Misplaced Pages

User talk:Iridescent: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:08, 21 December 2008 editLaw Lord (talk | contribs)3,414 edits →OTRS: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:04, 2 January 2025 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,319 edits →Merry Christmas! 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 400K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 7 |counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = User talk:Iridescent/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Iridescent/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:Iridescent/Talk header}} {{User:Iridescent/Talk header}}


==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg==
== ] ==
]
Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.


If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice --> '''] ]''' 23:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me that it's notable. Any idea how I'd go about creating a new kit design for them? They have a rather distinct design, which certainly doesn't exist already. ] (]) 00:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:I don't know, but if you go to ] there's almost certain to be be someone who'll know how. It would probably help if you went to and worked out the exact HTML codes (e.g., Arsenal red is #C40303) so they can just be dropped into the template.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::Much appreciated for pointing me in the right direction! Though I know all about HTML colour codes... *shudders* ] (]) 00:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:::It occurs to me that if it's not possible to do it the "correct" way in the template, you could always just take the image for ], draw the hoops onto it in Paint, and ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Iridescent - Why did you decide this page was notable and remove the deletion template? You put in your summary that clubs that play at Levels 1-10 in English football are notable, which is of course correct - however Royal Marines play at Level 11 and obviously have never played higher as this is their first season. This page should surely be deleted asap? ] (]) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ah, you're right – ] is at step 7 in the pyramid (tier 11); I was looking at the Premier Division at tier 10. That said, although that doesn't mean they're automatically notable, it doesn't mean they're automatically deletable either, and this is a sourced and referenced article on a viable topic (] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]). It does no harm to keep it, is potentially useful (which, as I never tire of saying, is Misplaced Pages's primary purpose; not "sticking to arbitrary notability criteria"), and nothing would be gained by deleting it. Feel free to ] if you really insist, but I'll be arguing strongly in favour of keeping it; that "top 10 levels only" rule is mainly to stop us being flooded with one-line stubs on Sunday League and school teams, which this isn't.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Yes there are plenty of other clubs in the SWP League Divisions One East and One West who have articles but there's a good reason for this - those clubs who still have articles have played in FA Competitions (Cup or Vase in this instance). All clubs in these two divisions had articles until a while back, the ones deleted were in the same category as Royal Marines AFC - they had never played at step 6 or above and had never been involved in the FA Cup or Vase. I shall indeed be suggesting that Royal Marines AFC be deleted asap. ] (]) 09:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::(To ] and ]) If you're not aware, its potential deletion is now being discussed ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


:To any talk page stalkers that are around, I (as a long-absent talk page stalker) only just noticed this non-free image deletion(of a stamp depicting the subject of the article), and am wondering whether it is worth contesting it? As far as I can tell from viewing the deleted version, the rationale was sound (not quite sure why it was nominated). Where is the best place to start here? The image was used in the ] featured article where it was commented out . Maybe someone can also explain the removal of from the same article? As far as I can tell, what would be needed there is a ''separate'' non-free use rationale added to ]? But whether that would be accepted is another matter (the differing viewpoints are whether a reader should be expected to click through to the article to see the image, or whether it is better for the reader to see the Picasso image within the article they are reading). ] (]) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
== Banko-Stewart ==
::I don't have admin goggles, so I can't see the image or fair-use rationale in question, but from looking at the article ]#8 looks like the obvious issue – {{tq|Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.}} Given the very brief mention of the stamp, it's difficult to argue that illustrating it "significantly" increases readers' understanding of the topic. (The same argument would also apply to including an image of ''The Old Guitarist'', if ]#6 didn't explicitly forbid this kind of use anyway.) ] (]) 15:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I can copy out the rationales for the stamp (image ) ("Author: original author unknown and not easily identified, copyright on textual elements will be held by Jordan Post. The central image is Hope by G. F. Watts (died 1904) and already in the public domain"; "Purpose of use: To illustrate that the image was still in popular circulation 70 years after the author's death; its use on Jordanian stamps is specifically discussed in the article" and "Replaceability: No, as it likely to be a copyrighted image and the purpose is to illustrate the image's use in the 1970s. As the graphic elements are already in the public domain, it is possible that the textual elements are below the threshold of originality."), but you are right that for the Picasso one, UUUI #6 does apply - for the record, I have always disagreed with that as articles should be self-contained (e.g. for readers who are reading an article off-line or a printed version). But I do get that some elements of NFC apply to the encyclopedia as a whole, and thus being able to refer to another part of the encyclopedia that contains the image is the line in the sand. Thank you for the advice. What do you think of the stamp rationale? ] (]) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Like you, I'm not entirely sure that I agree that our policy needs to be as strict as it currently is. That being said, on the question of what policy is and how it's currently applied, I think that the deletion is reasonable. Possibly a case could have been made for keeping the image, but suspect if would have been deleted regardless.{{br}} The two main points I would expect to be made against any such case are: (1) "its use on Jordanian stamps is specifically discussed in the article" is overstating the situation rather. Its use on Jordanian stamps is briefly mentioned in the article; the hardline free content purist would ask what the illustration actually adds to a reader's understanding here. (2) "To illustrate that the image was still in popular circulation 70 years after the author's death": is it definitely the case that there are no possible free images which could illustrate the long-term influence of the painting? The majority of the section on §Later influence discusses its influence on Barack Obama, via ]: there is certainly a free image of Obama delivering ]. Sure, it's a rubbish image, but a rubbish free image is by policy preferred to a good non-free one.{{br}} The remaining alternatives are, for my money: (1) add more sourced commentary about this stamp and write a Fair Use Rationale why makes a clearer case for the importance of illustrating that stamp specifically, (2) know enough about Jordanian copyright law to determine whether or not the stamp design is likely to still be in copyright, and if it's not upload it to commons (3) choose a different image for that section. ] (]) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Impeccable logic. :-) May do number 3 at some point. ] (]) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'll concur in not contesting the deletion. I think it was a legitimate fair use, in that it demonstrates that "Hope" remains a part of popular culture even in cultures with minimal relationship to 19th-century England. However, since it's so marginal—and since Obama provides a much more obvious and better-known example of the work continuing to be relevant—it's not worth contesting (and I will happily put my hands up to having no idea what the copyright status of a Jordainan stamp is).&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== TFA ==
? I don't see ] as "a major award"; nor do I think of '']'' as "a major soap opera". Still, I will respect your judgment. --] &#x007C; ] 19:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:Produced by ], starring ] and ] – it may have been a shitty show that got cancelled after one season, but it was certainly a significant one. Like I say, feel free to AFD it if you think it warrants it, but I don't see how that could possibly have been an A7.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::I've declined your {{tl|prod}} on her as well. She's appeared in two major film franchises (Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre) as well as Pacific Palisades. Her roles were mostly pre-internet so she's not well documented online (although does get a respectable under her stage name), but there's a reasonable chance a horror-movie fan can source this one up to standard. (Article at ] if any passing TPS wants to have a go – it should probably be moved to ] given that that's the name she's known under.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


{{User QAIbox
== Henry Edward Butler ==
| image = Himmelsschlüssel, Engweder Kopf.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
Thank you today for ], introduced (in 2016): ""Bright rising sun illuminating the clouds over a featureless horizon" has become such a staple image since the advent of modern photography, it's easy to forget that it had to begin somewhere. Likewise, if George Frederic Watts is remembered at all nowadays it's as the painter of formal portraits of dignitaries and of earnestly portentious paintings with titles like Love and Death and The Slumber of the Ages, not as the painter of dramatic landscapes. After the Deluge is an explicitly religious painting, yet contains no religious imagery of any kind, and is an interesting snapshot of the transition between 19th-century symbolism and 20th-century abstraction. Because this has spent the last century in the backwater of Compton rather than in a high-profile institution like the Tate Gallery or the Yale Center for British Art, there hasn't been all that much written about this particular piece so the article is shorter than usual, but I believe this collates together everything significant that there is to say about it. And yes, I know it looks like I've accidentally cut-and-pasted a chunk of body text into the wikilink but Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory)—The Morning after the Deluge—Moses Writing the Book of Genesis genuinely is the name of Turner's painting of the same subject." - We miss you. Best wishes for whatever you do! -- ] (]) 07:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


:Thanks. I know ''After The Deluge'' isn't the most interesting topic—and this style of painting it totally out of fashion—but I do like it, and I'm glad to have seen it have its moment in the sun.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can you supply details of why this article was speedily deleted and what can be done about it. It was not a new article and I intended adding to it, but received information only today of its imminent deletion and it was already gone when I checked. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup>21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:This is the full text of the article. It was deleted under ] (biography with no assertion of notability); although he may well have had notable children and a notable father, unless he was himself a peer (and thus a member of the House of Lords) there's nothing to suggest that he himself was notable by ]. If he was notable, feel free to recreate the article '''''with references to demonstrate notability''''', but this was a correct deletion. ("Not a new article" was an argument in ''favour'' of deletion, incidentally; with new articles, we try to give the benefit of the doubt in the assumption that it's being worked on, but this hadn't been touched for a month.)
{| <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Deleted article
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
'''Henry Edward Butler''' (3 December 1780 &ndash; 7 December 1856) was born in ], ], the second son of ] and Sarah Taylor (daughter of Colonel Edward Taylor and Anne Maunsell).


== CfD nomination at {{Section link| Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14#Museum collections }} ==
'''<big>Children</big>'''<br>
* Captain Henry Thomas Butler, born 1812, 55th Regiment, died 5 November 1854 age 42. Served in China and the ], where he fell at ].<ref></ref>
* Captain Charles George, born 1823, 86th Regiment, died of fever at ] 17 December 1854 age 31.<ref></ref>
* The Reverend Pierce Butler, born 1826, Chaplain in the ], died 8 February 1868 age 42.<ref></ref>
* Captain James Armar Butler, born 1827, Ceylon Rifle Regiment. Died of wounds received at the defence of ], in the ] 21 June 1854 age 27.<ref></ref>
* Edward Arthur Butler, died 7 November 1829 in ].


