcing and accuracy, the WMF should call their bluff and cut them loose. If they're really providing such a valuable service as they like to pretend they are, I'm sure Google will snap them up and they can all become immensely rich.) ‑ Iridescent 22:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Quote of the day: "I try to maintain both speed and precision, but with a preference for speed". And he still wonders why he was shown the door. ‑ Iridescent 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
[[Category:Sitting with legs crossed (knee-on-ankle)]]... unbelievable. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Despite it having been here for a while now, I still don't understand what WD's purpose even is.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The cynic in me says that the the WMF is well aware that Wikidata has failed, and is keeping it on life support as it serves a useful social function in keeping the hardcore cranks and obsessives somewhere relatively small where their activities can easily be monitored. Wikiversity traditionally had this function. ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Neelix is still at it, incidentally. If there are any Commons admins reading this, you may want to put a stop to this now—because he works at such high speed and such low competence, as en-wiki learned the hard way it can literally take months to clean up the mess he leaves. We had to invent a new deletion criterion to cover him. ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it was the original purpose or not, but the original use of Wikidata was as a central place for interlanguage links (ILLs), so that we didn't need to have bots running around updating dozens of pages in different languages.
It was easy to link a page in one language to all the equivalents on the other languages. Let's say that you found that a page had no ILLs, but there was an equivalent in six other languages, which were mutually linked. You just needed to create one ILL on your page to just one of the others - or vice versa - and sooner or later a fleet of bots would sail in and add all the missing ones in a pattern like this; there are 21 lines here, but each is bidirectional - so there are 42 ILLs, six each on seven pages. The main problem with this method was that if you made a mistake, and didn't notice until the bots had visited, it was difficult to de-link - if you removed one of those 42 links, a bot would simply add it back in - you needed to remove at least twelve (six on your page, and one on each of the other six), and do so quickly enough that the bots weren't undoing you soon after.
With Wikidata, you have one page with seven entries, and if one is an error, you just need to remove that one - no need to go to lots of other Wikis, no need for bots. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Or to put it the other way, an error introduced in one Wikipedia is now picked up by Wikidata and propagated to every other Wikipedia, without anyone on any of those other Wikipedia's being made aware of the fact. Yes, I know the official answer is "check the 'show Wikidata edits' box" in your watchlist preferences, but that results in your Wikipedia watchlist degenerating into an incomprehensible flood of garbage.

Before anyone accuses me of engaging in hyperbole, I just checked the "show Wikidata edits" box to test it. This is what my watchlist currently looks like with that option selected:

 ‑ Iridescent 11:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yea, I have mine turned off too. I'm a botop, and I can't comprehend this. To each their own I suppose.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 11:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Even when Wikidata-related edits take place on Wikipedia, they can still be unintentionally funny. Here someone is trying to add Wikidata to the portalbar at the bottom of Battle of Hastings. But... instead of linking direct to the [page on the battle on Wikidata], the link takes you to a [search page]. WHY? We'll leave aside that the Wikidata page on the battle has the battle occurring on two different days (having apparantly gotten some Spanish information with the wrong date at some point in time). I'll be correcting the date on Wikidata but I'm going to remove the portal bar link. At least Commons has some utility for the everyday user, I don't see any utility to pointing out Wikidata to our readers. If they even have an idea of Wikidata, they'll be able to find it through other means. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the theoretical utility of pointing out Wikidata to our readers is the hope that they'll go there and fix the errors. As things stand, as documented ad nauseam when a reader sees something wrong in a Wikidata-generated field, there's no obvious way to fix it. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break: Neelix

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, regarding your comments above (but replying here as the indentation on this thread is getting too tangled) I'll just put this here to give a very limited glimpse into what cleaning up after Neelix was like (if you think I'm cherry-picking, any admin can click this link to confirm it's a direct screen-shot with no tweaking or fakery). This is a snapshot of his final 100 or so of them; bear in mind he created literally tens of thousands of these things. (The full list is here, but is well over a megabyte long and will crash your browser if your computer can't handle it.)
 ‑ Iridescent 23:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Where is he getting these titles from? "Construction of the boob"? Really?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I remember that feller. Sounds like a schoolboy's sniggering behind a desk / toilet wall wisdom. At least now he has found a new home to kicked out from. With any luck he'll end up at Wikidata Iridescent :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Damnit, Booby doesnt have a section on nesting, I wanted to redirect 'Constructions of the Booby' to that... Time to break out the missus' seabird books. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
(And I cut off this list before it got to the Breast cancer redirects, which were what eventually drew admin attention and got him desysopped—Tumorous titties, anyone?) It isn't schoolboy sniggering that drives him, just an obsession with creating pages, so he'd take every possible synonym in every possible combination and end up creating sequences like Selfeducation / Self-educating / Selfeducating / Self educating / Self-educate / Selfeducate / Self educate / Self-educates / Selfeducates / Self educates / Selfeducated / Self educated / Self-educator / Selfeducator / Self educator / Self-educators / Selfeducators / Self educators / Self-educational / Selfeducational / Self educational / Self-educationally / Selfeducationally / Self educationally / Self-taught learner / Self taught learner / Selftaught learner / Self-taught learners / Selftaught learners / Self taught learners / Self-taught learning / Selftaught learning / Self taught learning / Self-taught learnings / Selftaught learnings / Self taught learnings / Selftaught / Self-teaching / Selfteaching / Self teaching / Self-teachings / Selfteachings / Self teachings.
I very much doubt Commons will do anything to stop him; it takes a hell of a lot to be kicked out of Commons, who generally take a degree of pride in their reputation as Wikipedia's Island of Banned Users. ‑ Iridescent 11:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Constructions of the booby
@OID, boobies are beloved by every schoolchild not just for the name, but because they don't construct nests but instead paint out a circle on the ground in their own shit. ‑ Iridescent 11:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, it is quite easy for some of the types that edit Wikipedia to disappear down this rabbit hole at times. I just made this edit, which is categorising a redirect as a misspelling. The trouble comes when someone then tries to list and redirect all possible misspellings and variants. Where do you draw the line? There are currently 27,334 redirects in Category:Redirects from misspellings, and many times more than that which no-one has ever bothered to categorise. I remember creating Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects in May 2007 (initial version) and wondering where that would end up (the concept was around long before I wrote that page). I am slightly worried that it has gone from being intuitive categorising to now having 'shell templates' to "help" people categorise correctly (do you remember when WikiProject banners were pulled inside a shell banner?). That seems overkill, though at Template:Redirect category shell, it does say "Manifold sort: If help is needed to determine appropriate categories, then this redirect populates Category:Miscellaneous redirects. Monitors of that category will check this redirect and add or remove rcats as needed.". Phew, that's OK then! (mild sarcasm mixed with genuine relief and worry that people actually monitor such things). Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, eleven people monitor it, and one of those is going to be somewhat less involved with redirects from now on. (Neelix's obsession wasn't just with creating redirects, remember, even though they were what was most visible—there's also the bizarre shrine to Tara Teng he built, and the walled garden he created of pages relating to her.) ‑ Iridescent 11:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

musings on consensus and dispute resolution

True. Though I am unimpressed with how the Si Trew incident has developed. There was (and is) a problem there, but those participating in that thread seem unable to step back and see what the evolution of that thread looks like with a bit of perspective. There was an initial topic ban proposed, but somehow it seems to have evolved into discussion of a site ban/indefinite block, with not a huge amount of justification (and far less participation, so only a small number of people are now discussing that option). I get what the people there are saying, but the process feels wrong. Feels like people are trying to see how far they can go to get what they want, and moving the goalposts at the same time. But then looking at the current headings at ANI it looks like it has become RfC/U mark 2.0. Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Without commenting on that specific case or any other, there is a reason that I've always asserted that community sanctions imposed at AN or ANI should be appealable to ArbCom. Not that the Committee would have an appetite to second-guess the outcomes the vast majority of the time, but there needs to be a safety valve if a discussion goes off the rails completely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone would agree that there need to be some checks and balances on what happens at ANI, but ArbCom isn't the answer. It was set up to handle cases that the Community couldn't settle, not to become the Supreme Court of Wikipedia, with a mandate to overrule Community decisions. If you really want a legalistic appeal mechanism from ANI, you should suggest setting up a panel of eligible editors as jurors, and every time there's a genuine appeal of an ANI decision, ask a 'Crat to assemble an anonymous 'jury' of half-a-dozen or so of those who agree to decide the appeal via email or a private forum. No fuss, no dramah, no names, no extra stress on ArbCom (or using it for a purpose it wasn't intended for). --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "should"—are you saying that once these restrictions could not be appealed to the Arbitration Committee, or that there have been discussions to remove the ability to appeal? Community-imposed restrictions are indeed appealable to the Arbitration Committee to question the validity of the restriction. isaacl (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
In principle I believe that restrictions from AN or ANI (including bans) are still appealable to ArbCom, but there hasn't been a successful appeal that I can remember in a long time, partly due to the discontinuance of BASC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, sometimes I think that consensus based processes are inherently unsuitable for handling user conduct issues when the process relies on a self-selecting group as ANI is. Such groups tend to favour the most obsessed and loud voices and are prone to manifesting both Gresham's law and the Dunning-Kruger effect. It isn't the same thing with content issues as they are not people-based usually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Way back before the dawn of time I proposed a plan to split Arbcom, with a separate Govcom (with different membership) empowered to issue binding conclusions to content RFCs ("should {{infobox person}} include a |religion= parameter?"), leaving Arbcom itself free to act as the arbiters of user conduct and the issuers/repealers of bans and topic bans, as Strippers of Rights, and as a final court of appeal should decisions of the Govcom be deemed inappropriate. It never got anywhere, but I still think it would work; yes, it creates an extra layer of bureaucracy, but it would sweep away a huge swath of largely moribund existing bureaucracies and petty fiefdoms (Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution contains 273 different pages, and while some of them would need to be kept an awful lot more wouldn't), it would give long-term editors who for whatever reason aren't considered appropriate for adminship a genuine degree of significant influence on Wikipedia's decision-making processes, and it would prevent Arbcom itself being such a hell-hole.
