This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hey Iridescent,
I'm not sure if you'll be into it, but do you think that you could review Kurt Vonnegut and leave your thoughts at the peer review. I'm trying to get as many eyes on it as possible, and hope that my coverage of him is the best possible. Sound good? I understand if you don't want to, for any reason. Thank you, -- ceradon ( talk • edits) 08:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. We've gone to FAC with the Kurt Vonnegut article. Just a heads up. Cheers, -- ceradon ( talk • edits) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe referring to Elizabeth Hankes? Several lines of odd stuff supposedly written on an envelope by Etty, I suppose between 1828 and 1830, in Round Table, Volume 3, H. E. and C. H. Sweeter, 1866 - New York (N.Y.) p. 316. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Thank you for your fine help at Trinity Chain Pier. It is really appreciated and has eased my work in improving the article. John ( talk) 21:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC) |
On 26 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret (pictured) illustrates the virtues of honour and chastity through the depiction of occultism, partial nudity, violent death and implied sexual torture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Hello! Thanks for your detailed response on @ Johnbod:'s talkpage. The Wrestlers was almost certainly rephotographed with colour calibration in advance of the gallery reopening on 1/08/2015. I am trying to get access to this copy in advance of the normal release process (at which point it will appear on the collections page: The Wrestlers on the YMT Online Collection). There are also a number of William Edward Frost's paintings in the online collection that currently lack accessible images.
How useful might Etty's sketches and works on paper be? There's one on Commons already and one by William Holman Hunt of Etty sketching: Works on paper in the York Art Gallery. A collections search indicates that there are nearly 700 more that might be photographed but may have dubious quality. If particular examples would be really useful it might be fun to hunt them down.
It would be great if Etty or related articles could hit TFA around early August as the gallery reopens? Let me know if there's anything else I might help with? Cheers PatHadley ( talk) 16:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've written The Wrestlers to try to ensure we have something in the YORAG collection ready for the 1 August reopening; once the FAC for The Destroying Angel is either archived or promoted, I'll nominate it. If anyone has any suggestions/improvements to make, please do as given the glacial pace of WP:FAC this is going to be a tight deadline; pinging Victoriaearle, Ceoil, Eric Corbett (this one is of male subjects so shouldn't have any GG implications), Giano, Johnbod, Kafka Liz, ArchReader and anyone else who might have an interest in Victorian high-kitsch. It's a bit of a difficult subject, as it's so poorly documented it's impossible to be sure what the artist's intentions were so of necessity there's a "it might be social commentary on the struggle between black and white people in British society, or it might just be that the model happened to be black that day" element. Plus, Etty also painted a completely unrelated picture also called The Wrestlers (nothing at all out of order going on in that picture, you just have a dirty mind), so there's an issue as to which painting any reference to it pre-1947 is referring to. – iridescent 09:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how those might fit into your plans. I'll do my best to see if we can get the Elgin sketches digitised! Cheers, PatHadley ( talk) 16:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
PatHadley, Johnbod—in light of the above I've worked Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball up to what I consider FA standard. Do either of you (or anyone else watching this page) have any strong opinion as to whether Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball or The Wrestlers would be preferable, given that the timescale means there's likely only to be time to get one through FAC in time for the gallery opening? My preference is tilting towards Fancy Dress Ball if that one's going to be on display and Wrestlers won't be, but I can see arguments the other way as Wrestlers is a more visually striking image so might generate more page-views. I'll nominate one or the other very soon, so if anyone has and good reasons why one or the other should be chosen, speak now or forever hold your peace. (I've also nominated Fancy Dress Ball at Featured Picture Candidates despite my general distaste for FPC, as I feel it easily qualifies and now the painting is the subject of an article, the image has an obvious encyclopedic value.) – iridescent 11:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
PatHadley, barring unforeseen circumstances Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball will pass FAC by 1 August, so will be hopefully be TFA that day. The YORAG paintings included on it are Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball, Elizabeth Potts, Venus and her Satellites (albeit the Ponce and not the YORAG version) and Mlle Rachel. There will also be a steady stream of "Did you know" articles between now and then, starting tomorrow with Candaules and followed at roughly 4–5 day intervals by The Wrestlers, Fancy Dress Ball, Musidora, The World Before the Flood, Youth & Pleasure and The Combat. I'll try to get the bio up to at least a respectable level before 1 August, as at the moment it's really not fit for purpose. – iridescent 21:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia now has a shiny new
William Etty article in place and ready in time for the local papers to plagiarise use as a basis for their own writing in their coverage of the YORAG reopening. Re-pinging
User:PatHadley,
Victoriaearle,
Ceoil,
Johnbod,
Kafka Liz,
Lingzhi; do your worst. I'm aware that it's nudging the
WP:TOOBIG limit, but IMO this is a topic that really shouldn't be split into separate "Early life" and "Later life" articles a la
Ricky Ponting or
Samuel Johnson, since such a key element is being able to see how his work changed over time, and how his later works relate to early works. (It's not unconscionably long; assuming
User:The ed17/Featured articles by wiki text is correct, if it were to pass FAC today it would be the 147th-longest, and those above it include considerably less weighty topics such as
Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons,
Adam Gilchrist,
2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and
Ontario Highway 401.) Besides, the only natural break points are 1821 (which would only trim a tiny amount) and 1828 (which would mean a post-1828 article requiring such a long "story so far" section, it would effectively be a content fork).
It does intentionally break the all-hallowed
WP:VAMOS in a few places, but I feel it's justified; with the monumental paintings like Sirens it really doesn't make sense to have images at default size (those sailors who look like tiny specks in the background are each around three feet high in the original), and the "bound captive" paintings I've intentionally placed looking out of the page as I think it suits the aesthetic better. –
iridescent 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Failed to ping earlier as the names were a cut-and-paste from my previous list, but
Belle consider yourself pinged as well. –
iridescent 23:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
(de-indent) I was looking around in JSTOR the other day and came across a snippet in the Bulletin of the American Art-Union advertising the 1849 retrospective. Apparently, "The Council of the Society of Arts [...] exhibit every year the collected works of some one artists, and apply the funds arising therefrom;—first, to giving the artist whose works are exhibited, a commission for a picture; and secondly, to the purchase of pictures already painted. The first of this series of Exhibitions was that of Mulready's works, last year. This year a collection has been made of Mr. Etty's. One hundred and thirty have been brought together, and are said to form a combination of great excellence." I hadn't read the new biography at the time, so I was surprised by the tone of the piece, which was far more respectful than I had expected for someone with Etty's reputation (as reflected in your articles for his various paintings, or at least those I had read). It all makes more sense now; in its detail and completeness, the new biography explains clearly and impassively the changing perceptions of Etty's work, and indeed places even the kitsch in its proper context. Beautiful work, Iridescent, about a remarkable artist. Waltham, The Duke of 23:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Nineteenth-century fusions of Venetian history painting and English proto-realism appears to beat Wikipedia's usual remit of sports, war, trains and astronomy with our readers. (Didn't Jimmy Wales ban Gibraltar Tourist Board fluffery from appearing on the main page? It looks to be sneaking back in.) ‑ iridescent 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Iridescent. You're invited to join
WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a
project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.
Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America 1000 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
Any source that would require more than 30 seconds of effort to verify, and if anything the rise of Google has just made that mentality worse, coupled with a tendency of some editors to unquestioningly accept whatever Google throws up as holy writ. (I won't embarrass by naming names, but I've caught at least one significant editor citing articles to novels without realising that they're works of fiction.) I believe my opinions of the sainted Awadewit were, and are, fairly well known.
AWB said this? Better fix the dictionary. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
On 6 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Dawn of Love (painting), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Dawn of Love (pictured) has been described as "one of the most unpardonable sins against taste"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Dawn of Love (painting). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
"what the purpose of this board [ANI] is. It's not the Editor Conduct Complaints Department, it's the place one comes to report incidents which potentially require administrative action. ‑ iridescent 17:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)"
Are you sure? (ANI might be described or defined like that, but is that how it is used? I have seen even administrators discuss how they can execute site bans on editors over generalized behavior, at ANI. [Even Dennis Brown thinks that.])
In addition I've seen many times at ANI threads closed with comment that the thread was a content dispute, so not suitable for ANI. (Okay. Then once when I observed a clear content dispute, and interjected into the discussion that it wasn't a candidate for ANI, I was disagreed with and "educated" by more than one editor that ANI can be about content issues too.)
My conclusion has therefore been, that ANI has no rules, and is capable of nearly anything. And to make argument that ANI not fulfill purposes it is not defined to do, carry no credence re the actual activities on that board (except as mentioned for immediate justification for an editor to do something they want to do, like close a thread based on "content-related", but also violating that "rule" when editors want to ignore it).