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''{{Section link| Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14#Museum collections }}''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
'''<big>Political career</big>'''<br>
He served in ] and in the ]. He died in Paris on 7 December 1856.


== pictured ==
'''<big>References</big>'''<br>
{{reflist}}
* Accessed November 11, 2008


{{User QAIbox
{{tl|Ireland-stub}}
| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg
|-
| image_upright = 0.8
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.'''</span>''
| bold = ] · ] · ]
|}
}}
:Hope that helps!&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Today I had reason to look at 10 years ago, and saw ]. Thank you for clarification in that matter and many others. We'd need more of it, but best wishes for what you do instead! -- ] (]) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


== Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==
== disney ==


In connection with the articles we've been de-speedying, you might want to take a look at the advice I have just given the author, ] & see if you want to add or modify. I see some problems here, though he has very professionally avoided copyvio. ''']''' (]) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:I think you've pretty much covered it; when it comes to this kind of thing, I generally defer to you. I suspect they won't survive an AFD debate - or retagging and one of our heavier-handed admins coming across it - but as far as I'm concerned, quite aside from the ] issues of deleting a newcomer's entire history, these seem to be perfectly valid articles. I'm particularly impressed with how closely the author has avoided copyright violation.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


] Established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.
== Damn kids... ==


Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at ].
''you'' told. Now turn that music down, punk. ]] 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:I like , personally. "Horde faggot pansy ass blood elf faggot" goes above and beyond the usual "waah you deleted my band".&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::Man, I've been deleting crappy articles for a couple weeks solid now, and no one has bothered defacing my talk page. I feel left out! ;-) ] (]) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::You just have to piss off the right sort of person. It doesn't have as much to do with ''what'' you do so much as who you do it to. For example, I got back in March. I had been using Huggle for less than a month, and I had been fighting vandalism ''period'' for less than two. And (probably obviously) I was not even an admin. ]]] 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Stupid links I can't read. — ]] 18:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::I assure you they're very dull <tt>;)</tt> ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Rollbackers can see deleted pages now?
::::::J.d, those are some jacked up messages, for real. I get some pretty colorful vandalism, but those pretty much take the cake. I stopped half way through the first one for fear I would be left stupiderer for having read it. ]] 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
&larr;] is always happy to oblige:
{| <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day.
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
Hello J. Delanoy,


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
U suck. I could totally pwn u in my sleep. Come log on WoW like a real man and we will duel. My death knight rolak will destroy u. In f4ct, u r probably some horde faggot pansy ass blood elf faggot. I could prolly even 1 shot u cus u r a faggot ass pansy bitch whore. U r the biggest noob I have ever seen. LOL u prolly dont even have any ep3x. People like u make me sick. Ur mother is prolly horde too rofl i can prolly pwn u both at the same time. Lol u r prolly an orc to. I one shotted thrall, cus he is the king of the noobs. U prolly didnt even beat kara cus u suck. LOL u prolly dont even tier 9 yet cus u suck that much. My dk had some t8 in bc, ur such a noob that u prolly only had like dungeon tier 1 LOL!!. U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day. Just ask ur mother. I also bang all of the cheerleaders for the football and basketball teams. Oh ya and baseball. I am also the starting qb for our football team. We won the state championship. I threw so many passes. Then I got laid. Yeah, u wish u were as good at life as me. But ur not, cus u suck. U just sit there all day, raiding kara with ur noob welfare ep4x wiping on the horseman LOL. We never wiped on him. U really need to get a life, I mean who doesnt have at least t7 yet srsly?? Add me and well duel and ill destroy ur noob welfare blood elf orc ass. U prolly cant even bring me down to 95% LOL cus u suck noob.


:End of an era? ] ] ] 00:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
U rly suck srsly,
::I hope not. Hope you are well and that we will see you back soon, Iri. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] Same! ] ] ] 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, bollocks. ]'']'' 13:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Still hoping they may emerge in time. ] (]) 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Admin tools or not, I hope Iri will be back around. Much missed. --] (]) 20:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Fun though an Iridescent re-RfA would be, it would be a massive hassle for Iri, so I don't want us getting any closer to that. Also concerned; hope they don't have you in a sealed bunker somewhere or something. Please return soon, if only to tell us how we're all messing up :-( ] (]) 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not dead, just busy. If they do want to desysop me I won't argue. I think we dinosaurs still have benefit as "admins of last resort"—our history means we can close contentious RFCs, take action against pages/editors with large fan-clubs, etc, without being bullied/intimidated by one side or the other, and I have enough of a history that "do you know who I am" is unlikely to work on me.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, it's good to hear from you! --] (]) 20:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::(probably very brief) Welcome back, ]. Glad you're ], yay!! ] (]) 21:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hey, if it would simplify matters, just go ahead and block me for a while. No skin off my teeth. ]] 20:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


You came back!! Yay! ] (]) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
ROlak, King of da Death Knights.


:I'm unlikely to be back in any very active sense for a while yet. While I'll try to check my talkpage every so often, any activity is likely to be at the "looking at things if people ask me to" rather than the "going looking for trouble" level.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC) <br><small>P.S., good to see you back ]—last I saw, you'd been kicked off for reasons that look way to complicated to investigate.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
P.S. MARZON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
::Welcome back, anyway. ] (]) 09:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.'''</span>''
|}
{| <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Senile SS Officer Wiki Nazi
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
'''J.delanoy''' (], ] &ndash; ], ]) was a ] SS Officer and Death Squad leadering during the ] regime from 1933 to 1945. He was one of German dictator ]'s closest associates and most devout followers.


==Invitation to provide feedback==
After the Nazis gained power in 1933, Delanoy joined their forces and quickly rose in rank until the he was appointed to the SS as an officer. He then organized many ] style raids upon Jewish settlements in Southern Poland.
Inspired by Worm That Turned's ] where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my ]. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my ''''''. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, ] (]) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


:@] Iri is, at best, on a long-term Wikibreak. ] ] ] 09:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
'''<big>After the War</big>'''<br>
::Because of my recent inactivity it's probably not appropriate for me to comment on anyone else's recent activity. (I {{em|will}} say that I think this kind of feedback process is a good idea. Because 99% of the routine 'feedback' one gets as an admin—or even as a general editor—is cranks and weirdos complaining, we've all been guilty of ignoring or dismissing legitimate complaints, praise, and good advice.)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
With the end of the War, Delanoy and his peers were pardoned for their ] and were enlisted in the effort to rebuild western Germany. He left the fatherland seven years after the war and immigrated to the United States under ] in 1952.


==Io Saturnalia!==
'''<big>Failed Assimilation</big>'''<br>
While initially his assimilation into American culture appeared to be successful, in 2006 the senile SS Officer began to begin another Holocaust directed against minority groups within the United States. Instead of Storm trooper, Delanoy and his followers began to call themselves Wiki Nazis.


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
'''<big>Defeat and death</big>'''<br>
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}


=== Season's Greetings ===
But in the modern United States, such bigotry would not be allowed and Delanoy soon met a gruesome end at the hands of rogue editors.
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;"

|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]

|rowspan="2" |
'''<big>References</big>'''<br>
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings'''
* Browning, Christopher (2004) ''The Origins of the Final Solution: The evolution of Nazi Jewish policy'' ISBN 0-434-01227-0
* Gilbert, Martin (2006) ''Kristallnacht: the Prelude to Destruction'' ISBN 978-0-06-057083-5

'''<big>External links</big>'''<br>
*

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The '']'' (1563) by ] is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. ] (]) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.'''</span>''
|} |}
The best "you bastard, you deleted my article" is still , though. And is still the standard against which all vandalism needs to be measured.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


===Merry Christmas!===
:With regard to the first one, "U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day". My English skills must be deteriorating, I read it 4 times and still have no idea what that discussion was about. What ever happened to spell check, I use it all the time. — ]] 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
{| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; padding: 5px;"
::]. A rough translation:
|rowspan="2" valign="center" | ]
:::
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: center; height: 1.1em;" | '''A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!'''
{| align="center" style="border-collapse:collapse; border-style:none; background-color:transparent;" class="cquote2"
|rowspan="2" valign="centre" padding: 5px;" | ]
| width="20" valign="top" style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:{{#switch:20px
|rowspan="2" |
|10px=20px
|30px=60px
|40px=80px
|50px=100px
|60px=120px
|#default=40px}};font-family:serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;padding:10px 10px;" | “
| valign="top" style="padding:4px 10px;" | ''I am very good at playing World of Warcraft and I believe that were we mutually to engage in an online player-vs-player scenario, I would prove superior to you. Even were you and your mother to engage in a three-way tournament in said game, my skills are such that I would defeat you both. In fact, I believe you would be unable to complete even the simple tutorial scenarios the game offers. In addition, I believe that you are still a virgin, whereas I, despite spending all my waking hours playing a lame-ass MMORPG, invariably have sex eight times a day with a variety of women whom I meet whilst engaging in sporting activities; they are drawn to me because I am an award-winning football player. Despite our mutual hostility, I am nonetheless willing to engage you in a friendly game of World of Warcraft; however, I must warn you that I am likely to prove superior to you and as a consequence you may be somewhat frustrated were you to take me up on this offer.''
| width="20" valign="bottom" style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:{{#switch:20px
|10px=20px
|30px=60px
|40px=80px
|50px=100px
|60px=120px
|#default=40px}};font-family:serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:right;padding:10px 10px;" | ”
|- |-
|style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray"|
{{#if:|
<br />
{{!}} &nbsp;
<big>Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!</big>
{{!}} valign="top" {{!}}{{#if:|<div style="line-height:1em;text-align: right"><cite style="font-style:normal;">&mdash; {{#if:|, }}</cite></div>}}}}
<br />
<br />
<big>Cheers</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>] (]) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</big>
|} |}
::Glad to be of service. If you are still having trouble picturing ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]), <small>(courtesy of Misplaced Pages Review)</small> is roughly what you should imagine.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::OMG, you so should have warned me before pressing that link. Thanx for the translation...still very odd stuff. — ]] 20:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Jennifer Banko-Stewart ==