If you think 273 is an exaggeration, count 'em
  1. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
  2. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution/Draft
  3. Wikipedia:A request for enforcement over a salad
  4. Wikipedia:Account suspensions
  5. Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute
  6. Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes
  8. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy
  9. Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks
  10. Wikipedia:Avoiding talk-page disruption
  11. Wikipedia:Binding content discussions
  12. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
  13. Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation
  14. Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests
  15. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
  16. Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project
  17. Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter
  18. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution reform
  19. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests
  20. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/MedCab
  21. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution survey
  22. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
  23. Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate
  24. Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black
  25. Wikipedia:Don't panic
  26. Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot
  27. Wikipedia:Don't smother conflict
  28. Wikipedia:Etiquette
  29. Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard
  30. Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard
  31. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
  32. Wikipedia:General sanctions
  33. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate
  34. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts
  35. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation
  36. Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
  37. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
  38. Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard/Archive 1
  39. Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club
  40. Wikipedia:Just drop it
  41. Wikipedia:Light one candle
  42. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution
  43. Wikipedia:Mediation (2005)
  44. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal
  45. Wikipedia:Mediation Committee
  46. Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy/Old policy
  47. Wikipedia:Mentorship
  48. Wikipedia:Method for consensus building
  49. Wikipedia:MOBY
  50. Wikipedia:Navigating conflict
  51. Wikipedia:Negotiation
  52. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
  53. Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement
  54. Wikipedia:Neutrality templates
  55. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
  56. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons just madmen
  57. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard
  58. Wikipedia:Nobody cares
  59. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute
  60. Wikipedia:Parole
  61. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
  62. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
  63. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Articles
  64. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement
  65. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive
  66. Wikipedia:RfC/User names/Institutional memory
  67. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
  68. Wikipedia:Resolving NPOV disputes
  69. Wikipedia:Reviewing mediation
  70. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
  71. Wikipedia:Tag team
  72. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
  73. Wikipedia:Third opinion
  74. Wikipedia:Third opinion/Footer
  75. Wikipedia:Third opinion/Header
  76. Wikipedia:Truce
  77. Wikipedia:WikiLove
  78. Wikipedia:WikiPeace
  79. Wikipedia:Wikipedia processes for editor protection
  80. Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Resolving content disputes
  81. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution
  82. Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars
  83. Wikipedia:Arbitration
  84. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions
  85. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
  86. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
  87. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive163
  88. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current
  89. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration
  90. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration/Draft
  91. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index
  92. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases
  93. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions
  94. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles
  95. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification
  96. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee
  97. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee
  98. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee
  99. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight
  100. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks
  101. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures
  102. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory
  103. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review
  104. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History
  105. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Magic 8 Ball
  106. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members
  107. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
  108. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures
  109. Wikipedia:Village pump/Arbitration Committee Feedback
  110. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Agenda
  111. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules
  112. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight appointments
  113. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election
  114. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Checkuser requests
  115. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures/Statement
  116. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History/January to June 2009
  117. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements
  118. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages
  119. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Appeals Review List
  120. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/BLP enforcement guidance
  121. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Checkuser appointments
  122. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Clarifying the role of the Committee
  123. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Consensus seeking processes
  124. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Skilled content warriors
  125. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 0
  126. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 1
  127. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 2
  128. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 3
  129. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4
  130. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 5
  131. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6
  132. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7
  133. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Open matters/Devolution
  134. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments
  135. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2012 appointments
  136. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2013 appointments
  137. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2014 appointments
  138. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/October 2009 election
  139. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election
  140. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee code of conduct
  141. Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll
  142. Wikipedia:Date linking request for comment
  143. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)
  144. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Summary
  145. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development
  146. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee
  147. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2
  148. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3
  149. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement
  150. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Impeachment of Functionaries
  151. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/October 2009 election/SecurePoll feedback and workshop
  152. Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Guidelines
  153. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Membership history
  154. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports
  155. Wikipedia:Review Board
  156. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/About
  157. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Amendment
  158. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Assistance
  159. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Audit
  160. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Ban appeal
  161. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Clarification
  162. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Conduct
  163. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Contact
  164. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Content
  165. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Other
  166. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Sanction appeal
  167. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
  168. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Mandated external review
  169. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests
  170. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics
  171. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Loci of dispute
  172. Wikipedia:Arbitration rationale
  173. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Involved parties
  174. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Election of Arbitrators
  175. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Procedure for changing this policy
  176. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Procedure for changing this policy/Old proposal
  177. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposals
  178. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposals/Deferring matters
  179. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposals/Evidence scope
  180. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposals/Official mailing list
  181. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposals/Removing legalese
  182. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposals/Removing references to individual Wikipedians
  183. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposals/Template
  184. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment
  185. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment by parts
  186. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote
  187. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/proposed amendment revote
  188. Wikipedia:Talk page layout/Sandbox
  189. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header
  190. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header
  191. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header
  192. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header
  193. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Header
  194. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/preload
  195. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/preload-amendment
  196. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/preload-clarification
  197. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Courtesy blanked
  198. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Header
  199. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header
  200. Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement
  201. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log
  202. Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/IP/Users
  203. Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Standards and principles
  204. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
  205. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Example
  206. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request
  207. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN
  208. Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes
  209. Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/edit request/request/declined
  210. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues
  211. Wikipedia:Controversial articles
  212. Wikipedia:Confidentiality during mediation
  213. Wikipedia:Mediation
  214. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases
  215. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide
  216. Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations
  217. Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Members
  218. Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Submit a nomination
  219. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tasks
  220. Wikipedia:Albanian and Greek wikipedians cooperation board