I believe my view is pragmatic since formed by observations of the actual realities at that board. Making a disconnect between any defined description, thus a kind of anarchy there. Which many editors have commented on, not just me. (Do you disagree?) IHTS ( talk) 22:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
And in a larger sense too, I doubt there are "rules" that govern anything anywhere on the WP. (E.g. a request for ARB clarification turned into a site-ban effort on Eric Corbett. Casliber once told Eric that a threatened iBAN would not be applicable to him, since Eric never stalked the editor in question. But when I informed Casliber that I had iBAN applied to *me* when I never stalked anyone ever, he had no response.) IHTS ( talk) 06:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
And here's another interesting (at least I think so) thought: Dennis Brown once said that actions inconsistent with current WP policy can absolutely be OK, because policy is an after-the-fact recognition of "current practice" on the WP. Bishonen agreed with that position. (To me that's scary. How the hell is a newbie, who does her/his best to educate themselves reading WP policies, supposed to know what "current practice" is? And what quantifier/qualifier determines "current practice" anyway? It seems [to me] that could mean any blue smoke someone [an administrator] wants to blow out a body orifice at any given time, to justify an action/sanction they want to take/impose.) IHTS ( talk) 06:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems I made a mess at TFA. And was short with you. Ahem. I dont really care about the scheduling, fwiw, and Brian had a point. Ceoil ( talk) 07:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't me with the book, I would not ask Jimbo and the other anti-content people on the board for anything. Best,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
One day, someone will explain to me just why "conflict of interest" and "paid editing" are such terrible things. Many years ago during the MyWikiBiz wars I asked why User:NumberOneBritneySpearsFan making a series of gushingly one-sided edits to Britney Spears is "community engagement" but User:Dave from RCA Records Press Department making strictly factual and non-contentious edits regarding sales figures or release dates on the same article is a heinous offense that justifies immediate banning. I've yet to see a convincing reply. ‑ iridescent 23:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Unpaid tendentious editing is a problem and paid/COI editing is a problem - I don't think they're mutually exclusive concerns. At least there's general agreement that tendentious editing is problematic—making it marginally easier to deal with. In contrast, there's a lot of resistance and contrarianism when it comes to acknowledging the threat that paid/COI editing poses. Every serious reference or scholarly work has had to deal with the issue of COI, and we're uniquely vulnerable because of the pseudonymous open-editing model—but we're not willing to think seriously about it. The first step in dealing with a problem is admitting that it exists, and right now we're stuck on step zero. MastCell Talk 04:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mastcell, I have a feeling your view is slightly distorted by working in one of the few fields where COI does have the potential to have an impact—for most of Wikipedia, the motivation for something being written isn't really an issue except when third parties choose to make it so. For the vast majority of Wikipedia, the primary motivation for inserting distortions in articles is "I like it" or "I dislike it", and that has a far more corrosive effect.
To take a completely non-random example, when the British Museum was offering payments to anyone who took an article on one of their exhibits to FA, it would clearly breach either of the proposed new rules (admins are not allowed to accept payment for any services on Wikipedia. Do not believe those who claim to be admins and ask for money.
or No administrator may accept payment to edit articles or to perform any administrative function on Wikipedia.
) but I fail to see any actual problem caused by it—yes, it possibly caused some editors who would ordinarily have worked on something else to choose to work on BM material instead, and thus caused a notional detriment to those other subjects, but you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate it. I'm not sure the "no payments" hardliners really understand just how much Wikipedia relies on paid editing, and just how difficult it is to separate paid editing from paid advocacy—Sue Gardner did try at one point, but was
overtaken by events.
( My Cassandra/Jeremiah combo a few threads up looks less paranoid in the wake of this latest crusade, doesn't it? If anyone wants a vision of what Wikipedia 2016 would look and feel like were this proposal to be accepted, just imagine a world in which any talkpage disagreement which happened to involve an admin triggered a process that looked like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping and lasted just as long.) ‑ iridescent 11:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
In a nutshell, I think "Conflict of interest" occurs when an editor has an external incentive to slant coverage of a topic in a particular direction, and that external incentive can be anything from an outright financial inducement, to a fan wanting to airbrush mention of their team losing badly, to someone who disapproves of something trying to remove mention of it; and that whether a COI exists is not particularly affected either by whether cash has actually changed hands, or by the user rights of the editor. To the proposers of this amendment, "Conflict of interest" exists when an admin (specifically only an admin, not a vanilla editor) accepts a material reward of any kind in connection with anything done on Wikipedia ("admins are *not* allowed to accept payment for any services on Wikipedia" is the exact wording proposed, complete with asterisks), which would most certainly cover Jimmy Wales's adventures on stage and screen (unless you think that whenever he turns up on TV the producers have no interest in Wikipedia, but are seeking his experience as proprietor of a porn site guy-oriented website). ‑
iridescent 09:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, does I do accept travel costs for speaking events by organizations that can afford them
—a direct quote from the userpage of the admin who
actually started this whole idea—constitute "accepting payment"? As
NE Ent has pointed out, he already appears on
the T-shirt list, and since the T-shirt in question
costs $15 or £14 (interesting mark-up there, WMF, since the current exchange rate is $1.54=£1) that's certainly going to be well over the de minimis line being proposed.
(In researching the cost of those shirts, I have just discovered for the first time that The Wikipedia Store is a thing. Even the people modelling the shirts look embarrassed to be associated with them. It does fill one with confidence to know that the WMF is dealing with a reputable-sounding organization like "our fulfillment partner, SWAGBOT", though.) ‑ iridescent 17:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:
Thanks! Mike Peel ( talk) 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you pinged me at ANI, but I thought I should place this comment here:
That's a cool tool at WMF labs, thanks I was not aware of it. But let me be very clear - edits to mainspace mean nothing about the value of a user to the ref desks. Let me use myself as an example.
Essentially, I do it right, and I make the ref desk a better place. And yet I almost never edit mainspace [1], but that doesn't mean I'm not an excellent ref desk respondent. Do you think I'm a bad influence on the ref desk? Do you think I should be topic banned? I hope not. So please don't imply that not editing mainspace much makes someone a poor ref desk respondent :) SemanticMantis ( talk) 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I guess I was supposed to notice that the but owner was blocked. I didn't.
I saw an which didn't make sense to me. I spent more time than it deserved trying to track down what the edit was intended to accomplish. Then I realize the edit remove some important information and that irritated me. I was pretty unhappy but I thought I'd left a reasonably worded request to explain the edit. Yes I missed that the editor was blocked. Your lack of AGF is showing. To the best of my knowledge I've never interacted with this editor before so I wasn't trying to get in a "kick". I simply wanted to know why someone was running a bot that was making inappropriate edits. It is highly likely that it wasn't an intentional error, but I wanted to let the bot owner know that they were potentially creating problems. Have we interacted in a negative way before? If so, I don't recall it, so I don't understand your ABF attitude.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Good job on Dblack wiki Pepdonald ( talk) 05:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
A summary of yet another Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 15:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Given that a great proportion of vandalism is probably perpetrated by bored schoolchildren, has anyone considered adopting a practice of running the more "interesting" mainpage FAs on weekends? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the vandalism problem is certainly less bad than it was in my day, both because the novelty of "anyone can edit" has worn off, and because IPs being locked out of templates has made many of the types of vandalism Cluebot couldn't handle a lot more difficult. Plus, the "nothing on the main page can ever be protected" mentality seems a lot less prevalent than it was.
@ NYB, I know that on at least one occasion Bencherlite intentionally scheduled an article ( Fuck) for when the schools were closed, although that was less a matter of avoiding vandalism and more of trying to prevent a repeat of the Virgin Killer incident, given how hair-trigger the site-blocking software used by schools is and how much hay certain people would have made from "Wikipedia banned from use in schools owing to obscenity". ‑ iridescent 09:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
For this. I had just spent over an hour reading her talk page, and looking through contribs. looking for that. Sad; especially to see an admin. perpetuating that. Thank you for asking outright where it should be asked. With respect, — Ched : ? 19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not really an error because it didn't make things worse, but this edit ideally would have been caught to change "71th" to "71st". Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 13:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Consider the source: ... an unsourced report from state-owned Aden television. Sca ( talk) 21:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw your conversation on Eric's page, and thought you might enjoy this. — Ched : ? 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Enough. The original thread is thataway, in the unlikely event that anyone other than the OP believes this is a discussion that warrants continuing.
While I appreciate the sentiment of your comment, there was no need to misrepresent what I'd said for added effect - at no point did I suggest what I was asking was going to be easy, or should be the product of someone just making up a new article. I've left a more detailed comment at the project page. Kristian Jenn ( talk) 14:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
My best suggestion is to not even start with what's in the current article, it's that bad - just write a new one from scratch, with a clear structure in mind, and only when that's done, see if there's anything in the current article that warrants keeping. I really don't want to check back in a year's time and see this frankly horrific article in largely the same state., in the context of explaining that while you personally weren't going to do any work on it yourself, you insisted that someone else do a complete rewrite of an 7500-word article on a politically sensitive current event, and without even bothering to say what you thought was wrong with the existing article or where you expect the person doing said rewrite to find sources. Writing Wikipedia articles isn't just a case of Googling the topic and cut-&-pasting what you find, and this is a topic on which no significant book has been published (other than Wolmar, but as a high-ranking Labour activist he can't be considered NPOV on the topic).
Just writing the introductory background section alone would mean trawling through and summarising 15 years worth of specialist magazines from 1979–94, since one doesn't just need to explain why Major pulled the trigger but also why Thatcher didn't; one would also need to write something about Sealink, Seaspeed and Eurotunnel which would need a completely different set of specialist knowledge. Then, of course, one would at least have to mention the ancillary disposals, ranging from BREL to Travellers Fare to Red Star.
That would be the first section; one would then need to do the same level of research with regard to the actual process in the 1990s, with the additional issue of having to wade through the British Newspaper Archive to summarise contemporary commentary; after that, one would then have to summarise 20 years worth both of specialist financial reporting and of political reports on internal debates within three separate political parties (four if you include the SNP), regarding refranchising, the renationalisation of Railtrack, the chain of decisions that led Blair and Brown to keep the railways in private hands despite ideological opposition, and the complex and troubled relationships between DfT on the one hand and the Mayor of London, the Scottish Government, and the big northern Passenger Transport Executives on the other. (This would, inter alia, mean trying to summarise Brian Souter's impact on transport policy, and good luck finding neutral sources for that.)
After that, one would be left with writing a legacy section; this would mean not only trying to create a coherent and unbiased explanation of both the pro and anti views, for a topic on which there has been much verbiage spouted by politicians but very little academic research, but also having to research the impact on other rail privatisations and restructurings, which in turn would mean researching specialist financial and industrial journals, many in foreign languages.