You're the ridiculous one! Beside not being civil you are arrogant enough to think you can say those things just because someone finds out that an actress just with a few appearances isn't notable enough!... Who do you think you are? You don't speak like that to other editors! Beside that, you're an ignorant, ]'s page had much more films and appearances and she was deleted because most of appearances were just one episode per show!... ] (]) 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:First, go read ] and see what it actually says. Pay particular attention to the part where it says speedy deletion is not appropriate if there's an ''assertion'' of notability in the article. Then, stop edit-warring to re-add the {{tl|db-bio}} tag; if you want it deleted, take it to ]. I am getting fed up reverting your tag-team's edit-warring over this; if you continue ], you ''will'' be blocked from editing.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::First, I don't know every detail about deletion, second I doubt that such a small article can be asserted as notable, it's chriteria is too abstract for my taste, and third I don't have to take your lack of civility and much less the threat of blocking, as if you as an editor could block or order someone to block. Who are you? What authority do you have for that? I could suggest your blocking too: your challenging of an obvious deletion reason is the real disruptive work. Why don't they block you? You're the warring one, allways deleting my deletion requests! If you think there is a war, do like everybody else and call for a third part!... ] (]) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Iridescent is an admin, and can block you. He can also delete things and decline speedies (which anybody can do, actually). That's probably why he's not blocked. Apart from the fact he hasn't broken any rules or anything. ] (]/]) 18:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Oh! Since I didn't see any mention on his personal page I assumed he was just another editor!... ] (]) 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
&larr;Was<div style="float:left; border:1px solid #999; margin:1px;" class="wikipediauserbox">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:#EEE;"
| style="width:45px; height:45px; background:#DDD; text-align:center; font-size:14pt; color:black; padding:1pt; line-height:1.25em; ; vertical-align: middle;" |''']'''
| style="font-size:8pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:black; ; vertical-align: middle;" | {{#if:{{{RFA|}}}|]|This user}} is an ''']''' on the {{{1|]}}}. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|<span style="font-size:0.9em;" class="plainlinks">()</span>|<span style="font-size:0.9em;" class="plainlinks">()</span>}}
|}</div><br clear="all" />
not enough of a clue? Or the fact that there are links to my block, deletion, protection and rights-management logs at the top of this page in quarter-inch-high dayglo letters? Besides, whether someone's an admin or not doesn't give you the right to descend on their talkpage and start spouting abuse just because someone does something you don't agree with.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Belated appreciation ==

, thank you. — ]] 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:I don't know what happened and doubt you want people knowing, but sorry it went so awry.. I doubt even the most die-hard opposers hold anything against you under the circumstances. While I disagree with both of them about the remedy, I'm coming to agree with Majorly and Kurt that the way this site runs itself is suffering from a serious systemic failure, of which this is just another sign; the only place I really differ from the WR hardliners is that I believe we need the replacement framework in place before the revolution, not afterwards. (Call them ]s and me a ] if you want an analogy – I'm sure Kurt in particular would be delighted by the comparison.) I know I sound like a broken record on the topic, but what was appropriate for does ''not'' scale up to a site with 8,519,289 editors, with a disproportionate number of children, not to mention carrying the dead weight of seven years of petty grudges.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Your comment on RFA talk page re FA quality ==

I'd like to invite you to expand your point why FA reduces quality of articles, particularly on images, per that RFA talk page comment. I'm not sure if I should be horrified, intrigued, bored, amorous, regretful, or disheveled. Too many emotions to choose from. --] (]) 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:I'd go with disheveled. It may not be the best choice, but at least it's interesting. ] (]) 13:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

::Now that I've had more time, perhaps I should be titillated. No, wait. Consumed with ''ennui''. Might it have been the content of Iridescent's post or simply a hormonal imbalance prompting this exercise in vocabulary? --] (]) 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:::''(And this is how I can tell you're not a regular reader of either my or Giano's talkpage, since this is a subject on which we can both go on at great length…)''

:::The FA process does, at the moment, pay very strict adherence to MOS compliance, in my opinion at the expense of usability. When it comes to images, the MOS states that image widths should not be forced, and users allowed to set the widths in their preferences. Despite the fact that ] does contain a list of exemptions where image widths ''can'' be forced, in practice the Defenders Of The Wiki will always argue about any attempt to invoke these exceptions.

:::On many articles, where the images are just there to provide "background colour" to the article, this policy works fine. However, on articles like Giano's architectural articles in which images have to be large to make specific architectural details visible and where cropping to the detail would lose the context of the building, or on geographical and transportation articles like mine, where detailed maps and annotated photographs are essential to understanding the topic, this policy breaks down. As I'm always saying in many different contexts, ] is not an argument to avoid; on the contrary, it's our core purpose and in my opinion, "go with what is most useful" trumps ''every'' policy (even neutrality and verifiability are just corollaries of "what is most useful?").

]
:::The most glaring example among things I've written is ] – despite the fact that the Misplaced Pages article is probably the definitive online resource on the subject (chunks of it regularly turn up in everything from charity fundraising guides to police training manuals; while Google throws up a lot of hits, virtually all are on the 1984 riot and not on the area in general) the article failed at GA, and would certainly fail at FA, because of the forced image widths. It contains two panoramic views which would look like meaningless strips of ribbon if displayed at 180px width; in addition, one of them is annotated to label the individual buildings in the complex using absolute-positioned text, which is an absolute no-no as far as the MOS-warriors are concerned, despite the fact that a "Buildings from left to right are…" caption would be less useful and ridiculously long. The article also contains a map of the complex which – despite being necessary to the understanding of the article (as the troubled history of the area is due in large part to the "wall of buildings" cutting the central area off from the police and fire services), just looks like meaningless squiggles at an MOS-compliant 180px width (see right). I appreciate the argument that anyone who needs to see the image at larger resolution can click on it to zoom it out, but that's a false argument – the general public (which is who, at the end of the day, we're supposed to be writing for) are not going to be aware of the workings of MediaWiki, and it would not occur to them to click on the image to zoom – plus, the "click to zoom" is meaningless when the article is printed.

]
:::This isn't just me being hypothetical; if you look at the history of the article you can see assorted well-meaning MOS compliance vigilantes resizing the images down to 180px, while the talkpage contains a lengthy diatribe from a GA reviewer lecturing me on image compliance. There are plenty of other examples of this process in action; from my articles alone, for instance, ] and ] contain diagrams which are virtually unreadable at 180px resolution but which I took down to that size in the knowledge that if I didn't the Reviewers would do it for me.

:::There are plenty of other parts of the FA style-over-usefulness process that irk me – "footnotes must come after punctuation" is one that particularly irritates me, since ] says nothing of the sort, and going by what the Chicago Manual of Style says is meaningless in the context of an article in British/Australian/Canadian etc English, on a British/Australian/Canadian etc topic – but you asked specifically about images…

:::While a lot of the regulars at FAC/GAN are genuinely helpful, they do – along with the other main "policy gone out of control" area, RFA – attract far more than their fair share of "per a strict reading of policy…" editwarriors who seem to sometimes lose sight of the fact that what Misplaced Pages is all about isn't a ]-style slavish compliance to arbitrary rules. In some ways, I think a lot of these problems stem from a basic mistake on Jimbo and Larry's part when they used the word "encyclopedia". This is a holdover from Nupedia days, and while it may have been what they were aiming for it is not what today's Misplaced Pages really is. An encyclopedia is a collection of articles in a standardised format written in a similar style, with a low enough number of articles that a central style can be enforced ( talks about one day reaching 100,000 articles) whereas in practice todays Misplaced Pages (] notwithstanding), containing 2,663,761 articles, is actually a de facto web host of loosely interlinked pages, with a somewhat heavier than usual level of moderation; however, many of our core process are still atavistic throwbacks to that idealised vision of Larry's in which all articles would be written to the same level and where there was a basic presumption that most contributors would be well-educated and well-qualified (it's only a few months since Jimbo said ""). In practice, we do have a lot of people here who don't understand the nuances and power of ], and have a "rules were made to always be followed" mentality that was never envisaged when our core policies were drawn up.

:::Thus endeth the rant…&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 15:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

::::And quite a rant it was. Once more, I have exhibited my provincialism by admitting just today I put your page on watch. My tiny little controlled world is so pleasant at times. I understand that societies such as Misplaced Pages, and even subcultures within them such as FAC, go through phases where some users are active, making several months or years the "Giano era" as such. I've only been somewhat active in FAC in the past year, and really, really active since April or May of '08, so some of what you're referring to I've missed. Consistency certainly is an issue in citation and images, and I find the inconsistency in how to read, for example ] #8 troublesome. In light of these two of my experiences, I wonder if your and Giano's experiences in FAC or article assessment of GA or higher is attributable to an era or a few hard-line interpreters of image size issues. I've got a couple FAs through with varying image sizes such as ] with this image in particular ] larger than others. Though I do recall being told to make the rest of some kind of uniform size. I did, but protested with that one. However, I was not told to change the size of any images in ], and two are maps or building outlines dependent on size and text within. I even have a whopper wide image in ].
::::I have, somewhat foolishly I suppose, begun to take on image reviews in FACs. I guess this was my primary concern in asking for your clarification. There is, at present, no one else doing image reviews, and my experience is limited to my own trial and error, and the way I interpret image guidelines. And Elcobbola trying to explain things to me. At any rate, my point is that I don't think your issues are endemic of FAC, at least at the moment. You may certainly disagree, but my view is based on my experiences. --] (]) 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Part of the problem is that so much depends on one person, at both FA and (especially) GA level. All it takes is one strict-compliance Defender Of The Wiki to latch onto the process to derail an article's candidacy at either, and unfortunately these areas attract said editors. While I generally agree with ], I think he understates the chilling effect just one person like this can have. (The exact same thing happens with the "oppose, doesn't have 500 CSD-taggings" serial-opposers at RFA. I suspect you remember those.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