  221. Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board
  222. Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board/presentation
  223. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac)
  224. Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board
  225. Wikipedia:Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board
  226. Wikipedia:Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board/Current tasks and projects
  227. Wikipedia:Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board/Notification board
  228. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
  229. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Article workshop
  230. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues
  231. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Discussion archive
  232. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions
  233. Wikipedia:Slovak and Hungarian wikipedians cooperation board
  234. Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Rights in Sri Lanka
  235. Wikipedia:Requests for comment
  236. Wikipedia:Feedback request service
  237. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles
  238. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons
  239. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution
  240. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Global consensus check:Sports notability guideline
  241. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/new
  242. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
  243. Wikipedia:Village pump (all)
  244. Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15
  245. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
  246. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList
  247. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire
  248. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire table
  249. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions
  250. Wikipedia:Edit warring
  251. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive296
  252. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
  253. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars
  254. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars
  255. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Ethnic feuds
  256. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/External links
  257. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Fandom and fiction
  258. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Images
  259. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Lists
  260. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Meta pages
  261. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Miscellameness
  262. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names
  263. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Numbers and statistics
  264. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Personal involvement
  265. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Redirects and disambiguation pages
  266. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Spelling and punctuation
  267. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Talk pages
  268. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Templates
  269. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/User pages
  270. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Wording
  271. Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
  272. Wikipedia:No attacks on Wikipedia
  273. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
@Carcharoth, I agree entirely about the way the Si Trew case has panned out. While I agree wholeheartedly with the topic ban—Wikipedia has been far too tolerant, for too long, of people who take ownership of a particular Wikipedia process and use it as their personal soapbox (cough cough cough)—the general glee with which an angry mob is trying to hound him out altogether, rather than just steer someone who's obviously acting in good faith away from the problem area, is unseemly. ‑ Iridescent 23:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the "angry mob is trying to hound him out altogether" a more common phenomenon these days? Maybe I just didn't spend enough time on the drama boards back in the day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It certainly happened back in the day—Jimmy whipping up an angry mob to hound Thekohser off is probably the most high-profile example. (I know it's flogging a long-dead horse, but it's worth pointing out again that the MWB proposal, which Jimmy loathed so much it led to mass blockings and a decade of squabbling, was "articles written by people with a potential COI should be written in a noindexed draft space and not sent live until moved to the mainspace by a neutral third party", and is now standard WP practice.) You probably didn't see it so much because the mobs used to form at WP:RFC/U rather than on the highly-visible boards. We also had a very serious problem back then with people whipping up angry mobs off-wiki on IRC or mailing lists, who would then all descend on a discussion at once to give the impression of an overwhelming consensus before anyone else had the chance to comment—I get the impression that this doesn't happen anywhere near as often as it did. ‑ Iridescent 08:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Since I can compare 2006-07 to 2016-17 without the distraction of actually remembering much in between, I'm of the impression that the internal dynamics of the angry mob have changed, but angry mobs are forever. Of course, my memory may be bad and perceptions may vary - I wasn't too into the politics back then. But I always thought that old-school angry mobs tended to form off-wiki and to get their internal cohesiveness from the preexisting interpersonal relationships of the mob members (and their preexisting quarrels with whoever they were mobbing), whereas a lot of modern mob formation involves people who aren't necessarily specifically interested in each other's wikipolitical fortunes, but just make it part of their regular Wikipedia task list to hang out on the noticeboards and "help form community consensus", which obviously is way more interesting if you get to use pitchforks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't have quite that luxury, but I can compare pre-2011 and post-2015 without the distraction of having witnessed the intervening change. I agree about the decline of off-wiki coordination; the type of people who hang round on IRC appear to have moved on from Wikipedia to Reddit and Twitter, and while the old Wikipedia Review was an ever-present constant in the life of anyone even remotely active on Wikipedia, even if they never actually visited it, its modern incarnation as Wikipediocracy has dwindled to little more than a social club for blocked users to kvetch about how it's Just Not Fair. (That said, the spirit of the Golden Age Of Off-Wiki Co-ordinating Of On-Wiki POV-Pushing hasn't totally died—the old Encyclopedia Dramatica nutjobs or the EEML clique would certainly have recognised kindred spirits in the GGTF.) Whether it's actually a sign of strength or of malaise that people no longer bother targeting Wikipedia is another question altogether. ‑ Iridescent 19:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
arbitrary ease-of-scrolling break
Consensus doesn't scale upwards for any decision making, and the way consensus is evaluated on English Wikipedia is not well-suited for the task and contrary to how it's done in the real world. But it's a catch-22: absent the WMF dictating a change, the current consensus process would have to be used to agree upon a different decision-making process. isaacl (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Isaacl, consensus can scale up, in "silent majority" situations where bringing large numbers of people into the process can make it obvious that one position has overwhelming support. One of the traditional problems with Wikipedia's model is that a small handful of vocal individuals with a particular view can make it appear that a point is disputed and consequently waste a lot of time of a lot of people, whereas bringing in a large number of people with enough knowledge of the subject to offer informed opinions can make it clear right away that the vocal minority have no broader backing for their opinions. Where consensus (in the Wikipedia sense) falls over is in those cases where there are both good arguments, and significant numbers of people, supporting opposing views, and there isn't an obvious compromise solution; these are the cases where a Wikipedia Civil Court empowered to impose binding solutions to RFCs would cut through the crap and put an end to the "the discussions on WT:MED and WP:FTN came to different conclusions on what was appropriate to include in Goat Yoga,* which of these two different consensuses is the 'actual' consensus?" issues. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
*Real article, real discussions. This version in particular is one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I've ever seen on Wikipedia.
As I mentioned in my link, true consensus decision making only works when the group in question is strongly aligned in its goals. This becomes increasingly unlikely as the group grows in size, which results in the situation you describe: none of the points of view are wrong, they just follow from different objectives. For example, some people think every article should explain the basic background concepts underlying its subject at a certain reading level, to make them more self-contained, whereas others think that background context can be deferred to separate articles. I too believe that binding content arbitration would be more effective, but enacting it would mean editors having to give up their effective veto on edits they don't like, and there has been no apparent appetite for this amongst those who participate in such discussions. (Which is another issue that I discussed in my link with how Wikipedia's version of consensus decision-making doesn't scale upwards: it doesn't really capture a true consensus of the entire editing population, who might well be happy with having a final arbiter on content.) isaacl (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
There are ways it could be imposed; the existing Arbcom writes a new "constitution" and puts it to a public vote, and if approved it's then ratified by Arbcom and becomes binding on the whole community through the WMF's rarely-used but still extant Crown-in-Parliament status with regards to Arbcom. It's been done in the past. The impetus would need to come from either the Board or Arbcom, and neither is going to do it unless there's clear evidence either that the existing system has failed completely or that there's a clear groundswell in support of change. (With Roger gone, the only person who could write a formal constitution for Wikipedia is probably NYB, and I very much doubt he wants the job.) ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The most likely route I see to change is for the stalemate on process change to be get bad enough that the makeup of the population shifts, allowing for a vote to pass with a sufficiently high threshold. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Isaacl, to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the population has shifted to that extent, although the Wikipedia Uncertainty Principle applies in that (as the conjunction of this and this is making uncharacteristically clear) it's very difficult to gauge how any discussion will go without actually having a full discussion. Although it looks like Wikipedia is dominated by the 2006–07 intake, IMO that's an artefact of so many admins coming from that generation and consequently that the names one sees over and over tend to be of that group. (With the exception of Kirill Lokshin (2005) and Callanecc (2009), every single member of Arbcom joined Wikipedia in 2006–07) In reality there's been quite substantive churn—using the highly inaccurate method of looking over Special:RecentChanges with popups enabled, more than half of current non-IP non-automated edits are being made by editors who signed up in the last couple of years. Someone at the WMF (WAID I assume it's you) probably has the exact figures, as that's such a key indicator I can't believe they don't monitor it like hawks. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if there were actually quite strong support for a "Congress of People's Deputies" proposal, provided it were presented as "a way to ensure decisions are made by a group that genuinely represents the community rather than the usual superannuated has-beens who dominate Wikipedia's decision-making and dispute-resolution processes". ‑ Iridescent 23:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Every time I've raised the idea of binding mediation, as far as I recall, no comments have ensued. My proposals for trying to evaluate consensus by weighing pros and cons instead of taking a straw poll have not garnered much support, either. I don't think English Wikipedia is there yet amongst those likely to participate in a consensus discussion on the matter. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
tangent about editor retention and the dominance of the 2006–07 intake
Iridescent, a certain founding member of ArbCom is the staff member most likely to watch those numbers, and since he's only made two edits on wiki today, I'm going to go along with his pretense that he doesn't work seven days a week. I'll ask him tomorrow.