Starting from a WP:TNT tabula rasa as you propose, I'd estimate that just writing a minimal summary of the topic would take an specialist editor who already had a good knowledge of both the industry and the politics involved at least a month. To get a topic like this up to GA/FA level, I'd conservatively estimate six months to a year, and I'm not convinced it would even be possible as it's a topic for which unbiased sources are difficult to find (as with many topics of the Thatcher–Major era, people writing about it tend either to be passionate supporters, or fanatical opponents).
TLDR summary: if anything, my reply to you was overly polite. If you seriously think a single purpose account turning up out of the blue, insulting the work of other people (I believe you called the authors of the existing article "borderline criminal") and demanding it be rewritten without even bothering to make any suggestions as to what you think should be changed, is appropriate behaviour, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you.
Just to put this in perspective, this discussion is about an article whose average readership is roughly half that of the biography of Barack Obama's dog. ‑ iridescent 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
you just have to be sure to clearly identify what's an undisputed fact, what's a disputed fact, and what's just opinion, it means you have to fairly and proportionately represent the different views on the topic, which on a topic like transit privatisation is easier said than done since most people writing about it are either strongly in favour or strongly opposed.)
To reiterate, this is a volunteer project and wandering around insulting people and issuing demands is not going to encourage people to want to help you; among Wikipedia's currently-active editors there are probably ten who understand both the political and the engineering/intrastructure management aspects of the issue, and the more arcane aspects of wiki editing, well enough to rewrite Privatisation of British Rail from scratch, and by my count in your 36-edit Wikipedia career you've so far alienated three of them with a fourth pointedly ignoring you. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains to see if anyone is willing to help you ( WP:UKRAIL is fairly moribund), but unless you're actually able to explain what you think the problem is, how you think it should be addressed, why you feel it's important somebody devote this level of effort to such a low-traffic page, and why if it's so important you're not doing it yourself—none of which you've thus far done—you're unlikely to get a very polite reply. ‑ iridescent 08:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Just for your information, but with regard to your deletion of an edit made by Knowledgebattle, there was a past discussion regarding that edit, if it helps: User talk:Knowledgebattle#Warning at User talk:143.231.249.141#October 2015. Dustin (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for Charles Domery from your "eating disorders of the French Revolutionary Wars" mini-series, precious again. - Did you see this, still dealing with the rigid rulez around TFAR we once had (4 any-date noms max, out after 7 days, replace noms of others according to a point system ...) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e- composted SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for uploading File:Manchester Art Gallery - Gallery 3 Etty wall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
William Etty's The Sirens and Ulyssesis likely to be by? Or are you worrying that because I haven't specifically named myself as the photographer, the rightful owner of the copyright to an intentionally-unfocused mobile phone snapshot is likely to turn up demanding the enforcement of their image rights? As already stated on the file description, which I take it you haven't actually bothered to read, all but one of the works visible is long out of copyright, and the sole exception is by Banksy who doesn't enforce copyright (and said image is a hugely-reproduced image which already graces a million T-shirts and posters), and at a resolution this low is of zero commercial value to anyone even should the world's most famous anonymous recluse decide to break their cover to take the WMF to court. ‑ iridescent 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No point arguing with computers, AGF says that Sfan00 IMG is making all these posts manually and is just a very fast typist, since we all know what happened last time someone used an unauthorised bot to tag images for deletion.
Regarding my intentions for Denbies: I added it to the list of articles I would like to see on the Main page some day on 27 June. Of the few I have there for any date, two are animals which we had saw a lot recently. We run articles of retired editors, and of editors who don't care about Main page exposure: where's your problem? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
TFA is definitely overrated. I know that for Sinatra is would have been a massive amount of effort from me and reviewers all for something which the vast majority of readers don't even click anyway. You're more likely to get hassle with it than praise on TFA day and the article suddenly attracts all sorts of idiots. It is a nice feeling for some editors seeing it on the front page of such a big website though and Gerda at least appreciates the editors who do it by precious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This page was created with care so as not to advertise. There are HUNDREDS of pages in wikipedia dedicated to published works. This book's page was no different than say the wikipedia page on Perls cookbook. Please describe why this page was deleted and other programming book pages were not.
Ex: /info/en/?search=Mastering_Perl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcallister80 ( talk • contribs)
Dear Iridescent,
Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikicology, I appreciate your contributions. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently "Go away, and take your paranoia with you" wasn't clear enough |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks for letting me know, although I have no idea what you mean. -- Rubbish computer ( Trick: or treat?) 13:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
|
I don't know if it's too soon, but I just wanted to tell you how sorry I am about yesterday. -- Rubbish computer ( Trick: or treat?) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi! A wiki page about our company ( /info/en/?search=CDN77.com) has been rejected recently - I would like to know what is the main reason of the rejection, along with what improvements could we make to make the page more "significant". It's just that we have been in the market for more than 4 years now, we are mentioned regularly times by some of the CDN authorities and I do not think that there was much of a difference between our WIki page and Wiki's of our competitors (e.g. /info/en/?search=CacheFly)...hence I do not know what should we do differently. Along with that, could you retrieve the deleted page so we do not have to start from scratch? Thanks! Appreciate your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdn77 ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to invite you to take a look at this weeks TAFI article Allegra Versace. Regards.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I know Cas will pop up shortly to disagree, but I don't really support the premise of TAFI; the point of Wikipedia is surely encouraging people to work within their areas of expertise, not to get a whole bunch of people to write on a topic with which they're not familiar. (How are participants even supposed to have access to the sources? Google Books has an major—and acknowledged—systemic bias in terms of what's included, and while there are cases where websites are superior to print sources they're few and far between. When people try to write Wikipedia articles based on Google searches on a topic with which they're not already familiar enough to judge the validity and weight of sources, it rarely ends well, and leaves those who are familiar with the topic with a large and time-consuming mess to clear up.) ‑ iridescent 18:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
During the TFA request for Shah Rukh Khan, you mentioned that it had potential to break the most-viewed TFA record. Where are TFA view statistics kept? He is at TFA right now, and I would like to be a able to follow up this later. BollyJeff | talk 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
According to this [2], SRK only got 52,895 hits. BollyJeff | talk 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
NOV 1 stats (UTC):
desktop 6119
mobile 18393
wpzero 4
NOV 2 stats (UTC):
desktop 55364
mobile 53870
wpzero 134
NOV 3 stats (UTC):
desktop 17319
mobile 25231
wpzero 52
SandManMattSH 02:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) You recently deleted a page for a HS program I am familiar with. If I were to write a well-cited page for this program, would you reinstate the page? If so, how can I use the existing (now deleted) page as a starting point? Please excuse me if it is poor protocol to edit a User talk page like this, but I was not sure what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattSH ( talk • contribs)
The page Program in Mathematics for Young Scientists has been restored. You should restore its talk page and redirects as well. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Having just skimmed the AN/I discussion about redirects such as booby magnetic resonance imaging, I think the reactions have been a bit overblown. While some of these redirects are silly ( booby mri or boob mri might be more plausible search terms), sites such as Yahoo!Answers or the comments sections of YouTube repeatedly remind us that people are pretty stupid. Wikipedia is intended to be a place for people to learn and get smarter. Redirects are a navigational tool to that end.
Wikipedia is radically transparent. Is it fair for people to suddenly complain about redirect creations that took place in plain sight over many years? I'll readily admit not having taken a deep dive into Neelix's history here, but it appears there was an incident in 2010 and not much since? I don't see much indication that Neelix was being repeatedly warned about these redirect creations. And I haven't seen any evidence that he was trying to disrupt the project or cause harm. Every comment I've seen from him since he was dragged to a noticeboard, and a quick read of his user page, indicates to me that he was acting in good faith.
Briefly looking through User talk:Neelix/Archive 21 and User talk:Neelix/Archive 22, it seems like all(?) of the redirects that he was notified as up for discussion have been kept? I see more than a dozen blue links, anyway.
A few people in the discussion have tried to make similar-ish points (slakr and bd2412), but it's quite likely that the mob carrying pitchforks is going to win this round. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 20:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently deleted the Technikal page. Please could you ensure that all links to the article in question are removed from other articles? He contributed heavily to Example's most recent album, which charted in the UK Top 10, and so his name is mentioned on various articles and I'd appreciate you making sure there aren't red links left lying around as a result. Thanks. — ItsLuke (contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You may wish to contribute to the vote taking place on the talk page. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sexis an awkward phrasing, and the legal experts who drafted the constitutional amendment knew it was an awkward phrasing, but they chose "may" for a reason; "must be contracted" would imply that couples in a relationship are legally obliged to marry, which was certainly not the intent. The clearest way to explain it IMO would be "the amendment made same-sex marriage explicitly legal and forbade the Oireachtas from passing legislation forbidding it without a further constitutional amendment", but that's a confusing mouthful. Pinging the go-to guy for summarising legal formulations while avoiding ambiguity. ‑ iridescent 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear admin,
I kindly would like to ask you to restore the article European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures and the associated redirect ESFRI. The former was deleted based on a prod contesting notability, but the ESFRI programma is a major part of the European Union funding of research infrastructures, which certainly is notable, for example proved by:
And this list goes on and on... (try Google News search on "esfri".
Probably the article needs improvement and I am willing to spend some time on that over the next weeks.