===Break 1: On nitpicking, general fixes and assessment===
A slightly different take on it. Suppose I am a solid writer. I have a good article that reads well and looks good. I want to get it to FA. When I get to FA I discover that I have to redo all of the citations, add mdash, and a bunch of other trivial work. This might take me 40+ hours of work to get it to FA quality, particularly to meet the MOS expectations that most people never notice and don't really care about. Plus, there will be a few other people who spend 10+ hours doing clean up on their own. That's 50+ hours crossing t's and dotting i's. During that same time period I could have taken 2 or 3 other articles and raised the quality on them to a level that looks good. It then has a demoralizing effect. *I* don't plan to ever push an article to FA again. It isn't worth my time/energy---I'm not going to jump through those hoops. Some people have a gift for writing and a knack for this kind of perfectionism, most don't. Most people don't bother with FA's because the bar has been set so high that most won't try a second time. Thus, they stop when the article reaches GA. GA is good, but in all honesty, not good enough. Thus, because the bar is so high at FA, the project is hurt.---''']''' '']'' 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:I think you (Balloonman) and I are saying the same thing in different ways. ]* is just as useful (or useless) an article to the general reader whether or not it has a little star in the corner, and there are more useful things I could be doing with my life than listening to variations of "zOMG you put spaces around an em-dash!" for hours on end. And I agree that the FA bar has been raised insanely high insanely quickly; it's only four years since (all FAs in 2004).&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 15:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki><small>''Deliberately chosen as an example, as it epitomises the "boring topic which Britannica wouldn't touch with a bargepole" field where Misplaced Pages excels.''</small>
::I think this is where experience is helpful. I've pushed enough articles to FA (and reviewed enough) that I know the formatting intricacies, and as I write I include all of that. It doesn't take more than a second to type an mdash instead of a hyphen, and when I'm done with writing the article it doesn't need any more additional time to fix the formatting. New to FAC users generally don't know these little tricks, though, and no one has figured out a good way to help train them. I would happily support any effort to have the MOS trimmed down to a more reasonable size so we could eliminate some of the sillier rules (no date autoformatting is going to save me a lot of typing time :)). ] (]) 15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:This is a salient point, Balloonman. I spent 4 hours fixing all the citations in my first FA to ensure its promotion, and was confounded by constant issues of what could be considered excessive pickiness with punctuation problems. However, I consider my entire journey starting on Misplaced Pages with my first edit a transformation of thought. What I thought was possible within myself is vastly different from what I do today. That is possible because of what has been asked of me from excessive pickiness. Essentially, I think that FA may be the fork in the road for many editors. I withdrew my first FA for '']'', angry, stubborn, and quite overwrought because I had already done a ton of work for it, and really - the expectations for literature articles were unclear. That's not very fair, is it? However, the ensuing addition of material and tinkering to the article makes it, in my view, an extraordinary summary of material on a very important book. I might even go so far to say it could be ranked among the most comprehensive addresses on the novel available anywhere, and it's free to boot. When I started on Misplaced Pages, I had no idea I would call people, places, and institutions to track down a photo, a citation, or permission to post an image. I had no idea I would ever speak to Daniel Nicoletta or Harvey Milk's nephew, or discuss issues in the articles I write with professors and experts in the field. Editors have a choice when met by this fork in the road at FA. I took both. I got angry and sullen, felt sorry for myself, then I got angrier that I might be defeated, and I got really good. My expectations changed, and I think that's possible of all editors. I wonder sometimes if expectations that this is only a 💕 that anyone can edit hinders editors and admins. It could be the best source of excellent information ''anywhere'', and it's written by the faceless masses of English-speaking people, rewarded by nothing more than their own curiosity and an occasional "attaboy". Individual editors have a choice to be challenged by FAC, to challenge it back, or choose to work on something else. When I wrote the four satellite articles about the Everglades, from scratch in a sandbox, I incorporated my previous mistakes into the writing style, emdashes and and all. Even ] was a bit adrift on not having to correct my citation foibles. --] (]) 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::What I really wish is that we had a better defined and recognized process for A class articles. GA is really the opinion of one reviewer and the expectations there vary vastly. A class should be the next level up, but with few exceptions (such as Milhist) there is no formalized mechanism for granting A class articles. I think a lot of people would be motivated to get A class articles if we could figure out a means to do so. Actually, this raises an interesting idea... why don't we have FAC confer A class to articles that are almost there? Keep FA with it's ridiculously high expectations, which preserves FA for our truly outstanding articles, but start emphasizing the A class level. This would have a multi fold effect. First, it would get people motivated to work beyond the GA quality. Second, it would increase the prestige of the A class article. Third, it would get people exposed to the expectations at FAC. Fourth, people would be able to go to FAC and walk away with an A class article with guidance on the things that need to be done for FA. This would in turn, affect how they right in the future because more people would have positive experiences at FAC and more people would be exposed to the expectations.---''']''' '']'' 16:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
====Break-in-a-break: On A-class articles, and assessment in general====
:::I never really understood A-class or how it works. Quite aside from anything else, the C-B-GA-A progression makes no sense to me; every bit of my intuition screams out that the "lettered" steps on the pyramid should be below the "named" steps – every other hierarchy has the named set above the numbered set, from a deck of playing cards, to the Football League, to the Tarot. Plus, GA comes with the little green blobs and an application-and-validation process; you never see "this user has 5 A-class articles" on a userpage.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::With VERY few exceptions, A class doesn't exist in any meaningful manner. The only place where it has any weight (IMHO) is MILHIST. At MilHist it truly is the next step up from GA, but not quite FA. At MILHIST, you will nominate an article for A Class, and people will review it (unfortunately, it is insular and the people who will read it are all interested in MilHist.) In order to pass, it has to get 3 people to support it as A class. If FAC were to start awarding that class, when they deemed an article worthy, I think it would encourage people to show up there and learn the real expectations.---''']''' '']'' 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::: We don't have enough reviewers for FAs, and you want us to pass A-class too? ] (]) 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's not so crazy an idea; if one thinks of A class as "almost FA", then it would inevitably be the same people reviewing both, wherever the discussion took place. Were I designing Misplaced Pages from scratch, I'd have a single ] dishing out FA/A/GA, and abolish the meaningless B/C/Start distinction. Aside from anything else, it might end the willy-waving between GA and FA which has gone on as long as I've been here.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::As a fan of both FA and GA I'd welcome anything that put an end to the unproductive willy waving between the two, or at least reduced it to little more than friendly rivalry. I've admittedly been guilty of it myself in the past, or at least guilty of being a little over-tetchy in the face of criticisms of GA, but I still don't think unifying the two is the way to go. GA and FA have different aspirations and goals, each in their own way worthy, just different. I'd agree about abolishing the largely meaningless and arbitrary distinctions between B/C/Start though. In particular I think that whoever's bright idea the new C class was must have under the influence of narcotic substances when (s)he thought ''that'' was a good idea. --] ] 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: After months of discussion over short articles, context, notability, ''et al'', I'm talked out on process reform; someone should revive Mike Christie's Content Review Workshop (link escapes me at the moment) and hash away over there. ] (]) 19:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::If you want to name-and-shame everyone who thought C-class was a necessary change, ] your rogue's gallery. My personal opinion is that the assessment scale should be FA/GA/everything else, and that the whole assessment-scale thing was based on a need to assess articles for the CD release, which with the growth of the net is about as useful as feet on a fish. But what do I know? (FT2's "" on the assessment project page did raise a snigger in light of recent events, though.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::What I am proposing is that if an article fails FAC, but is close that rather than a flat out "failed RfA" that said article MIGHT be promoted to A class. As A-Class isn't really well defined, this would be a way to add meaning to A Class. It would also help soften the blow of a failed RfA. How many people would walk away from FAC in a better mood if their efforts were acknowledged by moving to A class? Eg it is "almost there"---''']''' '']'' 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I assume you mean FAC, not RFA… I think that's a good idea, personally; the FAC reviewers are certainly competent to judge, it wouldn't waste any time (since they're reviewing the article anyway), and it would avoid sploshing the ugly and demoralising "this article was nominated but failed…" template across quite so many talkpages.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

===Break 2: On strict compliance and sex with biscuits===
::::A certain ] has drawn me back sooner than I expected, so I've just seen this. A few points in no particular order. FAC has no mandate or authority to confer anything other than FA status on an article, and neither should it. With the notable exceptions of a few projects like military history, A class means rather little, and is often conferred by a single editor without any formal review whatsoever, so hardly a significant step up from the much-maligned GA. Even the ] suggest only two reviewers, something that a number of GANs routinely and increasingly get anyway. GA is certainly awarded by a single reviewer, but that doesn't mean that there's only a single reviewer involved, or that the judgment of that reviewer can't be be challenged at ]; it frequently is. And of course GA, unlike A class, has a sweeps process to check on the quality of GA articles. All in all, I think GA is, in most cases, a far more credible goal than A class.

::::So far as FAC is concerned, like every other review process it suffers from a lack of reviewers. It also suffers from misconceptions, that it's inordinately skewed towards nitpicking at minor MoS issues for instance. As someone else said above, I've never seen an article fail to be promoted just because there were some MoS issues unaddressed. Also, very few (that includes reviewers) have apparently taken the trouble to read what the MoS actually says on a number of recurring themes, such as setting image sizes, or whether citations should be before or after the punctuation. It is ''not'' forbidden to specify image sizes, and the citations can be either before or after the punctuation so long as they are placed consistently throughout the article. Aside from the endemic lack of reviewers, the biggest problem I see at FAC is the rudeness of some of the comments made by reviewers. I saw an example earlier, which to paraphrase went along the lines of "I'm probably wasting my time in mentioning this, as it appears that the main editors do not understand their subject well enough to address this point, but ...". Comments like that, all too frequent at FAC, are hardly designed to creat a collegial, collaborative environment.