BTW, have I ever told you about one of my fantasy projects, phab:T89970? Imagine that if you had a relatively simple question, you could just ask a representative sample of registered editors for a quick response.
(One of my own long-term fantasies is being able to figure out whether editors are feeling better or worse over time, and to be able to determine whether there are characteristics that predict this, such as account age, year that you started [and therefore your idea of how Wikipedia 'should' operate], admin status, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
While I'm thinking about it, here's a few facts (if memory serves/full disclaimers apply):
  • If you compare editors who started around 2007-ish against editors who started around 2012-ish, the recent editors tended to stop editing more quickly now. The main culprit seemed to be automation: (semi-)automated, near-instant reverting, automated warnings, automated unfriendliness. Apparently things like Huggle use (by experienced editors) and editor retention (by newbies) are inversely correlated.
  • Once an editor reaches a couple thousand edits, they're pretty much here for life, or at least "until life intervenes" (finishing college/getting a job/having kids – but the opposite is also true: we pick up high-volume editors when people lose jobs/retire/get divorced). But you have to get to the couple thousand edits range, and we have trouble getting completely new editors to, say, five or ten. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
James takes a "decide what we want the conclusion to be and then find some figures to support it" approach, so I'm not sure he's really the best person to ask. I can predict with a reasonable degree of confidence that to him, the numbers will show "direct correlation between editor satisfaction/productivity and their usage of MediaViewer and VisualEditor".

I suspect that a lot of the problem with keeping new recruits is actually the converse of the low-hanging fruit problem. An editor starting out now is much more likely than in former days to find that whatever they want to write about has a WP:OWNer camped out on the page; experienced editors know how to deal with someone taking a "I've written 3 FAs and that gives me a license to revert without explanation any changes you make" line, but it must be fairly intimidating for new editors. ‑ Iridescent 08:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He says that this is not something he tracks systematically, but that you're welcome to file a request for a query, because it should be possible to determine whether there are more post-2007 active editors than pre-2008 ones.
I don't think that OWNership and unexplained reversions are the opposite of the low-hanging fruit problem. "We've already got a reasonably decent and reasonably well-sourced article at Cancer, so the odds of your edit improving it are lower now than the odds of anybody being able to make an improvement in 2003, when it was largely a collection of unsourced and half-wrong paragraphs" is the low-hanging fruit problem. The examples you give sound more like the "pulling up the ladder after me" problem. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding active editors, this isn't much, but the registration-year distribution of a convenience sample (people who bothered to vote for arbcom) is here.
I know I've seen the data before on how "automation" is apparently off-putting to newbies, but I always have a hard time believing it. Maybe I'm just an asocial weirdo, but if I were just starting to learn how to do something and I screwed it up, I would prefer by about fifteen orders of magnitude to get an impersonal, automated notice about what was wrong and how to fix it than to get an actual real person on my talk page.
My pet theory for new-editor engagement has been that automated fixing of small errors like typos has reduced the number of opportunities for new editors to make small-stakes early edits that are unambiguously positive. But I think I floated that idea on this talk page before, and Iridescent, fixer of many typos, thought I was wrong, and is probably right. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
User:EpochFail did much of that research; perhaps he will be interested in hearing your POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't get the "no more errors to fix" argument—it's not like we're about to run out of obvious typos or badly-written gibberish any time soon. I do have a degree of sympathy with the other "low-hanging fruit" argument in that a lot of topics are taken, but even that is grossly overstated—as soon as you get out of the "popular culture of English-speaking countries in the past 75 years" comfort zone, there are still gaping gaps. (Rapids and Trunk (botany) are concepts 99% of the world is familiar with which have been the subject of thousands of books at all levels from children's stories to learned papers, but currently has a 200-word stub and a 128-word stub respectively. Britt Kersten was a bona fide superstar in the 1960s DDR, but because she lived and worked in a country of which most English speakers have little knowledge and most German speakers would prefer to forget, at the time of writing this link is stubbornly red. Danielle Steel is the fourth most successful author of all time, but her bibliography is 50% redlinks. Tootle is one of the best-selling books of all time but has an article consisting of a three-sentence lead and a one-paragraph plot summary. There are a lot of gapingly open goals still out there.) ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Lack of an article about an articleworthy topic often signifies lack of interest. So maybe the rewording "no more errors that wake normal people's interest to fix" is more accurate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You'd be surprised. Because the Popular Pages Bot has finally been coaxed back to life after its long absence, it's possible to compare empirically "what people are interested in regarding a given area" and "what articles are actually being improved", and it generally makes grim reading. Take Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Popular pages—a topic area which receives a huge amount of effort and attention—and look at just how poor the quality is of most of the articles that generate the most interest, and hence under the "wisdom of crowds" theory should be getting the most improvement. (This holds true even for the much-vaunted MilHist and Equine, usually held up as the exemplars of the Wikipedia model; the only topic I can find where there is a correlation between readership and quality is medicine, and that's because WP:MED reject the "everyone's opinion is valuable!" mentality and ruthlessly steward anything that the public is likely to see.) ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the women one is that bad - unlike Medicine they are chasing a fast-moving target with most of the current top views going to who's-on-tv-just-now, or died. I'd only heard of 1 of the stubs to Cs in the top 20. They'll all be gone from the top in 3 months. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Popular_pages gets a lot of that, & they could be worse. I agree the Milhist is surprisingly poor; you have to get to #49 for a really military FA, the others are just monarchs and presidents, many rather pacific. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair point about the women (although I imagine most of the actresses will remain in the top 50 as long as they're still active), although I disagree that the poor quality ones in WPVA are just artefacts of recentism; sure, Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and Fearless Girl will be gone next month, but there are some ultra-core topics like Portrait, Color mixing and Cartoon in there that read like essays by grade-schoolers. When you get away from the high-level hyperactive projects and look at most-read pages at the next level down, the quality drops spectacularly even in well-documented topics with high levels of participation on Wikipedia. (WP:COMP, I'm singling you out in particular here. It's outright embarrassing that the collective wisdom of 48,270,971 people can't cobble together an adequate article on Website.) ‑ Iridescent 16:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival has been steady in the VA top 20 for some years, as Lady Gaga used to be. Only removing it from the project will shift it. Does any Visual arts activity actually happen there? I'm certainly not arguing that the average quality of highly-viewed articles is very poor, often completely dire, but only a small proportion of our editors these days actually write text, and they mostly prefer to do new subjects, even when these will get very few views. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Coachella does have a VA section (as do Glastonbury, Bestival etc) , although realistically it falls into the category of "miscellaneous crap intended to make the place look less like a refugee camp and more like an experience", rather than anything anyone would go out of the way to see. IIRC, it tends to be whatever art installations were left over from that year's Burning Man, coupled with assorted pieces from ICA artwank types like Genesis P-Orridge. ‑ Iridescent 21:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
another break: big table o' figures
"People who bothered to vote for Arbcom" is actually quite a good sample in this context, if we're looking at the people who'd care enough to have an opinion on any future restructuring of Wikipedia's governance. I can't be fagged to add up the numbers, but at a glance it looks like we've reached the point where "2010 or later" outnumbers "2007 or earlier" among those who are engaged enough to care. I'm entirely in agreement with you about automation; if I were to sign up for a website, I'd not bat an eyelash at an automated "you did this incorrectly" message (anyone who's used a computer at any point in the last decade is used to those), but I'd be mortified if one of the site's moderators were to take the time to address me personally, as I'd assume it meant I'd made a serious error. (Because we're so used to Wikipedia's internal jargon, it's easy to forget that to the rest of the world, every editor on Wikipedia is "an administrator".) ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Registration year Number of ACE2016 voters
2001 3
2002 5
2003 28
2004 82
2005 204
2006 321
2007 188
2008 147
2009 126
2010 101
2011 134
2012 111
2013 116
2014 134
2015 131
2016 80
The actual numbers, if you want them (minus 30ish valid voters whose queries didn't work for various reasons, mostly because I was an idiot when I collected the data and forgot to account for special characters in usernames). Your "2007 or earlier" and "2010 or later" categories are almost exactly equal.