Best regards,
-- Reinoutr ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) is an organization in Europe., and I'd venture to say isn't worth restoring. ‑ iridescent 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You deleted Ognjen Radisavljevic (BLP prod), but didnt delete the redirect Ognjen radisavljevic. I could csd it, but then somebody else would do your home work :-) (Have a nice day) Christian75 ( talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting The UK Government's Knowledge Network Programme. I guess here most users protest such PRODs ;). Zezen ( talk) 14:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Having just got four emails asking me for WP:ACE2015 recommendations, posting this here to save repeating myself. As remarked elsewhere ad nauseam, this is probably the weakest set of candidates in the history of Arbcom elections, so there are a few weak "make up the numbers" supports of people I'd oppose in a normal year.
If any of the candidates request it, I'll give the reasonings, but otherwise I don't see anything to be gained by doing so. Whoever's clerking this, please don't add this to the "official" voting guides box. ‑ iridescent 13:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Pointing readers at this thread now, so I can say "I told you so" in two weeks. ‑ iridescent 21:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't pinged, so pardon the tardiness of my response, but the best you'll get out of me is a big fat "meh". I didn't make the BLPPROD rules, and I agree with you some aspects of it are stupid. BLPPROD is a misnomer -- it's a CSD with a few days of delay to add a source to the article, and as such, is intended to be applicable with no need for a judgement call or application of common sense; CSD criteria are cut-and-dry, unambiguous and uncontroversial by design. Whereas a PROD is basically just an AfD nom that only actually becomes a discussion at AfD if anyone objects. A standard PROD would've done just fine for this one, though. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Mark Morningstar is an American chiropracticionist.) and could perfectly well have been deleted under A7.
While the article's creator could indeed get WP:POINTy, given the circumstances of his indefblock I don't see him being in a position to complain any time soon, nor do I see either the ARS or the clique of self-appointed Defenders Of The Weak And Downtrodden feeling particularly inclined to wade in in this case. (Even the most hardline of the every-grain-of-sand faction would concede that it's not appropriate to have an separate bio for every doctor in the world and that while this one's no doubt a perfectly nice guy even his own website doesn't make any assertion of particular notability, while WR/WO are not about to mobilize the troops on behalf someone who was on a self-proclaimed mission to free Wikipedia from being "overrun by kikes".) ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent fix of a misspelling in an article that I recently launched. I'd proofread the article several times, but had managed to miss spotting the error each time. Glad that your eye for spelling is better than mine, and that you're willing to expend the time and effort to hunt down mistakes like this one. — Ammodramus ( talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your typo correction on the SC Group page. I've spent a lot of time working on that recently, and while I have proof read it about 1 million times, clearly I need to read it a few more... Thanks for being one of few (I suspect...) prepared to take the time out to look for, and correct, such errors. UndateableOne ( talk) 12:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes the clerks are clerking some aspects of it most assiduously, just not Kevin's word length. Compare my edit summary here. I guess it didn't make any impression, though presumably it was seen. A block threat from an arb followed very quickly. [3] Bishonen | talk 23:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC).
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A full case is absolutely undesirable; it'll jam up my ability to mediate conduct disputes, build content, and conduct real-world outreach for multiple months when, for the first time in a year, I can do those things, while magnifying drama and sniping. Handle the case by motion if necessary, but I don't think there's any real dispute that ENWP will be better off with me a sysop than with me not one, and this RFAR in addition to the private feedback I've received will have a much greater effect than any motion of warning or admonishment.is a decent contender for most facepalm-worthy statement ever made by the subject of an arbcom case, though. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the ANI thread. I agree it was getting nowhere. Perhaps I should have made it more explicit that accusations of bullying were made against me, as it seems to have generated some confusion. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 10:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Iridescent: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks - Khocon ( talk) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't take action on this or reply sooner. I was traveling for work, and didn't log in to Wikipedia during this time. Regardless, I respect your decision. My initial objection was that this is one of the top (arguably top 3) mathematics programs for high school students in the United States. However, I wasn't able to find much impartial coverage (with a cursory internet search) that would address your concerns about notability and significant coverage. I appreciate your giving me a chance with the short-term article restoration, and am thankful for the hard work you and other admins put into this informative site. - User:MattSH 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
Precious again, your "
Hot naked
man on man action!"!
Don't necessarily take the ability to draw tears (or smiles) as a sign of quality. I've seen a grown, and otherwise sensible, adult reduced to tears by the emotional intensity of Police Academy 3. (Really. I was there.)
I always think of Vermeer as the painting equivalent of Beethoven, Dickens or Orson Welles; someone people feel obliged to say they like for fear of seeming uncultured, rather than someone they actually like. I'd be willing to bet that if you polled 100 people and asked them to name Vermeer works, no more than three would be able to come up with anything more than "Girl With a Pearl Earring and that one with the milk jug whatever it's called". (This would probably be the case even if you conducted said poll in the central gallery of the Rijksmuseum.) ‑ Iridescent 17:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I freely admit to not getting Beethoven. To me, he's like John Lennon; revolutionary at the time, but so imitated since that the original has lost any impact, as everything worthwhile has been reused so often as to become cliched.
One of the more surreal images of the 1980s (sadly, it doesn't appear to be on YouTube) was Margaret Thatcher being reduced to tears by Rolf Harris's Two Little Boys during a recording of Desert Island Discs. ‑ Iridescent 21:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
My holiday postings are few - but I did want to include you. I've never known you to show emotion in your postings, so I won't trouble you with such either. I just want to say thank you for all the time and effort you've taken to treat me as an equal. I hope you and your family, and your friends, have a very VERY enjoyable holiday season. I wish you all my best Iridescent — Ched : ? 02:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
... if I claimed an "
assist"* for
Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm? After all, I
started the article (admittedly only as one of my signature Three Sentence Long But Impeccably Well-Referenced Micro-Stubs™). Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk) 08:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
* By "claim an assist" I mean shamelessly putting that FA star up top of my userpage despite having contributed almost nothing to the article, of course.
I hope you had a fine Christmas. Two months ago you helped me with my FAC for the Jacob van Ruisdael article. I just put it up again. Hopefully this time around it does get some votes. I made some more changes as well, hopefully for the better. Please have a look. Thank you. Edwininlondon ( talk) 14:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and happy New Year | |
And thanks for your WP:contributions! Best wishes to you and your family. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |} |
Happy Christmas! | ||
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John ( talk) 17:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 | |
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk) |
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
I didn't need to change anything with this one except for trimming down to around 1150 characters and removing the red links. If those turn into stubs between now and the 16th, please let me know. I see this is your busy time of year, so I won't wish you happy holidays. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
As regards the blurb itself, I wouldn't lose sleep. This one is deeply dull, and will have an outside chance of challenging Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd for the "least-viewed TFA" title. ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party 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. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Ahem!....please excuse me while I cringe. ;O)) Keith-264 ( talk) 18:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Tapping into your wisdom because you seem to know far more than me regarding just about anything to do with WP ...
Does this seem reasonable? I rarely have dealings with articles where self-declared paid editors are involved. - Sitush ( talk) 01:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Plus, the COI from a paid editor is in many cases no worse than that which exists on every article. The volunteer nature of Wikipedia means that by definition people are going to write about things that interest them, which in most cases will mean things on which they have an opinion. Presumably the majority of editors on any sports team are going to be fans, with a motivation to make their team look good just as strong as that of a paid editor, but if anyone tried to propose "No Grimsby fans are permitted to write on Grimsby Town F.C." they'd be laughed out.
The example I always used to use was celebrities; under current custom and practice, if User:ILoveEllieGouldingShe'sSoCool posts a torrent of gushing fancruft to Ellie Goulding they'll be welcomed and patiently walked through the policy/guideline maze, whereas if User:Nigel from the Polydor Records Press Department makes minor corrections to factual errors on the same article, he'll almost certainly be reverted-and-blocked, and at the very least receive a talkpage full of intimidating and largely incomprehensible templates; as things stand, we actively penalise people for honestly declaring their biases. ‑ Iridescent 12:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I have opened a thread at the Ref Desk talk page related to your scolding of a questioner for being a troll because the answer popped right up when you did a Google search. I feel that such scolding violates WP:NPA when it is not an obviously trolling question of the racist, nonsense, scatalogical, or gibberish variety. Edison ( talk) 21:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iridescent
I've removed one of your comments [10] from this page as it was placed in another users section. Please feel free to incorporate this into your section on the page if you wish for it to be retained. Amortias ( T)( C) 22:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere (five years ago!), I think we're long past the time when Arbcom should have been split into a true Arbitration Committee dealing with dispute resolution, and a separate GovCom with the power to issue binding closures to RFCs, and thus act as a precedent-setting supreme court. I'd be surprised if it ever happens; too many people have carved out their own little petty fiefdoms on Wikipedia, and something with the power to cut through the stagnation would be a direct threat to the tinpot empires. (Just look at how tricky it's proving to kick out an obvious crook when the highest echelons lock arms in defense.)
Assuming we're thinking of the same arb, I agree it would be a shame for them to go but think it's very likely. They're the type of person who'll get upset at not getting their way, but too polite to force their opinions through, which is a recipe for either a quiet disappearance or going down in flames. ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Maintaining order is a nebulous concept, but a necessary one. There are some fires that will burn forever if left unchecked, and it becomes necessary to bring out the artillery if they don't calm down even if the result is unjust. (You filed the infobox case; you know this.)