::::Sorry this turned out so long ... so much to say ... so little time. --] ] 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nobody ever asked me for a black and white statement on my position about MOS, but if I had to issue one, it would read thusly: ''The phrase 'MOS breach' constitutes the ugliest two words ever used on Misplaced Pages.''

:::::I am constantly on the lookout for writers in the *precise* situation Balloonman described: if the writing is good and the content and sourcing are there, I don't give a rat's ass if the article is a hot mess from a MOS standpoint. I'll *happily* do shitty MOS work to get an article to FA because (1) I want to push a deserving article over the line but more importantly (2) I don't ever want technicalities to discourage a good writer. To that end, I often do MOS cleanup work directly on FAC articles myself, while trying to give lucid explanations for the same, gauged to the experience and frustration level of the nominator. Often, writing said explanations causes me to reevaluate my own interpretation and application of the minefield that is MOS, and I welcome that, because it is there after all to facilitate excellent articles, not to hamstring them. Yes, it takes a fair amount of work on my part, but ''it works'', and it may be the most important thing I do on Misplaced Pages, because ] ] ] for more. Sounds like I'm gearing up for a rant at ], methinks. ] (]) 18:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::I think Malleus (as usual) pretty much nails it, or at least inasmuch as I see the problem. The FAC process – like all our ] ] ] ] was designed by and for people with an expectation that they'd have an in-depth knowledge of the policies involved. However, there are some people at FAC (and possibly even more so at GAC) who couple a strict "rules are there to be enforced" mentality with a lack of understanding of exactly what those rules say and what the legitimate reasons for disregarding them are. At the much-maligned GA, its pot luck as to who reviews the article so any given article has a good chance of avoiding these people; at FA level, so many people are involved that it's very likely that at least one "despite having a 25-1 aspect ratio there's no justification for forcing this image width" or "this book is not in my local library, therefore it is not a reliable source" opposer will latch onto any given candidate. (Not mentioning any names, but we all know them…)

::::::Yes, Sandy will generally disregard things like this, but it's an unpleasant experience for anyone having their work ripped to shreds ''for no good reason'' – and to a newcomer who's not familiar with the personalities involved, they have no way of knowing which of the opposes are valid MOS concerns and which are petty nitpicking. As an example, take my ] article I referred to earlier. This would probably pass FA with very little work – although short, it covers every aspect of the topic to the extent that any non-specialist would ever want to know, and is stable, fully MOS-compliant and fully sourced/cited. Were it to go to peer review/FAC, however, I can pretty much guarantee that someone would complain about the citations not being Harvard-style, and probably also complain about the lack of images. While I know that neither of these are actually issues, a hypothetical new editor submitting this article wouldn't necessarily know this – or know the appropriate policy pages to check – and would potentially spend hours "fixing" things that don't need to be fixed. Like RFA, one well-timed "oppose" on an FAC can torpedo a candidacy by introducing doubts, whether or not the concerns are actually legitimate.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::] is in many ways a nice little article, and like you I've got an affection for articles on obscure topics like that. It's a way from FAC though, and not because of trivial issues like lack of images, image sizing, or MoS compliance. The lead, for instance ... but heck, you know that anyway. ;-) Where I think you are right is that the FAC process could be more supportive, or at least disallow candidates doomed to fail. The other side of the coin though is that articles shouldn't be taken to FAC to get fixed up, as that ties up the severely limited pool of reviewers ... is there ''any'' process on wikipedia that isn't broken in one way or another? --] ] 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Oh, I know HHR wouldn't pass at present, which is why I said "with little work" and not "with no work" – you'll notice that I've not submitted it to FAC! – but I chose it as an example as the article of mine which is most in line with the MOS. There is method in how I choose my examples; of the ] Tryptich of ], ] and ] one would be ripped to shreds by Sandy, one has too many gaps, and one is a horse that's been flogged too often already today; the road articles are in many ways just long collections of stubs stuck together in a daisy-chain; the ], ] etc "trivial geography of Southeast England" series are all MOS-compliant, more or less, but are too short and boring to pass FAC, even though they all IMO say anything a reasonable person would want to know and any expansion would just be padding.

::::::::Just wait until I get ] written, and maybe I'll visit FAC; I would love to see ] on the Main Page, or at least the tortured arguments as to why it's unsuitable. (Yes, those are Oreos, Bourbons and Rich Teas; and yes, it's genuine. You probably don't want to open it at work, though, unless you want to get some very strange looks.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Biscuit pornography? I'm obviously in the presence of a master, please forgive my untutored impudence. :lol: --] ] 01:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Hey, if I managed to get a viable stub out of ] I'm sure I can get a viable biscuit-sex article up. IIRC, FAC never did agree on a minimum length, so provided the references all check out and the em-dashes are all in their proper places, I trust Sandy will wave it through.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::If anyone could do it, my money would be on you. Jammie Dodger sex featured in an episode of ] after all, now I come to think of it. --] ] 02:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

===Break 3: On unbroken processes and easing the way of newcomers===
Well, I picked a fine time to be really sick; between here, WT:RFA, and Tony's thingie, that was a lot to read. I'm as struck by ''where'' the conversation is occurring as ''what'' is being said (and that I almost missed it all). But I suppose discussion at WT:FAC has become increasingly difficult in recent months. I'm always curious about this MoS notion, since most of us just dig in and fix those things ourselves when the article meets other criteria: a FAC is not going to fail on MoS issues or image sizes (although the shape that Acid association constant article was in the first time it came through might have made me eat my words). Yep, the biggest issue at FAC right now is lack of reviewers. ] (]) 03:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
]
:The ] is at ] and was about whether "Successful FAC nomination" should lead to an automatic sysopping (read ] and just look at some of the names there to see why I don't support this idea). The only reason this has spilled over onto my talkpage is because Moni was questioning a point I made in the original discussion ("the strict compliance with ] which some FAC reviewers insist on can reduce the usefulness of an article by rendering detailed images unusable"), and this has somehow spiralled from here. This is usually a "Giano topic" – as you know, I have virtually no dealings with FAC and most of my articles are brief railway stubs that would never come onto a reviewer's radar, and this is a subject he can go on about at very…great…length – but the last thing he needs at the moment is more drama. (Administering yet another beating to a much-flogged dead horse, but if you look at ] or the history of the article, you'll see ''exactly'' the "MoS notion" in action, with assorted letter-of-the-law people resizing images like the one shown at the right down to unusable sizes – there's also plenty of one of my least favorite misunderstandings-of-the-way-Misplaced Pages-works, "clean up; removing redlinks". As I'm trying to say somewhere in the morass above, I know and you know and all the current participants in this conversation know which concerns are genuinely significant and which are petty nitpickings or misunderstandings of the MoS on the reviewer's part, but a relative newcomer unfamiliar with FAC ''won't'' know what they can disregard – and will possibly also be intimidated by some of the personalities involved – and feel they need to "fix" every issue raised, whether or not it's to the detriment of the article.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 15:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:: On the notion that anyone who writes an FA should be automatically sysopped, reference {{User|Archtransit}} for but one example. I can't recall who put that notion forward in all the catching up I had to do yesterday, but it's misguided on many counts. The curious thing to me about the idea that FAC is a MoS-nitpicking den of evil is that I've seen so much more of that kind of silliness in other processes and from non-FAC editors, so I'm unsure why we get the bad rap. Yes, there's a danger that new nominators may be intimidated, but usually the "regulars" chime in with a voice of moderation at FAC when unreasonable demands are made. ] (]) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I can explain where I think the notions that FAC and RFA are full of nitpickers comes from; it's that everyone coming to them has invested a lot of work (I personally think we should get rid of the whole "triple crown", ] high-score table mentality, but it's not gonna happen), and they both have enough people participating that the chances of meeting at least one nitpicker is fairly high. For the sake of argument suppose ] submits at article to FAC which is broadly compliant but contains some niggling stylistic problems. Once it gets there:
:::*Malleus quietly cleans up the typos but reserves commenting on the FAC;
:::*Moni quietly checks out the images but reserves commenting on the FAC;
:::*Tony quietly standardises the units of measurement but reserves commenting on the FAC;
:::*Ealdgyth quietly checks out the references but reserves commenting on the FAC;
:::*] posts "'''Oppose''', I cannot support an article that uses the unicode ½ character when the MOS clearly states <nowiki>{{frac|1|1|2}}</nowiki> is the preferred format, if the author can't even be prepared to read ] I don't know what they're doing here".
:::Which of the above is likely to stick in the nominator's mind?&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 16:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:::: Yes, but. It's a Wiki; how can we fix that? (Share your sentiments on Triple Crown, but think that WBFAN has some usefulness when it's not misapplied, although it frequently is. Triple Crown, on the other hand, encourages those problematic award-seeking types through other processes that receive less scrutiny than an article does at FAC.) (By the way, I used to try to intercede, and quickly, whenever I saw unreasonable demands being made at FAC, but of late, anything I say has been twisted, so I've stayed out more often, leaving intercession to others.) ] (]) 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Hopefully the response from Moni citing the Giano essay, telling the opposer that it probably took as long to write the oppose as it would have taken to fix that thing, and prodding him to give an opinion on the whole article. Even if I miss it, which I tend to do sometimes, there is an element in the nominator that I hope shows through, that s/he may realize some FACers are pulling for the article, and some are picky. --] (]) 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::: Since I'm still fever-ish and still catching up, pls toss me a cluestick if we're talking in generalities or about a specific current FAC. ] (]) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::AFAIK we're just talking in generalities – I certainly don't have a particular one in mind.