Of course it's not too hard to mash some buttons to vote for or against candidates running for a defined position, even if it's a position you think shouldn't exist. Defining a new set of positions is a harder sell. Obviously I wasn't around to have an opinion, but from reading old tea leaves it seems to me that the moment for governance-restructuring came (I dunno, five years ago or thereabouts?) and has passed us by. There are lots of annoyances about the current state of the project, but nothing bad enough to motivate anyone to take on that kind of task. At the same time, there's very little interesting small-scale experimentation going on that could be offered as a test case ready for scale-up. It seems like the current reaction to any problem is to say it's because there are too many users involved who are inexperienced/clueless/not sufficiently Serious Business about the job, and the best solution is to create a new user right or otherwise impose an access control mechanism to keep out the riffraff. (I actually don't think this has much to do with the new-editor stats - people have passed the handful-of-edits threshold by the time they run into these gatekeeping exercises - but I'm sure it's a problem with respect to the issue I originally collected these stats for, which is increasingly and absurdly lengthy pre-RfA tenure expectations and whether that means anything for newer editors' sense of commitment to the project.) For really new newbies, I have to suspect that the rise in automated communications and the fall of new-editor retention rates have a correlation but little underlying causative relationship, unless there's more to the data that I'm aware of. There's now a much broader range of alternative places online to dispose of your cognitive surplus than there was in 2006, so a decline in the rate of transition from newly registered account to committed community member seems somewhat unavoidable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. As with so much of Wikipedia, until there's an actual crisis "this is how we've always done it" always dominates. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; when the WMF have tried to impose alleged 'necessary progress' by fiat it hasn't exactly been a great success. ‑ Iridescent 13:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm dubious that things have changed so much, but I have one possible sign that you might be right, so I thought I should share it:
In 2011, the WMF offered to create a (strictly individual, opt-in-only, immediately reversible) image filter. Basically, a reader could choose to have potentially offensive content (mostly NSFW or disgusting images) collapsed, and then, if the reader wanted, to click on the image to see it. The movement rejected this: readers should not be allowed to avoid unpleasant images, and editors should not be allowed to tag, say, porn stills or the image at the top of Smallpox as something that generates regular complaints.
Last month, there was a discussion at the Village Pump about whether normal search results should return the top few image hits (i.e., without specifically clicking the "Multimedia" button). They decided against it, specifically because they didn't want any readers to be exposed to NSFW images.
These two discussions reached opposite conclusions, and I was curious about the difference, so I checked: with one exception, none of them participated in the 2011 image filter referendum, and several accounts were created after that time. So perhaps you are right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
File:Tracy Fruit Loops.jpg
The result (at the time of writing) of searching Commons for "Fruit Loops"
I participated in the second discussion (I wasn't around for the first). They're not quite comparable; the first was "should we continue to show appropriate images even if some readers find them offensive?", and the second was "should we show potentially irrelevant images in the hope readers will find something useful in there even though some of the images will be grossly inappropriate?"; I'm not surprised they came to two different conclusions. People may be offended by images of Muhammad, but if they visit the Muhammad article they can't reasonably claim they didn't expect it. When a seven-year-old looking for a free image to illustrate their school paper on Superman searches for "Clark Kent" and finds two of the first three hits are crudely-drawn S&M porn, not so much. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm late to this discussion, but WhatamIdoing: I agree with Iridescent regarding controversial images. Article images is a very different issue than random images in text search. I think you're misreading the motivations involved:
Team A wants naughty images gone. They will vigorously oppose naughty images as much as they can, anywhere they can.
Team B reluctantly accepts images in articles, but they are upset about them pointlessly popping up in text search. If forced to choose between naughty images everywhere or nowhere, they could vote either way. But they can split their vote here. Team B sees articles-with-images as a net positive, and search-with-images as a net negative.
Team C wants 'naughty' images treated the same as any other image, images are obviously included in relevant articles. They don't much care about 'naughty' images in search. However dropping images from text search is a valuable way to get Team B on their side, as well as demotivating and defanging Team A. This applies both on-wiki and off-wiki. Parents and schools and newssources are less likely to to hype a moral panic.
The consensus about images in text search was naturally unanimous.
The current uneasy truce is (1) we are NOTCENCORED, and (2) we are very careful that troublesome images only show up where they are expected, relevant, and needed. Recklessly tossing around machine-selected-images might unfavorably threaten the status-quo.
I can't directly comment on community-percentages about controversial images, but I can cite gallop polls of the general public.[13] Between 2011 and 2016 there was +4% for "porn morally acceptable", and -5% for "porn morally unacceptable". That's a net balance shift of 9% in just five years. I think we can safely conclude the community would only shift in the same direction. Alsee (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that there are more "teams" than that, and very few people thinking in terms of political alliances. I can't imagine HiLo48 (to give only one example of a now-inactive editor) choosing any of the options you list.