Arbcom looks too large now, but bear in mind that natural attrition means it will shrink over the year, while at least two or three arbs will be inactive at any given time. Three would be far too small; if one were absent and the other two didn't agree it would mean deadlock, and if two were absent the third would be an effective dictator. Pulling three from a pool of 12-15 for each case would be workable but would lead to endless relitigation if people felt the arbs picked for their case weren't a fair sample; what's needed is cultural change. (The cultural change is already underway; the number of cases going before Arbcom is way down.) ‑ Iridescent 01:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hey Iridescent,
I'm not sure if you'll be into it, but do you think that you could review Kurt Vonnegut and leave your thoughts at the peer review. I'm trying to get as many eyes on it as possible, and hope that my coverage of him is the best possible. Sound good? I understand if you don't want to, for any reason. Thank you, -- ceradon ( talk • edits) 08:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. We've gone to FAC with the Kurt Vonnegut article. Just a heads up. Cheers, -- ceradon ( talk • edits) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe referring to Elizabeth Hankes? Several lines of odd stuff supposedly written on an envelope by Etty, I suppose between 1828 and 1830, in Round Table, Volume 3, H. E. and C. H. Sweeter, 1866 - New York (N.Y.) p. 316. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Thank you for your fine help at Trinity Chain Pier. It is really appreciated and has eased my work in improving the article. John ( talk) 21:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC) |
On 26 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret (pictured) illustrates the virtues of honour and chastity through the depiction of occultism, partial nudity, violent death and implied sexual torture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Hello! Thanks for your detailed response on @ Johnbod:'s talkpage. The Wrestlers was almost certainly rephotographed with colour calibration in advance of the gallery reopening on 1/08/2015. I am trying to get access to this copy in advance of the normal release process (at which point it will appear on the collections page: The Wrestlers on the YMT Online Collection). There are also a number of William Edward Frost's paintings in the online collection that currently lack accessible images.
How useful might Etty's sketches and works on paper be? There's one on Commons already and one by William Holman Hunt of Etty sketching: Works on paper in the York Art Gallery. A collections search indicates that there are nearly 700 more that might be photographed but may have dubious quality. If particular examples would be really useful it might be fun to hunt them down.
It would be great if Etty or related articles could hit TFA around early August as the gallery reopens? Let me know if there's anything else I might help with? Cheers PatHadley ( talk) 16:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've written The Wrestlers to try to ensure we have something in the YORAG collection ready for the 1 August reopening; once the FAC for The Destroying Angel is either archived or promoted, I'll nominate it. If anyone has any suggestions/improvements to make, please do as given the glacial pace of WP:FAC this is going to be a tight deadline; pinging Victoriaearle, Ceoil, Eric Corbett (this one is of male subjects so shouldn't have any GG implications), Giano, Johnbod, Kafka Liz, ArchReader and anyone else who might have an interest in Victorian high-kitsch. It's a bit of a difficult subject, as it's so poorly documented it's impossible to be sure what the artist's intentions were so of necessity there's a "it might be social commentary on the struggle between black and white people in British society, or it might just be that the model happened to be black that day" element. Plus, Etty also painted a completely unrelated picture also called The Wrestlers (nothing at all out of order going on in that picture, you just have a dirty mind), so there's an issue as to which painting any reference to it pre-1947 is referring to. – iridescent 09:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how those might fit into your plans. I'll do my best to see if we can get the Elgin sketches digitised! Cheers, PatHadley ( talk) 16:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
PatHadley, Johnbod—in light of the above I've worked Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball up to what I consider FA standard. Do either of you (or anyone else watching this page) have any strong opinion as to whether Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball or The Wrestlers would be preferable, given that the timescale means there's likely only to be time to get one through FAC in time for the gallery opening? My preference is tilting towards Fancy Dress Ball if that one's going to be on display and Wrestlers won't be, but I can see arguments the other way as Wrestlers is a more visually striking image so might generate more page-views. I'll nominate one or the other very soon, so if anyone has and good reasons why one or the other should be chosen, speak now or forever hold your peace. (I've also nominated Fancy Dress Ball at Featured Picture Candidates despite my general distaste for FPC, as I feel it easily qualifies and now the painting is the subject of an article, the image has an obvious encyclopedic value.) – iridescent 11:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
PatHadley, barring unforeseen circumstances Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball will pass FAC by 1 August, so will be hopefully be TFA that day. The YORAG paintings included on it are Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball, Elizabeth Potts, Venus and her Satellites (albeit the Ponce and not the YORAG version) and Mlle Rachel. There will also be a steady stream of "Did you know" articles between now and then, starting tomorrow with Candaules and followed at roughly 4–5 day intervals by The Wrestlers, Fancy Dress Ball, Musidora, The World Before the Flood, Youth & Pleasure and The Combat. I'll try to get the bio up to at least a respectable level before 1 August, as at the moment it's really not fit for purpose. – iridescent 21:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia now has a shiny new
William Etty article in place and ready in time for the local papers to plagiarise use as a basis for their own writing in their coverage of the YORAG reopening. Re-pinging
User:PatHadley,
Victoriaearle,
Ceoil,
Johnbod,
Kafka Liz,
Lingzhi; do your worst. I'm aware that it's nudging the
WP:TOOBIG limit, but IMO this is a topic that really shouldn't be split into separate "Early life" and "Later life" articles a la
Ricky Ponting or
Samuel Johnson, since such a key element is being able to see how his work changed over time, and how his later works relate to early works. (It's not unconscionably long; assuming
User:The ed17/Featured articles by wiki text is correct, if it were to pass FAC today it would be the 147th-longest, and those above it include considerably less weighty topics such as
Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons,
Adam Gilchrist,
2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and
Ontario Highway 401.) Besides, the only natural break points are 1821 (which would only trim a tiny amount) and 1828 (which would mean a post-1828 article requiring such a long "story so far" section, it would effectively be a content fork).
It does intentionally break the all-hallowed
WP:VAMOS in a few places, but I feel it's justified; with the monumental paintings like Sirens it really doesn't make sense to have images at default size (those sailors who look like tiny specks in the background are each around three feet high in the original), and the "bound captive" paintings I've intentionally placed looking out of the page as I think it suits the aesthetic better. –
iridescent 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Failed to ping earlier as the names were a cut-and-paste from my previous list, but
Belle consider yourself pinged as well. –
iridescent 23:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
(de-indent) I was looking around in JSTOR the other day and came across a snippet in the Bulletin of the American Art-Union advertising the 1849 retrospective. Apparently, "The Council of the Society of Arts [...] exhibit every year the collected works of some one artists, and apply the funds arising therefrom;—first, to giving the artist whose works are exhibited, a commission for a picture; and secondly, to the purchase of pictures already painted. The first of this series of Exhibitions was that of Mulready's works, last year. This year a collection has been made of Mr. Etty's. One hundred and thirty have been brought together, and are said to form a combination of great excellence." I hadn't read the new biography at the time, so I was surprised by the tone of the piece, which was far more respectful than I had expected for someone with Etty's reputation (as reflected in your articles for his various paintings, or at least those I had read). It all makes more sense now; in its detail and completeness, the new biography explains clearly and impassively the changing perceptions of Etty's work, and indeed places even the kitsch in its proper context. Beautiful work, Iridescent, about a remarkable artist. Waltham, The Duke of 23:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Nineteenth-century fusions of Venetian history painting and English proto-realism appears to beat Wikipedia's usual remit of sports, war, trains and astronomy with our readers. (Didn't Jimmy Wales ban Gibraltar Tourist Board fluffery from appearing on the main page? It looks to be sneaking back in.) ‑ iridescent 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Iridescent. You're invited to join
WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a
project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.
Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America 1000 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
Any source that would require more than 30 seconds of effort to verify, and if anything the rise of Google has just made that mentality worse, coupled with a tendency of some editors to unquestioningly accept whatever Google throws up as holy writ. (I won't embarrass by naming names, but I've caught at least one significant editor citing articles to novels without realising that they're works of fiction.) I believe my opinions of the sainted Awadewit were, and are, fairly well known.
AWB said this? Better fix the dictionary. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
On 6 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Dawn of Love (painting), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Dawn of Love (pictured) has been described as "one of the most unpardonable sins against taste"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Dawn of Love (painting). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
"what the purpose of this board [ANI] is. It's not the Editor Conduct Complaints Department, it's the place one comes to report incidents which potentially require administrative action. ‑ iridescent 17:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)"
Are you sure? (ANI might be described or defined like that, but is that how it is used? I have seen even administrators discuss how they can execute site bans on editors over generalized behavior, at ANI. [Even Dennis Brown thinks that.])
In addition I've seen many times at ANI threads closed with comment that the thread was a content dispute, so not suitable for ANI. (Okay. Then once when I observed a clear content dispute, and interjected into the discussion that it wasn't a candidate for ANI, I was disagreed with and "educated" by more than one editor that ANI can be about content issues too.)
My conclusion has therefore been, that ANI has no rules, and is capable of nearly anything. And to make argument that ANI not fulfill purposes it is not defined to do, carry no credence re the actual activities on that board (except as mentioned for immediate justification for an editor to do something they want to do, like close a thread based on "content-related", but also violating that "rule" when editors want to ignore it).