::::::The process isn't fixable, in the sense that there's nothing really wrong with it, but I think a lot of the "nitpicky" perception of FAC/RFA could be cleared up were some of the more pedantic commentators dealt with more harshly (which is possible – witness how much saner RFA has got since Kurt and Majorly stopped using it as a wrestling ring). Also, whether or not it's true, a lot of people see you (plural) as an elite, and take criticism from FAC reviewers more seriously than they would from a passing editor; I'd very strongly support a realistic "what to expect" guide for those coming to FAC for the first time, either as nominators or reviewers, to make people realise that these are normal people, not the Misplaced Pages Gods casting thunderbolts from ivory tower somewhere. (That cuts both ways; remember how annoyed Tony got when people were hassling him for not cleaning their articles up fast enough?) As I say above, while I generally agree with ], in ] I think he's writing from the perspective of someone familiar with the personalities involved, and underestimates how off-putting it can be to have something you've put a lot of work into nit-picked over for trivial reasons, especially when all the barnstars-and-crowns culture has possibly given one an exaggerated level of respect for said critic, and where people may be reluctant to argue with people perceived as "special". (A lot of people would be afraid to argue with you or Raul, for example, even were they to think you were clearly incorrect – instead, they'd just go off and sulk. This isn't unique to FAC by any means, but is a symptom of an exaggerated respect for "authority" on Misplaced Pages - look at the way ] tone suddenly changes when he notices the "This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages".) Something Dereks1x/Archtransit ''does'' deserve credit for is the fact that he stood up to ] without snapping.

::::::The exact same thing happens at the other area with this reputation, RFA – Moni, Karanacs and Malleus all had some fine ridiculous opposes, which were they made on a talkpage would have barely drawn any attention but in the heated context can lead to grudges, long-running grievances, and a general distaste for the whole process. (I'm still full of righteous indignation over the "oppose, candidate is an advocate for newspeak" on mine, more than a year later.) Again, this is another process that will never be "fixed" because of the inertia of seven years of history and the lack of viable alternatives.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

====Break-in-a-break: On a putative FAC guide and the Misplaced Pages Elite====
::::::: On the "realistic 'what to expect' guide", couldn't agree more, had it half composed in my head for a Dispatch until a series of things derailed my time, and issues at WT:FAC convinced me that I should consider taking more of a backseat. I 'spose I could still try to write it, after the holidays, but alternately, it may be better for me to be more hands off, as Raul was/is, and let the community sort things. If I write it, it continues your "A lot of people would be afraid to argue with you or Raul, for example, ... " problem. ] (]) 16:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::If I had to propose someone to write it, my nominees would be Giano and Malleus; there are uncontacted tribes in the Amazon rainforest whose only knowledge of Western civilisation is that Giano is not part of the Misplaced Pages Elite. Some of the other long-term ] familiar with the process (SlimVirgin, Bishonen…) could probably contribute usefully to it; I'd envisage the end product looking like a cross between a shortened version of Giano's essay and Balloonman's ] walkthrough.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I don't understand this "afraid to argue with X or Y" mindset, but p'raps that's just me. --] ] 16:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I'd write that. Having no idea who is in the Misplaced Pages Elite, I don't think I'm in it. Rather, I consider it a shared <s>delusion</s> perception among people who wish they could be considered in it, and people who label themselves as such in order to further an agenda. --] (]) 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::: Wiki Elite? :-) I went from having the power of the Oppose button (as a FAC reviewer) to the glorified bean counter, yet "they" think I'm in the "elite" :-) Did I ask for that? ] (]) 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::The "Misplaced Pages Elite" is any combination of two or more people who disagree with you on whatever your pet topic happens to be. Have none of you ever read the Misplaced Pages Review?&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::: WR, are you kidding? I wouldn't be caught dead around the likes of that Obesity fellow. ] (]) 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Hey, WR ''loves'' me: "</nowiki>, so if she's posting here, I'd like to personally flag her posts with a mental note of additional respect.]" – ]&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: Dead link alert. ] (]) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Live, but in one of the sooper-sekrit members-only fora.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::: For the elite only? ] (]) 17:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Or "irredeemable", if you follow the ] line. Since I still lag well behind NYB, Cool Hand Luke and Alison on post-count, I'm not going to be too concerned. (FWIW, I think WR serves a valuable purpose in highlighting where we go wrong, and I also think a lot of the "exiles" there do have genuine grievances against WP – we do have a very unappealing habit here of treating anything we don't want to hear as "incivility" and issuing hairtrigger blocks on the flimsiest of ] pretexts.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: I don't either; could be that I'm still at half mast and shouldn't even be posting, or could be that I'm obtuse. But I think Iri is saying that ''we'' don't understand because we're accustomed, while it's very offputting to newcomers. ] (]) 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

&larr; <small>''(Outdent, re to Sandy)''</small> Yes – and I'm not singling FAC out. It's no worse or better a process than most others; it's just that we forget just how confusing Misplaced Pages is to a newcomer. For all that people still talk about "ease-of-use" and "all you need to know is ] and ]", in reality not only are we a site that uses a unique markup and syntax system, but we expect strict compliance from all users with ], a reasonable expectation of compliance with ], plus whatever arbitrary guidelines the WikiProjects decide to impose; said compliance is then imposed by a bunch of admins, many of whom don't understand the policies themselves (we have over 200 guidelines alone; can you honestly say you've read all of them?), and consequently fall back on "I'm an admin, do as I say or you're ]", with the usual foul-tempered consequences. The problem has more of an impact at FAC because the people coming to you have generally invested more time and effort than the cut-and-paste-from-Myspace articles on bands I delete by the shedload, so you're more likely to get negative blowback. If everyone nominating to FAC received a boilerplate template on their talkpage along the lines of "People are going to say some things that seem really nasty; most of them are genuinely trying to help, and if you really feel someone's being genuinely disruptive then talk it over with someone experienced with the process: here is a list of people who will be willing to help discuss these issues" then I think it would improve the process.

I do appreciate that I'm being somewhat hypocritical, in that I'm commentating on a process in which I never take part and on an experience I've never gone through. In an ideal world, these concerns would all be raised at peer review so the nominators would be immune to criticism by the time it reached FAC (and articles likely to attract criticism would never reach FAC), but in practice peer review looks to be following ] down the lack-of-participants slippery slope.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 18:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
: Your comments are not hypocritical; they are thought provoking. My replies are terse because I'm seriously still under the weather. The forum for writing something to address all of this is ]. Someone needs to do it. (I spent my first many many months on Wiki with a note on my user page saying something to the effect of "who wrote the user manual for this thing"). Wiki needs a major simplification across many pages, including MoS, but I've been singing that tune for years and no one can or will do anything about it. On the other hand, we devoted months of energy, discussion and procedures to getting dates delinked. ] (]) 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:: That's because it takes months of discussion to get ANYTHING done on Misplaced Pages. If several other organizations I was involved with weren't just as disfunctional, I'd worry more. (waves at Iri!) I used to have time to do a once a week pass through Peer Review looking at sourcing for anythign that said it was headed to FAC, but right now, time is at a premium. I like to think helping out at PR helped some over at FAC, but I just can't do it alone, it's hard enough to get the sourcing stuff done at FAC. As a rule, Wiki needs more people who pay attention to content and less to the drama of the moment. ] - ] 20:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Wait until Flagged Revisions goes through; then all the IPs will stop vandalising and decide to start writing articles instead. Hey, it could happen…

:::In all seriousness, it's possible that the resounding kicking the "old guard" got in the Arbcom elections could finally provide the nudge that sends the "Spirit of 2001 for ever!" Usenet and Nupedia ] out of Misplaced Pages, freeing up the way for some major rewriting of policy and rethinking of the purpose of Misplaced Pages. (Unbundling the admin tools, anyone?) Jimmy Wales's , despite the wails of the "anyone can edit means anyone should edit" brigade, is a hopeful sign.

:::Sometimes, it's hard to avoid the drama of the moment. As Sandy can testify, once you reach a certain level of visibility, then like it or not the drama comes looking for you.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

===A whole new experience…===
The phrase "U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day."… A 70kb thread with what appears to be the whole of FAC commenting on it… A torrent of abuse from someone I've never heard of before… A fairly blatant troll account trying to start an argument about religion and sexuality… I feel like the winner of a competition to be Giano for the day.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
: Ah, aren't you lucky! (grins) ] - ] 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:What was the second prize? Being Giano for two days? :lol: --] ] 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::There's a fairly obvious contender for second prize… At least two Certain Editors haven't decided to grace my talkpage with their wisdom yet.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 23:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm no good at puzzles Iridescent. I was thoroughly confused by that recent Guido de Brueder(?) episode, and still don't understand what happened there. --] ] 23:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::As I understand it, he posted the results of an "experiment" he'd been conducting on his userpage; someone removed it; he came to ANI to complain; someone took a closer look and realised the "experiment" consisted of systematically inserting misinformation into articles to see how long it would last, leading to him being blocked.