I'm also not certain that we comply with (2) as often as you claim. For example, I'd be hard pressed to invent a reason why Smallpox "needs" to lead with an image of a girl who had smallpox, instead of with an image of the virus (which is how most articles on viral diseases begin). Or, you know, take a look at the top of the images at the top of this page. Purge the page a few times. "Expected, relevant, and needed"? Not so much, I think. Accepted by the community? Obviously. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, although some of them were obviously chosen with "good grief, why is Commons hosting this" at least partly on my mind, of the 30 images currently in the rotation (shown here to save you machine-gunning "purge", and without their captions to save space):

well over half—including the risible Donkey punch and Jimmy escorting Lila from the WMF building—are actually in use to illustrate an article somewhere on a WMF project, while most of those that aren't (File:John everett millais my first sermon.jpg/File:John everett millais my second sermon.jpg, File:John Willie Bizarre Whipping at Fence.jpg, File:Femdom humiliation.jpg, File:Bizarre Honeymoon 04.jpg/File:Bizarre Honeymoon 08.jpg/File:Bizarre Honeymoon 15.jpg, File:The Misforunes of Collette 1.jpg, File:1902 Les Flagellants et les flagellés de Paris.jpg, File:REGNE 1.png, File:The Convent School.jpg) are actually significant illustrations in their own right and have a potential encyclopedic value. Even if there were to be a Great Purge of anything that doesn't have a useful purpose, File:Rope bondage-020914-2896-24.jpg would probably be the only one at risk, and even that one has another image from the same shoot used in multiple articles so is obviously not the work of someone randomly dumping irrelevant crap into Wikipedia. While the "expected, relevant and needed" argument may hold true for some images on Commons—waves at Tracy and her fruit loops, whom I see Neelix has thoughtfully categorized into Category:Handbras, by one's own hands—I wouldn't say any of these fall into it. (You'll also note, I trust, that while most of them have a message of implied sex and/or violence, none actually display anything that would trigger even the most prudish filter, and the only one that depicts visible violence is a Beatrix Potter illustration of the Fierce Bad Rabbit stealing the Nice Gentle Rabbit's carrot. Unless you count the cat video, which technically included both.) ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait, they are letting Neelix categorise stuff at commons? Where is my popcorn... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Neelix is doing nothing but create and populate stupid categories at Commons since his departure from en-wiki. (Anyone for Category:Lola the Truck Driver, Category:Edgar Speyer or of course Category:The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate? And note that the Speyer category isn't even for pictures of the man, but for anything associated with him such as a vase he once owned, and one of his former houses.) Other than uploading a bunch of no-conceivable-use images lifted from the website of Peter Alsop, he literally does nothing else now except create useless categories and obsessively move things between categories. (His Commons talkpage contains nothing but complaints about his approach to categories, but he's happily ignoring them.) ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
That destroying angels cat is almost Pratchett-like in its composition. I shall keep an eye out for his further work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
That was what initially caught my attention, as all four of the entries in that cat were uploaded by me so were on my watchlist. (In case it's not obvious, they're all the same picture, just cropped to highlight different elements of the composition.) And to bring this thread back to where it started a month ago, I give you this. ‑ Iridescent 16:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break: Wikidata

"... the WMF should call their bluff and cut them loose" -- I'm curious: why would this be something we'd expect the WMF to do? Wouldn't this be something each language wikipedia would decide independently, as Fram has suggested? I was surprised to see that conversation peter out, since it looked like there were quite legitimate reasons to re-open discussions on the use of Wikidata. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I'm talking about cutting off the funding and free hosting the WMF provides, rather than the individual Wikipedias (Wikipediae?) breaking the data connections. The WD hardliners always insist that the reason it needs to be kept on life-support, despite its benefits to Wikipedia being questionable, is that it's providing an essential service on which major multinational corporations and in particular search engines and data-mining operations rely to operate effectively. If that is the case, then Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo would be glad to pay for it were it a stand-alone project, rather than have it be a constant drain on the WMF's relatively limited funds. If any given Wikipedia still found its data useful they could use it just as easily, whether it's funded by the WMF or not, and if any given Wikipedia didn't find its data useful the donors of that country—who are reasonably assuming that their donations are going to help Wikipedia (and to a lesser extent Commons)—aren't funding something that isn't providing them any service. (This is exactly the relationship the WMF currently has with OpenStreetMap, before anyone starts objecting that it couldn't possibly work.) Besides, if Wikidata were no longer able to shelter under the apron of WMF Legal, they might be forced to ask themselves those long hard questions about accuracy and data integrity they've been ignoring for five years. ‑ Iridescent 11:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm still thinking of starting an RfC about Wikidata on enwiki, but had too much things to handle at once and didn't find the time yet to tackle this one, which will be contentious. Last week, thanks to Wikidata, a number of other language wikis claimed for 1 1/2 day that Kurt Cobain was born in Denmark and died from anal sex. Apparently not a single one of the 800+ page viewers here had a) Wikidata changes enabled, b) noticed the vandal edit and c) cared enough about Wikidata to correct it. And of course on Wikidata hardly anyone cares about vandalism. Getting the death count of the Holocaust corrected from "0" only took an hour though[14]. That figure is unsourced (of course), but luckily the page has a link to the "Identifier" Freebase, which is this. Yep, a Google box taken from Wikipedia is apparently an "identifier" for Wikidata subjects. They have no BLP policy, so no one has a problem with having an unsourced Wikidata page for a 12 year old boy[15]. I notice recent vandalism here, and see that of the three items on that page, two are completely wrong (is an list of ?). This has been the case since August 2015... Extremely blatant vandalism (the one that is immediately obvious on "recent changes" and doesn't need any knowledge) gets uncorrected for at least half an hour [16]. Their test pages are uindistuingishable from real pages[17]. Since more than 1 hour, Robert Pattinson is now known to the Wikidata world as "Robert Pattinson Cock face"[18]. Since 2013, Wikidata has a totally unsourced page on a Spanish politician without any local wiki page. He is now described as an animal who lives on the moon and has the occupation "dumbass". The page has been edited by 11 bots and 3 non-bots. He is apparently the mayor of a village with 84 inhabitants.
I don't think using Wikidata for any biographies (at least) is totally unacceptable until they have and enforce a BLP policy (including something like our BLP unsourced, for all persons without a source or without a wikipage). Fram (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine the WMF would pull funding while there is apparent consensus among the main language wikipedias to use Wikidata, and on en-wiki, at least, the last time consensus was tested it was in favour. So I would think the RfC would have to come first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: hi! Fram (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
That RfC should also consider more nuanced restrictions, such as "no Wikidata info other than interwikis in BLPs", not just a blanket ban. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I proposed this structure, and I think something along those lines would be best, if not exactly that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Paging RexxS as a courtesy at this point to avoid the appearance of a backroom stitch-up, and as the person most likely to mount a credible defense of WD rather than just spewing abuse in the hope everyone else will get tired and go away. ‑ Iridescent 23:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I'd add Izno to that list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Fram and Iridescent, unless we ask very clear questions/offer clear options, we'll end up with split consensus or an RfC that won't be closed properly. Suggestions for options: (1) "Do not use Wikidata anywhere at this time on English Wikipedia." (2) "Do not use Wikidata in biographies of living persons." SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The only reason for (2) above is if folks can be confident that some wikidata fumbling does not impact on a BLP indirectly. See if I look here I can see that it is easy to add names of any people, so theoretically someone could (for instance) and names of people to pornographic movies, far-right political parties (actually I can't see a link to insert a person here or here, or some crime list pages (I can't see any list places to slot people in here, which is a good thing I guess) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd vehemently oppose it, but there also has to be option (3) on the table as well: "Lower Wikipedia's standards to match or approach Wikidata's". I think it would be the single biggest HTD step ever taken, causing the immediate departure of a substantial proportion of the editor base and the probable collapse of Wikipedia within a few months, but the continued existence of Wikidata and Commons implies that there's a not-insignificant faction who would like to repeal WP:V and BLP, and the fact that compliance hasn't been forced on Wikidata implies that this faction has at least some sympathy in the highest echelons of the WMF; there's only so long we can keep assuming the lack of WMF action is lethargy rather than intentional inactivity. ‑ Iridescent 01:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Generally, the RfC wording has to be a collaborative effort between people who are fans and people who aren't. I think Fram's page was useful in gathering together the issues, but there's a lot of work left to do on organizing the issues so the options are not considered to be misleading, or biased, and so they cover all the ground. These sorts of RfCs are exhausting and if one is run that misses key points it won't be easy to do it again any time soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Mike, I hope we can have a non-exhausting one. When RfCs are exhausting, we often fail to gain consensus. We should aim for a short list of very clearly written questions or options. SarahSV (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

break: thoughts about flaws and solutions

The problem is that "NO WIKIDATA" will fail. Keeping interwikilinks will get 99% support probably. Keeping authority control will get what, 80% support, no matter the flaws in it and the uselessness for most readers. Keeping Wikidata lists outside of the mainspace will get a lot of support as well (the redlink lists created by some projects like women in red). Other things (like Listeriabot in mainspace or even worse, the suggested Placeholder articles) will get lots of opposes. The greay area is inbetween: which infoboxes may take data (and what data) from Wikidata? There will be a lot of support for very exact, static ones (like chembox), considerable (but perhaps not sufficient) support for things like communities (population, area, ...), some support for infoboxes on dead people, and probably very little support for infoboxes on living people. To capture this in one or two simple, straight questions will be hard. Restricting the RfC to the mainspace only seems wise (and probably what you all had in mind), but beyond that? Fram (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm really not the person to mount a defence of Wikidata, as I'm not involved much over there. My main focus has always been – given that Wikidata exists – on the practicalities of how we might make use of it as a resource. And by "we", I mean the Wikipedias in various languages, because I sincerely believe that Wikidata has far more potential to be a useful resource to the Welsh Wikipedia (for example) than it ever will be to the English Wikipedia. I'm grateful to Mike Christie for those questions at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs #Suggested structure for RfC questions, as they encapsulate quite well, IMHO, the thinking that is going to have to be done if we are to make use of Wikidata beyond the interlanguage links. Several of the questions beg technical solutions, such as filtering out data whose sourcing is no better than "Imported from Xyz Wikipedia" and the creation of an in-place editor capable of editing a Wikidata entry from within a language Wikipedia. The former I think I've solved (see Module:WikidataIB); the latter is as far away now as it ever was. We will need to gain an understanding of what can be feasibly accomplished by volunteers and what is not going to be done because it needs developer time which the WMF has no inclination to provide – have you all voted in the Board elections, btw?