I believe my view is pragmatic since formed by observations of the actual realities at that board. Making a disconnect between any defined description, thus a kind of anarchy there. Which many editors have commented on, not just me. (Do you disagree?) IHTS ( talk) 22:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
And in a larger sense too, I doubt there are "rules" that govern anything anywhere on the WP. (E.g. a request for ARB clarification turned into a site-ban effort on Eric Corbett. Casliber once told Eric that a threatened iBAN would not be applicable to him, since Eric never stalked the editor in question. But when I informed Casliber that I had iBAN applied to *me* when I never stalked anyone ever, he had no response.) IHTS ( talk) 06:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
And here's another interesting (at least I think so) thought: Dennis Brown once said that actions inconsistent with current WP policy can absolutely be OK, because policy is an after-the-fact recognition of "current practice" on the WP. Bishonen agreed with that position. (To me that's scary. How the hell is a newbie, who does her/his best to educate themselves reading WP policies, supposed to know what "current practice" is? And what quantifier/qualifier determines "current practice" anyway? It seems [to me] that could mean any blue smoke someone [an administrator] wants to blow out a body orifice at any given time, to justify an action/sanction they want to take/impose.) IHTS ( talk) 06:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems I made a mess at TFA. And was short with you. Ahem. I dont really care about the scheduling, fwiw, and Brian had a point. Ceoil ( talk) 07:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't me with the book, I would not ask Jimbo and the other anti-content people on the board for anything. Best,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
One day, someone will explain to me just why "conflict of interest" and "paid editing" are such terrible things. Many years ago during the MyWikiBiz wars I asked why User:NumberOneBritneySpearsFan making a series of gushingly one-sided edits to Britney Spears is "community engagement" but User:Dave from RCA Records Press Department making strictly factual and non-contentious edits regarding sales figures or release dates on the same article is a heinous offense that justifies immediate banning. I've yet to see a convincing reply. ‑ iridescent 23:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Unpaid tendentious editing is a problem and paid/COI editing is a problem - I don't think they're mutually exclusive concerns. At least there's general agreement that tendentious editing is problematic—making it marginally easier to deal with. In contrast, there's a lot of resistance and contrarianism when it comes to acknowledging the threat that paid/COI editing poses. Every serious reference or scholarly work has had to deal with the issue of COI, and we're uniquely vulnerable because of the pseudonymous open-editing model—but we're not willing to think seriously about it. The first step in dealing with a problem is admitting that it exists, and right now we're stuck on step zero. MastCell Talk 04:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mastcell, I have a feeling your view is slightly distorted by working in one of the few fields where COI does have the potential to have an impact—for most of Wikipedia, the motivation for something being written isn't really an issue except when third parties choose to make it so. For the vast majority of Wikipedia, the primary motivation for inserting distortions in articles is "I like it" or "I dislike it", and that has a far more corrosive effect.
To take a completely non-random example, when the British Museum was offering payments to anyone who took an article on one of their exhibits to FA, it would clearly breach either of the proposed new rules (admins are not allowed to accept payment for any services on Wikipedia. Do not believe those who claim to be admins and ask for money.
or No administrator may accept payment to edit articles or to perform any administrative function on Wikipedia.
) but I fail to see any actual problem caused by it—yes, it possibly caused some editors who would ordinarily have worked on something else to choose to work on BM material instead, and thus caused a notional detriment to those other subjects, but you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate it. I'm not sure the "no payments" hardliners really understand just how much Wikipedia relies on paid editing, and just how difficult it is to separate paid editing from paid advocacy—Sue Gardner did try at one point, but was
overtaken by events.
( My Cassandra/Jeremiah combo a few threads up looks less paranoid in the wake of this latest crusade, doesn't it? If anyone wants a vision of what Wikipedia 2016 would look and feel like were this proposal to be accepted, just imagine a world in which any talkpage disagreement which happened to involve an admin triggered a process that looked like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping and lasted just as long.) ‑ iridescent 11:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
In a nutshell, I think "Conflict of interest" occurs when an editor has an external incentive to slant coverage of a topic in a particular direction, and that external incentive can be anything from an outright financial inducement, to a fan wanting to airbrush mention of their team losing badly, to someone who disapproves of something trying to remove mention of it; and that whether a COI exists is not particularly affected either by whether cash has actually changed hands, or by the user rights of the editor. To the proposers of this amendment, "Conflict of interest" exists when an admin (specifically only an admin, not a vanilla editor) accepts a material reward of any kind in connection with anything done on Wikipedia ("admins are *not* allowed to accept payment for any services on Wikipedia" is the exact wording proposed, complete with asterisks), which would most certainly cover Jimmy Wales's adventures on stage and screen (unless you think that whenever he turns up on TV the producers have no interest in Wikipedia, but are seeking his experience as proprietor of a porn site guy-oriented website). ‑
iridescent 09:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, does I do accept travel costs for speaking events by organizations that can afford them
—a direct quote from the userpage of the admin who
actually started this whole idea—constitute "accepting payment"? As
NE Ent has pointed out, he already appears on
the T-shirt list, and since the T-shirt in question
costs $15 or £14 (interesting mark-up there, WMF, since the current exchange rate is $1.54=£1) that's certainly going to be well over the de minimis line being proposed.
(In researching the cost of those shirts, I have just discovered for the first time that The Wikipedia Store is a thing. Even the people modelling the shirts look embarrassed to be associated with them. It does fill one with confidence to know that the WMF is dealing with a reputable-sounding organization like "our fulfillment partner, SWAGBOT", though.) ‑ iridescent 17:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:
Thanks! Mike Peel ( talk) 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you pinged me at ANI, but I thought I should place this comment here:
That's a cool tool at WMF labs, thanks I was not aware of it. But let me be very clear - edits to mainspace mean nothing about the value of a user to the ref desks. Let me use myself as an example.
Essentially, I do it right, and I make the ref desk a better place. And yet I almost never edit mainspace [1], but that doesn't mean I'm not an excellent ref desk respondent. Do you think I'm a bad influence on the ref desk? Do you think I should be topic banned? I hope not. So please don't imply that not editing mainspace much makes someone a poor ref desk respondent :) SemanticMantis ( talk) 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I guess I was supposed to notice that the but owner was blocked. I didn't.
I saw an which didn't make sense to me. I spent more time than it deserved trying to track down what the edit was intended to accomplish. Then I realize the edit remove some important information and that irritated me. I was pretty unhappy but I thought I'd left a reasonably worded request to explain the edit. Yes I missed that the editor was blocked. Your lack of AGF is showing. To the best of my knowledge I've never interacted with this editor before so I wasn't trying to get in a "kick". I simply wanted to know why someone was running a bot that was making inappropriate edits. It is highly likely that it wasn't an intentional error, but I wanted to let the bot owner know that they were potentially creating problems. Have we interacted in a negative way before? If so, I don't recall it, so I don't understand your ABF attitude.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Good job on Dblack wiki Pepdonald ( talk) 05:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
A summary of yet another Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 15:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Given that a great proportion of vandalism is probably perpetrated by bored schoolchildren, has anyone considered adopting a practice of running the more "interesting" mainpage FAs on weekends? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the vandalism problem is certainly less bad than it was in my day, both because the novelty of "anyone can edit" has worn off, and because IPs being locked out of templates has made many of the types of vandalism Cluebot couldn't handle a lot more difficult. Plus, the "nothing on the main page can ever be protected" mentality seems a lot less prevalent than it was.
@ NYB, I know that on at least one occasion Bencherlite intentionally scheduled an article ( Fuck) for when the schools were closed, although that was less a matter of avoiding vandalism and more of trying to prevent a repeat of the Virgin Killer incident, given how hair-trigger the site-blocking software used by schools is and how much hay certain people would have made from "Wikipedia banned from use in schools owing to obscenity". ‑ iridescent 09:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
For this. I had just spent over an hour reading her talk page, and looking through contribs. looking for that. Sad; especially to see an admin. perpetuating that. Thank you for asking outright where it should be asked. With respect, — Ched : ? 19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not really an error because it didn't make things worse, but this edit ideally would have been caught to change "71th" to "71st". Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 13:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Consider the source: ... an unsourced report from state-owned Aden television. Sca ( talk) 21:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw your conversation on Eric's page, and thought you might enjoy this. — Ched : ? 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Enough. The original thread is thataway, in the unlikely event that anyone other than the OP believes this is a discussion that warrants continuing.
While I appreciate the sentiment of your comment, there was no need to misrepresent what I'd said for added effect - at no point did I suggest what I was asking was going to be easy, or should be the product of someone just making up a new article. I've left a more detailed comment at the project page. Kristian Jenn ( talk) 14:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
My best suggestion is to not even start with what's in the current article, it's that bad - just write a new one from scratch, with a clear structure in mind, and only when that's done, see if there's anything in the current article that warrants keeping. I really don't want to check back in a year's time and see this frankly horrific article in largely the same state., in the context of explaining that while you personally weren't going to do any work on it yourself, you insisted that someone else do a complete rewrite of an 7500-word article on a politically sensitive current event, and without even bothering to say what you thought was wrong with the existing article or where you expect the person doing said rewrite to find sources. Writing Wikipedia articles isn't just a case of Googling the topic and cut-&-pasting what you find, and this is a topic on which no significant book has been published (other than Wolmar, but as a high-ranking Labour activist he can't be considered NPOV on the topic).
Just writing the introductory background section alone would mean trawling through and summarising 15 years worth of specialist magazines from 1979–94, since one doesn't just need to explain why Major pulled the trigger but also why Thatcher didn't; one would also need to write something about Sealink, Seaspeed and Eurotunnel which would need a completely different set of specialist knowledge. Then, of course, one would at least have to mention the ancillary disposals, ranging from BREL to Travellers Fare to Red Star.
That would be the first section; one would then need to do the same level of research with regard to the actual process in the 1990s, with the additional issue of having to wade through the British Newspaper Archive to summarise contemporary commentary; after that, one would then have to summarise 20 years worth both of specialist financial reporting and of political reports on internal debates within three separate political parties (four if you include the SNP), regarding refranchising, the renationalisation of Railtrack, the chain of decisions that led Blair and Brown to keep the railways in private hands despite ideological opposition, and the complex and troubled relationships between DfT on the one hand and the Mayor of London, the Scottish Government, and the big northern Passenger Transport Executives on the other. (This would, inter alia, mean trying to summarise Brian Souter's impact on transport policy, and good luck finding neutral sources for that.)
After that, one would be left with writing a legacy section; this would mean not only trying to create a coherent and unbiased explanation of both the pro and anti views, for a topic on which there has been much verbiage spouted by politicians but very little academic research, but also having to research the impact on other rail privatisations and restructurings, which in turn would mean researching specialist financial and industrial journals, many in foreign languages.