::::Disclaimer: I was not involved in this, didn't follow it particularly closely, and don't know if it's true or not. The DRV – with links to all the other places the debate took place – is ], if you want to try to make sense of it.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Maybe it changed, I don't know, or maybe I need to get new glasses, but about half-way through the AN report I started to read Giano, not Guido. It's clear what happened now, although I don't agree with it. Fault injection is a well-established practice in software engineering, for instance. --] ] 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yes but… I think (again, with that "I don't know all the circumstances" disclaimer) that Guido did himself no favours with his "I am submitting a full report on the failings of Misplaced Pages to the United Nations" posturing; he also, outside the bounds of the "experiment", had a history of frankly nutty obsessiveness with policy minutiae; my sole interaction with him AFAIK was in a batshit-insane dispute over whether "2009 will be a common year starting on Thursday" needed a citation. ("Technically, it violates ], as the world might end before then".) Anyway, I think we get more than enough faults injected already!&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 23:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

== WTF just happened? ==

, I gave him a warning for systemically altering genres in the infobox of music articles. His reply shows that he has no clue when it comes to policy, that's not the concern, it's the link to Godhatesfag's.com that alarms me. — ]] 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:I would ''hope'' that he thought he was pasting a link to something else but accidentally hit ctrl-c on the wrong page and pasted the wrong link in (I've certainly done that in my time). My first thought when I saw that was {{tl|voa}}, but a look over his history shows that he's generally making legitimate edits. See if he gives a legitimate explanation.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::His explanation thus far is ''I felt like adding a source, I just took the notion, and that was the first website I thought of''. Really random, he doesn't have a history of being a troll as far as I can see. However it seems he did want to add the link and follows up with "god bless you". A really bad joke or something more sinister, who knows...We should give him more chance to expand upon his explanation though. — ]] 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Either way, to Iridescent's reply, he still might have been surfing through the page, and as much as I doubt God is a Mac gamer, I doubt he hates fags. As a matter of fact, gay men and women have been found to have longer ], which actually make them think to be homosexual, and God made them that way. Not implying that I believe in Christian beliefs that God made every person before conception, just that if that were so, He would not hate 'fags'. ] (]) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::::] There may be a suitable place for this. My talkpage is not it.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']<small> 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</small>''
:::::Yeah, my intention when bringing this to Irids talk page was ''not'' to start some religion/political/social debate. Please don't. — ]] 00:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

==An extremely boring and eminently deletable question & suggestion==
Hi Iridescent. I was drawn here by your reduced-font-size metacomment on FACs within Tony's splendid let's-machine-gun-the-admins conspiracy page.


*Thanks to all three of you <small>(Since we're still within the Twelve Days, Hanukkah and Twixmas, I can just about avoid making it "belated thanks")</small>&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I too am dismayed on the (very rare) occasion when I receive a generic wikilurv template or similar. They make my flesh creep and I certainly can't bring myself either to respond as I presume is hoped or to pass on or spread the lurv. So I'd like to have a warning similar to that under which I am now typing my eminently boring and deletable etc. Pardon my iggernance, but how's it done? (Just give me the link to a page that explains.)
:And delighted to see you back again after such a long break! - ] (]) 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==
Secondly, your CSS or other hocus pocus results in any ''reply'' to any question posted here coming out in a typeface that (at least on the computer I happen to be using right now) is peculiarly unattractive and difficult to read. (More likely this computer is not rendering the intended face because it lacks it, and is substituting something horrible). Of course I could cavalierly override all your settings, but that seems a pity: I'd lose the going-livid-with-rage background color and the other delights of your talk page. -- ] (]) 03:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:] --] (]) 05:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::Neat-o. Thank you. And as for the irritation, I'm now using my main machine (set up two years ago as opposed to eight) and everything's in the same very legible typeface. -- ] (]) 10:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:::What font are you seeing? It ''should'' be displaying in Tahoma – which was deliberately chosen as (a) it's more "compact" than the variations of Arial/Helvetica/Univers that most browsers default to and (b) it's part of the basic font-set for all versions of Windows, all Apple products and is automatically installed with MS Word, so should display correctly on anything from Win 3.1 to an iPod; in the (unlikely) event you don't have Tahoma installed, it should just default to whatever your default proportional browser font is. Is anyone else having problems with this? If so, let me know – it's a matter of seconds to change it.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I'll take a look later. That first machine is the only one I use that has Windows; it's Win2k, which refuses to die or even (probably because it's only connected to the net for short periods) to get infected with malware. The article here on Tahoma says that it comes with Win2k and even is the default sans-serif font; all I can say offhand is that it's not ''my'' setting for default s-s font within Firefox, which is my main browser on that machine. This (second, main) machine is running Kubuntu and I've never bothered to install Tahoma on it. I suppose you're doing this with CSS, and Tahoma as first choice and unspecified sans serif as last choice; if so, I fear that the problem (for my one machine) is Tahoma rather than its absence. -- ] (]) 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Tahoma it is. I'm now using my Windows antique. <small>(Gratuitous plug for the pricier Toshiba machines, or at least the older ones: this Toshiba "Port&eacute;g&eacute; 7200" has outlasted two or three computers used by the missus -- one of them a Toshiba "Satellite" -- and one of my own floortops. About half a square centimetre at each corner of the screen is dingy and little hairs poke up from between the keys; otherwise, it seems as good as new. Even the white lettering is fully legible on all but two of the keytops. When this one eventually dies, I'd happily buy a replacement from Toshiba -- except that I'd have great difficulty paying money for some MS OS that I'd replace with Debian.)</small> The computer has "Tahoma (OpenType) Version 2.80. Typeface and data &copy; 1995-1999 Microsoft Corporation". I created a little "web" file of my own with CSS directing that all should be in Tahoma as the first choice and generic serif (no, not sans-serif) as the second. The result is similar to my view of your page, though at a greater point size. Many letter pairs (e.g. "ur") almost touch, and "th" and "tb" actually do touch. Simply, this screen font (or anyway this version of it) has so great a contrast of letter widths, and so little space between letters, that it's a lot worse than the default. -- ] (]) 15:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::I've experimentally changed it to Verdana, which is the most "generic" font family there is; what are you seeing now? I prefer keeping it as "Tahoma first choice, default font as second choice" – I think the Tahoma and Trebuchet families are the most legible for lengthy on-screen reading, but a lot of computers don't have Trebuchet installed. I'm wondering whether someone somewhere has a fiddly sig that's confusing your browser, if it's one of the old ones with a "maximum number of font changes per page" setup.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm now seeing text which is easy to read. Thank you! (I've never heard of a browser that gets tired of font changes, though some browsers of course have a limited tolerance for the tag soup that's pandemic in web pages.) -- ] (]) 15:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::On second thoughts, let's take out the font altogether. That way people can specify what they want it to be. Hell, there might be someone who likes the MediaWiki defaults.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 16:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


==Requested move of ]==
Hello, since you participated in the AfD debate on this article, I'm contacting you in case you might like to comment on a move I've requested to ]. You can comment at ]. ] (]) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:That was ''two years ago''!!!. No strong opinion, but whatever you propose be prepared to be shouted at by angry Canadians.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


] Established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next several days.
== RE: Rollback ==


Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at ].
I am fully aware already that this was an incorrect rollback.


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunatly the grammer differences between alumni and alumnus through me off a little.


:Commented ]. If they want to desysop me I won't contest it, but I'm not actively supporting it either since I think I'm still of more use as an admin. (I'll nip on over to the backlog now and do some adminny stuff, so I have logged admin actions in 2024 and the bean-counters can be happy.)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I have already apologised to the user who made the edit.


== Race condition ==
Also i do not belive that all ip edits are vandals. However i do find that most vandal edits are made by anonymous users. This however does not effect the way i treat edits. ] (]) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:No problem… As a rule, if you're not ''sure'' something is vandalism, don't revert it. If it's vandalism, someone else will spot it (particularly once ] goes live).&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 18:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Iri. Great to see you around again. It looks like I deleted ] just as you were declining the CSD, a ] based on when I loaded the page. As far as I know, it's common practice to apply G3's hoax subcriterion to sandboxes, if they're formatted like an encyclopedia article and obviously fictitious. ] says {{tqq|<nowiki>Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project. Pages that egregiously present false information may be tagged with {{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}.</nowiki>}} and makes no exception for sandboxes. As a result, I'm hesitant to self-revert here, but at the same time, I don't want to step on your feet. I'm about to go to bed, so if you want to restore the sandbox, I don't object, although I'd be inclined to blank and/or MfD it if it's restored. Either way, I leave this in your capable hands. All the best. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Round 2 ==


:I've no problem at all with the deletion. My general feeling is to allow pretty much anything in sandboxes regardless of whether it's true or not—it's certainly not unusual for someone who wants to write about (e.g.) a boxer to copy-paste the formatting of an existing boxing biography and play around to get the feel of editing, how templates work, etc. As such, I generally extend maximum AGF to sandboxes, even if what's going on in them would normally be considered vandalism. In this case, looking at ] it's fair to say that AGF is well past any reasonable limit.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 14:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, the latest story is, Jackson has a rare lung condition, is near blind in one eye and on the verge of death. Again, one newspaper is reporting it and other sources are reporting on the primary sources claim. Jackson's people have not commented. This could be another nightmare in the waiting. — ]] 17:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I always try to tackle sandboxes first when I look at CAT:CSD, because they have some of the worst mis-taggings. Entirely valid drafts tagged as U5, unfinished bits and bobs tagged as U5 or G3 (or G1 or G2, which don't even apply in userspace), you name it. Sometimes I wonder what some CSD taggers think sandboxes are supposed to be used for, because it's apparently neither testing nor drafting. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Is the newspaper reliable? If it's the ''New York Times'', it probably at least warrants an "in December 2008, it was reported…"; if it's a supermarket tabloid, ] may need to come out of retirement.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::Aah, it's '']'', which might actually ''be'' an RS on music-related issues. Anyone watching this talkpage have an opinion on this?&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 17:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Is it Rolling Stone or not, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It's coming from someone who ''used'' to work for Rolling Stone, but he's writing a book on Michael Jackson and is making these allegations which will appear in the upcoming book. I can hear the cash register now. — ]] 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::::] is writing it, he looks like he has some good credentials behind him...but seems to have gone...down market in recent years. ''Anyone'' who has ''anything'' to do with ] should come under scrutiny, they made a ''lot'' of money out of portraying Jackson as a beast during the trial. — ]] 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'm really not sure about this one. A couple of threads up from this you have virtually the whole of ], so one of them may be able to advise as to the reliability of sourcing on something like this, or Lara might be able to advise. My gut instinct is to fall back on ] and leave it for a couple of days; either he'll issue a press statement (or be photographed in hospital etc) or he won't, or an indisputably reliable source (by Misplaced Pages's standards; having watched one of their crews fabricate a story when nobody would speak to them, certainly not mine) like the BBC will pick it up. Unfortunately, the IPs are not always so patient.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::And neither are all of the reliable sources ;-)---''']''' '']'' 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Having had the unfortunate experience of having the BLP-hell that is ] on my watchlist, I'm inclined to discount anything coming from the author of a book called ''Love & Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain''. (If anyone wants to take up watching MLL, do feel free; I've long ago washed my hands of that one.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 18:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: I'd say... wait and see. If it's just ONE person saying this, it starts smelling of rumor mongering. If Rolling Stone or someone else had picked it up, you could do the "According to ..." route, but a single author, with no backup, calls for "wait and see". (See! Being talkpagemonitored by FAC is paying off!) ] - ] 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