The only thing I can sensibly add is that some examples already exist (mainly in infoboxes) of how Wikidata can be used and misused, and the lessons we can take away from those examples. For those who like reading, I'd recommend the following:
That's a selection of the good, the bad and the downright ugly debates. You'd have to be really dedicated to get through all of them, though. Personally, I'd prefer we learn from mistakes and try to solve the problems that arise, rather than trying to make simplistic solutions like "ban all Wikidata from BLPs". As usual, article categories are by no means a good predictor of whether something is useful in an infobox – the Module:Gene discussion shows how problems can arise even in "dry" scientific subjects (the database imported into Wikidata contained biomedical claims that failed WP:MEDRS). You might want to ping Mike Peel into the debate, as he's had both good and bad experiences with building infoboxes that incorporate Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually unless Wikidata adopts policies comparable to our BLP policy and the guidelines on reliable sourcing, it flat out should be banned from live BLP articles. We (at ENWP) literally cannot trust anything on wikidata because it is currently not being run in line with what we require. Some Wiki's have very different standards, so it would be more useful for them, because wikidata being a load of unreliable data doesnt actually conflict with their internal policies. Ultimately to make wikidata useable on ENWP, Wikidata will need to have comparable reliability policies. Now that can be imposed by the WMF, or everyone here can go there and impose it on the wikidata community by majority rule. Either way, until that happens, its a liability for ENWP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
There you go. That's exactly the sort of uninformed commentary that causes folks to throw up their hands in exasperation. Wikipedia has policies on sourcing. Does that stop articles being badly sourced? No it doesn't. Is there a problem with all of the data being unreliable on Wikidata? No, that's not the case. Is there a problem with some of the data being unreliable on Wikidata? Yes, there is a genuine problem. But nobody need care what policies Wikidata does or doesn't adopt if we filter out the unsourced or badly sourced stuff, because the stuff that's actually sourced on Wikidata is likely as well sourced as most articles on Wikipedia. Try clicking [Random article] a few times if you don't believe me. So what do we get proposed as a solution: "unless Wikidata adopts policies comparable to our BLP policy and the guidelines on reliable sourcing, it flat out should be banned from live BLP articles" and the rest of the hyperbole. "We (at ENWP) literally cannot trust anything on wikidata" How can anybody take you seriously? Go and look at Bobby Charlton (Q171583) and tell me what you find there that's unreliable? The only thing that I'd be uncertain about is that he won the Ballon d'Or. That is problematical for me because it's unreferenced on Wikidata – but it's also unreferenced at our article on Bobby Charlton ! so there's bugger-all point in trying to pretend ENWP has all the answers. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has policies on sourcing. Does that stop articles being badly sourced?" No but it places a massive barrier in the way. Wikidata has no such barrier. "the stuff that's actually sourced on Wikidata is likely as well sourced as most articles on Wikipedia." This has been demonstrated repeatedly to not be true. "Go and look at Bobby Charlton (Q171583) and tell me what you find there that's unreliable?" Given that everything on that page is imported from a variety of other language wikipedia's, with difference standards of quality, to actually check the reliability I would have to go to each of them and confirm the source used is compliant with our policies. If wikidata's policies matched ours, I could trust the data contained on wikidata was compliant regardless its ultimate source. So if your plan is to "filter out the unsourced or badly sourced stuff" from ENWP's end, my response is 'We should not have to'. Wikidata needs to conform to ENWP to be useful. If it doesnt, then its not useful and should be prohibited in high-risk areas. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
At least when it comes to English Wikipedia, I have to agree with OID. Wikipedia has the critical mass of editors that means errors have at least a fighting chance of being spotted, whereas Wikidata doesn't have the volunteers or the culture to clean up the mess; it's not so much a case of the policies being problematic, as of how spottily the policies are enforced. I suspect that if (1) the software could be changed such that a "show Wikidata edits if they affect the appearance of the en-wiki article" option were available in the watchlist, (2) Wikidata ruthlessly enforced that edit summaries had to be along the lines of (changed "gender" from "unspecified" to "female") rather than the current (‎Created claim: Property:P21: Q6581072, #quickstatements) and (3) it were possible to edit Wikidata directly from Wikipedia without having to learn WD's incomprehensible private language, much of the opposition, and the general "tanks on the lawn" ill-feeling, would vanish overnight. ‑ Iridescent 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

break: Donald Trump and Bobby Charlton

  • I was interested in the mention of Bobby Charlton and so looked through his Wikidata entry as suggested by RexxS (Bobby Charlton (Q171583)). the entries about the BBC Sport Personality of the year are rather ropey. They say that he was nominated in 1958 and 1959. He came second in those years but the entry fails to mention that he won their Lifetime award in 2008. And it fails to mention a bunch of other things he was nominated for. I then took a quick look at his article on Wikipedia. From my own memory, I decided to see what it said about his famous comb over. Nothing. It doesn't seem to mention his hair at all; the closest we seem to get is a brief query on the talk page. I then thought to contrast this with Donald Trump and am amazed to find that that says nothing about his hair either. If you want information about that you have to go to Donald Trump's hair, where it is confined to some sort of purdah. Other things poorly covered in Trump's article include his catchphrase, "you're fired", and the extent to which he uses Twitter. Wikipedia has bigger problems than Wikidata... Andrew D. (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that I'd expect Donald Trump's appearance to be covered in his article—his unusual appearance plays far more of a part in his public image than is the case for most politicians—but the current situation is the result of the discussion from hell, and I doubt anyone wants to go through that again for the sake of something so trivial. (It's not as if anyone reading Donald Trump is going to be unfamiliar with what the man looks like.) On Bobby Charlton, I'm not so sure—this may be something everyone from the UK is aware of, but while I'm well aware of who he is it's only on Googling it now to see what you were talking about that I find out he used to have a ridiculous haircut for which he was mocked in the 1960s, so I'm not sure if it's as integral a part of his story as Trump's. (With Trump, the distinctive appearance plays an explicit part in recognizability and hence in his career in TV and politics, whereas an athlete's success or failure is based on their athletic ability, not on their appearance.) ‑ Iridescent 23:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has bigger problems than Wikidata..." Yes, and? I wouldn't say that the mention or not of the hairdo of Charlton or Trump is really "a bigger problem", but YMMV. Feel free to discuss these problems and present solutions. How is that relevant though for a discussion about Wikidata, which is slowly becoming a bigger and bigger problem (even though it indeed probably isn't our biggest problem yet)? "You are not allowed to discuss X, because unrelated Y is an even bigger problem"? No? Then what do you really mean with this section? Fram (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: Not to put words in his mouth, but as I read Andrew D.'s comments he's saying that complaining about Wikidata's data integrity is missing the point as Wikipedia itself contains such a high volume of errors and omissions that whatever problems are imported from Wikidata are relatively small in comparison. This isn't an argument I agree with, but it's certainly not a lone voice in the wilderness—it's the argument the old Wikipedia Review brigade were making a decade ago.