Starting from a WP:TNT tabula rasa as you propose, I'd estimate that just writing a minimal summary of the topic would take an specialist editor who already had a good knowledge of both the industry and the politics involved at least a month. To get a topic like this up to GA/FA level, I'd conservatively estimate six months to a year, and I'm not convinced it would even be possible as it's a topic for which unbiased sources are difficult to find (as with many topics of the Thatcher–Major era, people writing about it tend either to be passionate supporters, or fanatical opponents).
TLDR summary: if anything, my reply to you was overly polite. If you seriously think a single purpose account turning up out of the blue, insulting the work of other people (I believe you called the authors of the existing article "borderline criminal") and demanding it be rewritten without even bothering to make any suggestions as to what you think should be changed, is appropriate behaviour, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you.
Just to put this in perspective, this discussion is about an article whose average readership is roughly half that of the biography of Barack Obama's dog. ‑ iridescent 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
you just have to be sure to clearly identify what's an undisputed fact, what's a disputed fact, and what's just opinion, it means you have to fairly and proportionately represent the different views on the topic, which on a topic like transit privatisation is easier said than done since most people writing about it are either strongly in favour or strongly opposed.)
To reiterate, this is a volunteer project and wandering around insulting people and issuing demands is not going to encourage people to want to help you; among Wikipedia's currently-active editors there are probably ten who understand both the political and the engineering/intrastructure management aspects of the issue, and the more arcane aspects of wiki editing, well enough to rewrite Privatisation of British Rail from scratch, and by my count in your 36-edit Wikipedia career you've so far alienated three of them with a fourth pointedly ignoring you. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains to see if anyone is willing to help you ( WP:UKRAIL is fairly moribund), but unless you're actually able to explain what you think the problem is, how you think it should be addressed, why you feel it's important somebody devote this level of effort to such a low-traffic page, and why if it's so important you're not doing it yourself—none of which you've thus far done—you're unlikely to get a very polite reply. ‑ iridescent 08:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Just for your information, but with regard to your deletion of an edit made by Knowledgebattle, there was a past discussion regarding that edit, if it helps: User talk:Knowledgebattle#Warning at User talk:143.231.249.141#October 2015. Dustin (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for Charles Domery from your "eating disorders of the French Revolutionary Wars" mini-series, precious again. - Did you see this, still dealing with the rigid rulez around TFAR we once had (4 any-date noms max, out after 7 days, replace noms of others according to a point system ...) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e- composted SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for uploading File:Manchester Art Gallery - Gallery 3 Etty wall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
William Etty's The Sirens and Ulyssesis likely to be by? Or are you worrying that because I haven't specifically named myself as the photographer, the rightful owner of the copyright to an intentionally-unfocused mobile phone snapshot is likely to turn up demanding the enforcement of their image rights? As already stated on the file description, which I take it you haven't actually bothered to read, all but one of the works visible is long out of copyright, and the sole exception is by Banksy who doesn't enforce copyright (and said image is a hugely-reproduced image which already graces a million T-shirts and posters), and at a resolution this low is of zero commercial value to anyone even should the world's most famous anonymous recluse decide to break their cover to take the WMF to court. ‑ iridescent 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No point arguing with computers, AGF says that Sfan00 IMG is making all these posts manually and is just a very fast typist, since we all know what happened last time someone used an unauthorised bot to tag images for deletion.
Regarding my intentions for Denbies: I added it to the list of articles I would like to see on the Main page some day on 27 June. Of the few I have there for any date, two are animals which we had saw a lot recently. We run articles of retired editors, and of editors who don't care about Main page exposure: where's your problem? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
TFA is definitely overrated. I know that for Sinatra is would have been a massive amount of effort from me and reviewers all for something which the vast majority of readers don't even click anyway. You're more likely to get hassle with it than praise on TFA day and the article suddenly attracts all sorts of idiots. It is a nice feeling for some editors seeing it on the front page of such a big website though and Gerda at least appreciates the editors who do it by precious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This page was created with care so as not to advertise. There are HUNDREDS of pages in wikipedia dedicated to published works. This book's page was no different than say the wikipedia page on Perls cookbook. Please describe why this page was deleted and other programming book pages were not.
Ex: /info/en/?search=Mastering_Perl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcallister80 ( talk • contribs)
Dear Iridescent,
Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikicology, I appreciate your contributions. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently "Go away, and take your paranoia with you" wasn't clear enough |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks for letting me know, although I have no idea what you mean. -- Rubbish computer ( Trick: or treat?) 13:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
|
I don't know if it's too soon, but I just wanted to tell you how sorry I am about yesterday. -- Rubbish computer ( Trick: or treat?) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi! A wiki page about our company ( /info/en/?search=CDN77.com) has been rejected recently - I would like to know what is the main reason of the rejection, along with what improvements could we make to make the page more "significant". It's just that we have been in the market for more than 4 years now, we are mentioned regularly times by some of the CDN authorities and I do not think that there was much of a difference between our WIki page and Wiki's of our competitors (e.g. /info/en/?search=CacheFly)...hence I do not know what should we do differently. Along with that, could you retrieve the deleted page so we do not have to start from scratch? Thanks! Appreciate your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdn77 ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to invite you to take a look at this weeks TAFI article Allegra Versace. Regards.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I know Cas will pop up shortly to disagree, but I don't really support the premise of TAFI; the point of Wikipedia is surely encouraging people to work within their areas of expertise, not to get a whole bunch of people to write on a topic with which they're not familiar. (How are participants even supposed to have access to the sources? Google Books has an major—and acknowledged—systemic bias in terms of what's included, and while there are cases where websites are superior to print sources they're few and far between. When people try to write Wikipedia articles based on Google searches on a topic with which they're not already familiar enough to judge the validity and weight of sources, it rarely ends well, and leaves those who are familiar with the topic with a large and time-consuming mess to clear up.) ‑ iridescent 18:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
During the TFA request for Shah Rukh Khan, you mentioned that it had potential to break the most-viewed TFA record. Where are TFA view statistics kept? He is at TFA right now, and I would like to be a able to follow up this later. BollyJeff | talk 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
According to this [2], SRK only got 52,895 hits. BollyJeff | talk 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
NOV 1 stats (UTC):
desktop 6119
mobile 18393
wpzero 4
NOV 2 stats (UTC):
desktop 55364
mobile 53870
wpzero 134
NOV 3 stats (UTC):
desktop 17319
mobile 25231
wpzero 52
SandManMattSH 02:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) You recently deleted a page for a HS program I am familiar with. If I were to write a well-cited page for this program, would you reinstate the page? If so, how can I use the existing (now deleted) page as a starting point? Please excuse me if it is poor protocol to edit a User talk page like this, but I was not sure what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattSH ( talk • contribs)
The page Program in Mathematics for Young Scientists has been restored. You should restore its talk page and redirects as well. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Having just skimmed the AN/I discussion about redirects such as booby magnetic resonance imaging, I think the reactions have been a bit overblown. While some of these redirects are silly ( booby mri or boob mri might be more plausible search terms), sites such as Yahoo!Answers or the comments sections of YouTube repeatedly remind us that people are pretty stupid. Wikipedia is intended to be a place for people to learn and get smarter. Redirects are a navigational tool to that end.
Wikipedia is radically transparent. Is it fair for people to suddenly complain about redirect creations that took place in plain sight over many years? I'll readily admit not having taken a deep dive into Neelix's history here, but it appears there was an incident in 2010 and not much since? I don't see much indication that Neelix was being repeatedly warned about these redirect creations. And I haven't seen any evidence that he was trying to disrupt the project or cause harm. Every comment I've seen from him since he was dragged to a noticeboard, and a quick read of his user page, indicates to me that he was acting in good faith.
Briefly looking through User talk:Neelix/Archive 21 and User talk:Neelix/Archive 22, it seems like all(?) of the redirects that he was notified as up for discussion have been kept? I see more than a dozen blue links, anyway.
A few people in the discussion have tried to make similar-ish points (slakr and bd2412), but it's quite likely that the mob carrying pitchforks is going to win this round. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 20:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently deleted the Technikal page. Please could you ensure that all links to the article in question are removed from other articles? He contributed heavily to Example's most recent album, which charted in the UK Top 10, and so his name is mentioned on various articles and I'd appreciate you making sure there aren't red links left lying around as a result. Thanks. — ItsLuke (contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You may wish to contribute to the vote taking place on the talk page. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sexis an awkward phrasing, and the legal experts who drafted the constitutional amendment knew it was an awkward phrasing, but they chose "may" for a reason; "must be contracted" would imply that couples in a relationship are legally obliged to marry, which was certainly not the intent. The clearest way to explain it IMO would be "the amendment made same-sex marriage explicitly legal and forbade the Oireachtas from passing legislation forbidding it without a further constitutional amendment", but that's a confusing mouthful. Pinging the go-to guy for summarising legal formulations while avoiding ambiguity. ‑ iridescent 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear admin,
I kindly would like to ask you to restore the article European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures and the associated redirect ESFRI. The former was deleted based on a prod contesting notability, but the ESFRI programma is a major part of the European Union funding of research infrastructures, which certainly is notable, for example proved by:
And this list goes on and on... (try Google News search on "esfri".
Probably the article needs improvement and I am willing to spend some time on that over the next weeks.