There's certainly some validity to one aspect of the "bigger fish to fry" argument; Wikipedia already has serious issues with people dumping data en masse from dubious sources, and that will continue even if Wikidata were to be switched off tomorrow. See the mess I've just revdeleted from Cholmondeley (surname) for example (complete with home addresses of non-notable living people)—this was a fairly obvious scrape from www.thepeerage.com, as dubious-looking a source as I've ever seen. One could certainly make the argument that with a properly-functioning Wikidata, this kind of thing would be less common as those importing such things would be bringing it in from a site with at least a modicum of quality control. ‑ Iridescent 16:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
One could make that argument, but it would be bogus. A site which considers Quora, findagrave, google search (the Freebase ID), ... and of course Wikipedia as goud sources, is not a source with " a modicum of quality control" but a site like Wikipedia, but with lower standards. We should raise our standards, not go the other way. Fram (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm certainly not saying I agree with the argument—if you look a bit further up this thread you'll see me saying that [en-wiki accepting Wikidata's current standards on sourcing] would be the single biggest HTD step ever taken, causing the immediate departure of a substantial proportion of the editor base and the probable collapse of Wikipedia within a few months—just pointing out that "Wikipedia has more serious problems than Wikidata and should concentrate on addressing those" (which I think is what Andrew's trying to say) is a relatively mainstream point of view not some lone voice in the wilderness. Indeed, I suspect it's a view many of the board themselves share; they can try to pin the blame for the Knowledge Engine fiasco on Lila going rogue, but a decision with that much potential impact on spending and direction would been signed off well above her pay grade, and KE and WD are two sides of the same coin. ‑ Iridescent 19:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to present a full-developed thesis as I prefer to look at the details and examples. If there's a pattern or conclusion then it may emerge from this. But, if you want some organising principle, please consider Sturgeon's Law. The open nature of wiki projects means that this is quite applicable. Linus's Law is supposed to be the operational answer to this but there's obviously a significant lag. Wikidata may make matters worse or, by consolidating facts, it may make matters better. The answer is probably a bit of both and so we should keep an open mind. Andrew D. (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Block of User:JJMC89 bot

Hey, per the userpage at User:JJMC89 bot, the NFC function of this bot can be disabled by editing this page. Please reconsider your block of the bot as a whole. SQLQuery me! 02:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Call me blind, but I'm not seeing anywhere on User:JJMC89 bot that says the NFC functions can be selectively turned off? I see an emergency block button and ... nothing else. Am I missing something? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not particularly obvious, though I would guess that botops who use this approach don't realize that, but there's a "disable" column in that table which says "Save with reason". A non-blank saved page with an explanatory edit summary would presumably disable the bot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I see the first item on the page is a notice saying Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it, followed by a big red button leading to Special:Block/JJMC89_bot and labeled Administrators: Use this button if the bot is malfunctioning, followed by an incomprehensible table of WikiSpeak gobbledegook; I'm not going to give the slightest apology for following the instructions the bot operator plastered all over the bot's user page. In case the arbcom case didn't make it clear, BAG needs to get its own house in order before it starts playing the "bots are infallible, and whatever goes wrong is the fault of everybody else because they just don't understand" card again. (JJMC89 has only been about for a couple of years so "ignorance of the past" is a valid excuse, but you were there first time round. How on earth could you think what was to all practical purposes a proposal to re-animate the most contentious bot in Wikipedia's history—which caused so many complaints we had to set up a dedicated admin noticeboard to prevent the complaints overwhelming AN and ANI—was ever going to be non-controversial?) ‑ Iridescent 20:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
So, you understand complicated concepts like NFCC, but don't understand wikitable at the bot's userpage? Did I get that right? SQLQuery me! 04:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that no admin outside the BAG inner circle would interpret Administrators: Use this button if the bot is malfunctioning as anything other than "if this bot is causing problems, use this button". As Mike says above, nobody can reasonably be expected to know that "Save with reason" is BAG's internal code for "selectively disable bot functions". (Without wishing to point out the obvious, the actual operator of the bot appears to understand perfectly well what the issue is, understands why the bot was blocked, and is changing the design of the table and the bot's userpage and has disabled the NFC-tagging function pending a discussion of what its criteria should be, and is in general behaving exactly as a bot operator should behave rather than the usual "if the bot is having problems with reality everyone else should change reality to make it easier for the bot" attitude. As best I can see, both here and at the ANI thread the only person who does see any problem with my block of the bot is you.) ‑ Iridescent 09:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Young Stunna (musician)

Hi Versace, noticed an article on Young Stunna musician has been moved. I understand. It was nominated for speedy deletion yesterday but was of course confirmed by another admin to be different. There might be a little similarities but like I formerly mentioned this page is for an artist.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by rexchuqa (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Iridescent and thanks for speedily deleting the Young Stunna article. User:rexchuqa revealed to me in this edit that the subject wants to use Wikipedia to get verified on Twitter. The fact that they know what the artist wants also proves that they are closely connected to the subject and shouldn't be editing the article. They are going to try to request for undeletion sooner than later. In my opinion, the Young Stunna article needs to be salted to prevent re-creation.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 18:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Easiest way to get verified on Twitter is to use a proxy and create a load of twitter-clones/impersonation accounts, have them spout obvious libel and other problematic stuff, then when you complain to twitter that they are not doing enough to stop harrassment and your fans from knowing the 'genuine' account - gets verified pretty quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Rexchuqa, the versions were almost word-for-word identical. Invite any admin to compare the version deleted at AfD in 2015 with the version you recreated this week; the latter is an almost verbatim cut-and-paste of the former. This was an absolutely clear-cut G4 deletion. Given that both versions were a blatant unattributed cut-and-paste plagiarism from this page on Wikia—which predates either version of the Wikipedia article—we wouldn't undelete it in any case. If you feel that he's noteworthy enough in Wikipedia terms to warrant an article on Wikipedia, write it in your own words and sourced only to what reliable sources say about him. Since from your comment that the person in question happens to be influencing and needs a bio on Wikipedia to support his fan base system as a wiki article is one of the criterion for getting your Twitter account verified I assume you're closely connected to the subject, I strongly advise reading Wikipedia's policies on editing with a conflict of interest; while it's not forbidden for people to write about a topic with whom they have a financial or personal relationship, it's strongly frowned upon, and the onus will be on you to comply with Wikipedia's rules on writing neutrally (which means covering negative as well as positive commentary) and on publicly disclosing your conflict of interest. ‑ Iridescent 23:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent thanks for your reply. Now I seem to quite understand. I'm a fan of the artist (his number one fan) the initial article I created before an after edit was as much as I knew about the artist. Can the article be reverted or moved to my draft? Although there were differences in the article I understand that the re-edit made it almost similar. It was cleared after the first nomination only to be nominated again because the user felt he hasn't done enough musically. An article with over 40 references. Well I regret creating the article because it has violated wiki's rules but I plead with you to send it back to my draft so I can save the file on my tablet for reference sake. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexchuqa (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we're not going to restore either version; as I've already explained on this page, and has also been explained to you at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Young Stunna, for legal reasons Wikipedia can't restore copyright violations. In any case, there would be no point in restoring it as a draft or emailing you the text of it since the text already exists on the website it was cut-and-pasted from in the first place. He may well be notable in Wikipedia terms given the awards he's won—I don't know whether the African Entertainment Awards and Asia Voice Independent Music Awards are significant awards—but any article on Wikipedia has to be written entirely in your own words or with content from elsewhere that's correctly attributed as a quote from that source. Because that's a legal obligation, not just an arbitrary Wikipedia guideline, that's something that we can't be flexible about. ‑ Iridescent 08:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Technically speaking that Wikia appears to be compatibly licensed (CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported), but since their article appears to be in turn copied from http://biography.hi7.co/young-stunna-564418dd2f221.html which has a copyright notice and no evidence of a free license it's probably still a copyvio - and the Wikia page might be as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd be willing to bet a reasonable amount that Alice Shedrack on Wikia and Ikayjohn, Theyoungstunna, Teamstunna, Rexchuqa and Southcastng have what AGF means I'm obliged to describe as "a degree of closeness to the subject". ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_25&oldid=1114539628"