Best regards,
-- Reinoutr ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) is an organization in Europe., and I'd venture to say isn't worth restoring. ‑ iridescent 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You deleted Ognjen Radisavljevic (BLP prod), but didnt delete the redirect Ognjen radisavljevic. I could csd it, but then somebody else would do your home work :-) (Have a nice day) Christian75 ( talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting The UK Government's Knowledge Network Programme. I guess here most users protest such PRODs ;). Zezen ( talk) 14:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Having just got four emails asking me for WP:ACE2015 recommendations, posting this here to save repeating myself. As remarked elsewhere ad nauseam, this is probably the weakest set of candidates in the history of Arbcom elections, so there are a few weak "make up the numbers" supports of people I'd oppose in a normal year.
If any of the candidates request it, I'll give the reasonings, but otherwise I don't see anything to be gained by doing so. Whoever's clerking this, please don't add this to the "official" voting guides box. ‑ iridescent 13:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Pointing readers at this thread now, so I can say "I told you so" in two weeks. ‑ iridescent 21:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't pinged, so pardon the tardiness of my response, but the best you'll get out of me is a big fat "meh". I didn't make the BLPPROD rules, and I agree with you some aspects of it are stupid. BLPPROD is a misnomer -- it's a CSD with a few days of delay to add a source to the article, and as such, is intended to be applicable with no need for a judgement call or application of common sense; CSD criteria are cut-and-dry, unambiguous and uncontroversial by design. Whereas a PROD is basically just an AfD nom that only actually becomes a discussion at AfD if anyone objects. A standard PROD would've done just fine for this one, though. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Mark Morningstar is an American chiropracticionist.) and could perfectly well have been deleted under A7.
While the article's creator could indeed get WP:POINTy, given the circumstances of his indefblock I don't see him being in a position to complain any time soon, nor do I see either the ARS or the clique of self-appointed Defenders Of The Weak And Downtrodden feeling particularly inclined to wade in in this case. (Even the most hardline of the every-grain-of-sand faction would concede that it's not appropriate to have an separate bio for every doctor in the world and that while this one's no doubt a perfectly nice guy even his own website doesn't make any assertion of particular notability, while WR/WO are not about to mobilize the troops on behalf someone who was on a self-proclaimed mission to free Wikipedia from being "overrun by kikes".) ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent fix of a misspelling in an article that I recently launched. I'd proofread the article several times, but had managed to miss spotting the error each time. Glad that your eye for spelling is better than mine, and that you're willing to expend the time and effort to hunt down mistakes like this one. — Ammodramus ( talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your typo correction on the SC Group page. I've spent a lot of time working on that recently, and while I have proof read it about 1 million times, clearly I need to read it a few more... Thanks for being one of few (I suspect...) prepared to take the time out to look for, and correct, such errors. UndateableOne ( talk) 12:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes the clerks are clerking some aspects of it most assiduously, just not Kevin's word length. Compare my edit summary here. I guess it didn't make any impression, though presumably it was seen. A block threat from an arb followed very quickly. [3] Bishonen | talk 23:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC).
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A full case is absolutely undesirable; it'll jam up my ability to mediate conduct disputes, build content, and conduct real-world outreach for multiple months when, for the first time in a year, I can do those things, while magnifying drama and sniping. Handle the case by motion if necessary, but I don't think there's any real dispute that ENWP will be better off with me a sysop than with me not one, and this RFAR in addition to the private feedback I've received will have a much greater effect than any motion of warning or admonishment.is a decent contender for most facepalm-worthy statement ever made by the subject of an arbcom case, though. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the ANI thread. I agree it was getting nowhere. Perhaps I should have made it more explicit that accusations of bullying were made against me, as it seems to have generated some confusion. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 10:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Iridescent: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks - Khocon ( talk) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't take action on this or reply sooner. I was traveling for work, and didn't log in to Wikipedia during this time. Regardless, I respect your decision. My initial objection was that this is one of the top (arguably top 3) mathematics programs for high school students in the United States. However, I wasn't able to find much impartial coverage (with a cursory internet search) that would address your concerns about notability and significant coverage. I appreciate your giving me a chance with the short-term article restoration, and am thankful for the hard work you and other admins put into this informative site. - User:MattSH 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
Precious again, your "
Hot naked
man on man action!"!
Don't necessarily take the ability to draw tears (or smiles) as a sign of quality. I've seen a grown, and otherwise sensible, adult reduced to tears by the emotional intensity of Police Academy 3. (Really. I was there.)
I always think of Vermeer as the painting equivalent of Beethoven, Dickens or Orson Welles; someone people feel obliged to say they like for fear of seeming uncultured, rather than someone they actually like. I'd be willing to bet that if you polled 100 people and asked them to name Vermeer works, no more than three would be able to come up with anything more than "Girl With a Pearl Earring and that one with the milk jug whatever it's called". (This would probably be the case even if you conducted said poll in the central gallery of the Rijksmuseum.) ‑ Iridescent 17:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I freely admit to not getting Beethoven. To me, he's like John Lennon; revolutionary at the time, but so imitated since that the original has lost any impact, as everything worthwhile has been reused so often as to become cliched.
One of the more surreal images of the 1980s (sadly, it doesn't appear to be on YouTube) was Margaret Thatcher being reduced to tears by Rolf Harris's Two Little Boys during a recording of Desert Island Discs. ‑ Iridescent 21:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
My holiday postings are few - but I did want to include you. I've never known you to show emotion in your postings, so I won't trouble you with such either. I just want to say thank you for all the time and effort you've taken to treat me as an equal. I hope you and your family, and your friends, have a very VERY enjoyable holiday season. I wish you all my best Iridescent — Ched : ? 02:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
... if I claimed an "
assist"* for
Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm? After all, I
started the article (admittedly only as one of my signature Three Sentence Long But Impeccably Well-Referenced Micro-Stubs™). Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk) 08:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
* By "claim an assist" I mean shamelessly putting that FA star up top of my userpage despite having contributed almost nothing to the article, of course.
I hope you had a fine Christmas. Two months ago you helped me with my FAC for the Jacob van Ruisdael article. I just put it up again. Hopefully this time around it does get some votes. I made some more changes as well, hopefully for the better. Please have a look. Thank you. Edwininlondon ( talk) 14:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and happy New Year | |
And thanks for your WP:contributions! Best wishes to you and your family. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |} |
Happy Christmas! | ||
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John ( talk) 17:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 | |
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk) |
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
I didn't need to change anything with this one except for trimming down to around 1150 characters and removing the red links. If those turn into stubs between now and the 16th, please let me know. I see this is your busy time of year, so I won't wish you happy holidays. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
As regards the blurb itself, I wouldn't lose sleep. This one is deeply dull, and will have an outside chance of challenging Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd for the "least-viewed TFA" title. ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party 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. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Ahem!....please excuse me while I cringe. ;O)) Keith-264 ( talk) 18:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Tapping into your wisdom because you seem to know far more than me regarding just about anything to do with WP ...
Does this seem reasonable? I rarely have dealings with articles where self-declared paid editors are involved. - Sitush ( talk) 01:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Plus, the COI from a paid editor is in many cases no worse than that which exists on every article. The volunteer nature of Wikipedia means that by definition people are going to write about things that interest them, which in most cases will mean things on which they have an opinion. Presumably the majority of editors on any sports team are going to be fans, with a motivation to make their team look good just as strong as that of a paid editor, but if anyone tried to propose "No Grimsby fans are permitted to write on Grimsby Town F.C." they'd be laughed out.
The example I always used to use was celebrities; under current custom and practice, if User:ILoveEllieGouldingShe'sSoCool posts a torrent of gushing fancruft to Ellie Goulding they'll be welcomed and patiently walked through the policy/guideline maze, whereas if User:Nigel from the Polydor Records Press Department makes minor corrections to factual errors on the same article, he'll almost certainly be reverted-and-blocked, and at the very least receive a talkpage full of intimidating and largely incomprehensible templates; as things stand, we actively penalise people for honestly declaring their biases. ‑ Iridescent 12:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I have opened a thread at the Ref Desk talk page related to your scolding of a questioner for being a troll because the answer popped right up when you did a Google search. I feel that such scolding violates WP:NPA when it is not an obviously trolling question of the racist, nonsense, scatalogical, or gibberish variety. Edison ( talk) 21:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iridescent
I've removed one of your comments [10] from this page as it was placed in another users section. Please feel free to incorporate this into your section on the page if you wish for it to be retained. Amortias ( T)( C) 22:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere (five years ago!), I think we're long past the time when Arbcom should have been split into a true Arbitration Committee dealing with dispute resolution, and a separate GovCom with the power to issue binding closures to RFCs, and thus act as a precedent-setting supreme court. I'd be surprised if it ever happens; too many people have carved out their own little petty fiefdoms on Wikipedia, and something with the power to cut through the stagnation would be a direct threat to the tinpot empires. (Just look at how tricky it's proving to kick out an obvious crook when the highest echelons lock arms in defense.)
Assuming we're thinking of the same arb, I agree it would be a shame for them to go but think it's very likely. They're the type of person who'll get upset at not getting their way, but too polite to force their opinions through, which is a recipe for either a quiet disappearance or going down in flames. ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Maintaining order is a nebulous concept, but a necessary one. There are some fires that will burn forever if left unchecked, and it becomes necessary to bring out the artillery if they don't calm down even if the result is unjust. (You filed the infobox case; you know this.)
Arbcom looks too large now, but bear in mind that natural attrition means it will shrink over the year, while at least two or three arbs will be inactive at any given time. Three would be far too small; if one were absent and the other two didn't agree it would mean deadlock, and if two were absent the third would be an effective dictator. Pulling three from a pool of 12-15 for each case would be workable but would lead to endless relitigation if people felt the arbs picked for their case weren't a fair sample; what's needed is cultural change. (The cultural change is already underway; the number of cases going before Arbcom is way down.) ‑ Iridescent 01:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)