== Welcome back! ==
I have hesitation whenever someone tries to profit financially, which is almost always the case with Jackson. Hopefully he will issue a statement soon, he's usually upfront and open when it comes to his past health issues. Frankly I'm gutted if it is the truth. I've watched this guy overcome almost unimaginable person issues; child abuse, drug addition, ] (yes there's photographic proof for the haters), certain depression, other mental health issues, weight problems, 2 allegations of child molestation, one trial played out before billions of people, 20 years of tabloid crap (for the most part). None of that got him! Yet some lung illness that he can't control might get him? Darn, it was fun watching him stick two fingers up to every obstacle. He makes Elvis's and Kurt Cobain's problems look insignificant (all due respect to them guys BTW). — ]] 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:Well, I think Elvis and Kurt Cobain would happily trade with him on the "not being dead" part…&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, true. Oh well, we will soon find out. This could be a ''long'' Christmas and I'm hoping I get a PS3 for Christmas and won't want to be writing about ] over the festive season. :-( — ]] 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::It would solve the BLP problem, though&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 19:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I've always believed that most BLP issues should extend to dead people actually... — ]] 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Dead people can't sue. ;-) --] ] 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


I've been completely incommunicado myself (but lurked a bit), so I'm gingerly picking up the threads. Mainly cleaning up the junk that's got into some of my favourite articles and trying to avoid the politics because if anything, the place has simply got even more toxic and chaotic than when I left it almost exactly 2 years ago.
== OTRS ==


Anyway, I'm so relieved to know you're alive and kicking. Happy New Year! ] (]) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
] says "The contents of e-mails handled by OTRS members are confidential." Unless you are actually privy to the information leading up to the agreements made ... One can certainly question, whether your recent posts are productive and/or professional. --] (]) 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:04, 2 January 2025

The arbitration committee "assuming good faith" with an editor.
Archives

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

To any talk page stalkers that are around, I (as a long-absent talk page stalker) only just noticed this non-free image deletion(of a stamp depicting the subject of the article), and am wondering whether it is worth contesting it? As far as I can tell from viewing the deleted version, the rationale was sound (not quite sure why it was nominated). Where is the best place to start here? The image was used in the Hope (Watts) featured article where it was commented out here. Maybe someone can also explain the removal of this image from the same article? As far as I can tell, what would be needed there is a separate non-free use rationale added to File:Old guitarist chicago.jpg? But whether that would be accepted is another matter (the differing viewpoints are whether a reader should be expected to click through to the article to see the image, or whether it is better for the reader to see the Picasso image within the article they are reading). Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't have admin goggles, so I can't see the image or fair-use rationale in question, but from looking at the article WP:NFCCP#8 looks like the obvious issue – Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Given the very brief mention of the stamp, it's difficult to argue that illustrating it "significantly" increases readers' understanding of the topic. (The same argument would also apply to including an image of The Old Guitarist, if WP:NFC#UUI#6 didn't explicitly forbid this kind of use anyway.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I can copy out the rationales for the stamp (image here) ("Author: original author unknown and not easily identified, copyright on textual elements will be held by Jordan Post. The central image is Hope by G. F. Watts (died 1904) and already in the public domain"; "Purpose of use: To illustrate that the image was still in popular circulation 70 years after the author's death; its use on Jordanian stamps is specifically discussed in the article" and "Replaceability: No, as it likely to be a copyrighted image and the purpose is to illustrate the image's use in the 1970s. As the graphic elements are already in the public domain, it is possible that the textual elements are below the threshold of originality."), but you are right that for the Picasso one, UUUI #6 does apply - for the record, I have always disagreed with that as articles should be self-contained (e.g. for readers who are reading an article off-line or a printed version). But I do get that some elements of NFC apply to the encyclopedia as a whole, and thus being able to refer to another part of the encyclopedia that contains the image is the line in the sand. Thank you for the advice. What do you think of the stamp rationale? Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Like you, I'm not entirely sure that I agree that our policy needs to be as strict as it currently is. That being said, on the question of what policy is and how it's currently applied, I think that the deletion is reasonable. Possibly a case could have been made for keeping the image, but suspect if would have been deleted regardless.
The two main points I would expect to be made against any such case are: (1) "its use on Jordanian stamps is specifically discussed in the article" is overstating the situation rather. Its use on Jordanian stamps is briefly mentioned in the article; the hardline free content purist would ask what the illustration actually adds to a reader's understanding here. (2) "To illustrate that the image was still in popular circulation 70 years after the author's death": is it definitely the case that there are no possible free images which could illustrate the long-term influence of the painting? The majority of the section on §Later influence discusses its influence on Barack Obama, via Jeremiah Wright: there is certainly a free image of Obama delivering his 2004 speech on "The Audacity of Hope". Sure, it's a rubbish image, but a rubbish free image is by policy preferred to a good non-free one.
The remaining alternatives are, for my money: (1) add more sourced commentary about this stamp and write a Fair Use Rationale why makes a clearer case for the importance of illustrating that stamp specifically, (2) know enough about Jordanian copyright law to determine whether or not the stamp design is likely to still be in copyright, and if it's not upload it to commons (3) choose a different image for that section. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Impeccable logic. :-) May do number 3 at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll concur in not contesting the deletion. I think it was a legitimate fair use, in that it demonstrates that "Hope" remains a part of popular culture even in cultures with minimal relationship to 19th-century England. However, since it's so marginal—and since Obama provides a much more obvious and better-known example of the work continuing to be relevant—it's not worth contesting (and I will happily put my hands up to having no idea what the copyright status of a Jordainan stamp is). ‑ Iridescent 03:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for After the Deluge (painting), introduced (in 2016): ""Bright rising sun illuminating the clouds over a featureless horizon" has become such a staple image since the advent of modern photography, it's easy to forget that it had to begin somewhere. Likewise, if George Frederic Watts is remembered at all nowadays it's as the painter of formal portraits of dignitaries and of earnestly portentious paintings with titles like Love and Death and The Slumber of the Ages, not as the painter of dramatic landscapes. After the Deluge is an explicitly religious painting, yet contains no religious imagery of any kind, and is an interesting snapshot of the transition between 19th-century symbolism and 20th-century abstraction. Because this has spent the last century in the backwater of Compton rather than in a high-profile institution like the Tate Gallery or the Yale Center for British Art, there hasn't been all that much written about this particular piece so the article is shorter than usual, but I believe this collates together everything significant that there is to say about it. And yes, I know it looks like I've accidentally cut-and-pasted a chunk of body text into the wikilink but Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory)—The Morning after the Deluge—Moses Writing the Book of Genesis genuinely is the name of Turner's painting of the same subject." - We miss you. Best wishes for whatever you do! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I know After The Deluge isn't the most interesting topic—and this style of painting it totally out of fashion—but I do like it, and I'm glad to have seen it have its moment in the sun. ‑ Iridescent 03:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ham II (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

pictured

story · music · places

Today I had reason to look at 10 years ago, and saw a great pictured comment by you. Thank you for clarification in that matter and many others. We'd need more of it, but best wishes for what you do instead! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

End of an era? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I hope not. Hope you are well and that we will see you back soon, Iri. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clayoquot Same! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, bollocks. SerialNumber54129 13:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Still hoping they may emerge in time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Admin tools or not, I hope Iri will be back around. Much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Fun though an Iridescent re-RfA would be, it would be a massive hassle for Iri, so I don't want us getting any closer to that. Also concerned; hope they don't have you in a sealed bunker somewhere or something. Please return soon, if only to tell us how we're all messing up :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not dead, just busy. If they do want to desysop me I won't argue. I think we dinosaurs still have benefit as "admins of last resort"—our history means we can close contentious RFCs, take action against pages/editors with large fan-clubs, etc, without being bullied/intimidated by one side or the other, and I have enough of a history that "do you know who I am" is unlikely to work on me. ‑ Iridescent 03:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's good to hear from you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
(probably very brief) Welcome back, Admino-suarus Rex. Glad you're just busy, yay!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You came back!! Yay! Yngvadottir (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to be back in any very active sense for a while yet. While I'll try to check my talkpage every so often, any activity is likely to be at the "looking at things if people ask me to" rather than the "going looking for trouble" level. ‑ Iridescent 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
P.S., good to see you back Martinevans123—last I saw, you'd been kicked off for reasons that look way to complicated to investigate. ‑ Iridescent 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Welcome back, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Iri is, at best, on a long-term Wikibreak. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Because of my recent inactivity it's probably not appropriate for me to comment on anyone else's recent activity. (I will say that I think this kind of feedback process is a good idea. Because 99% of the routine 'feedback' one gets as an admin—or even as a general editor—is cranks and weirdos complaining, we've all been guilty of ignoring or dismissing legitimate complaints, praise, and good advice.) ‑ Iridescent 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

And delighted to see you back again after such a long break! - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Commented up there. If they want to desysop me I won't contest it, but I'm not actively supporting it either since I think I'm still of more use as an admin. (I'll nip on over to the backlog now and do some adminny stuff, so I have logged admin actions in 2024 and the bean-counters can be happy.) ‑ Iridescent 03:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Race condition

Hi, Iri. Great to see you around again. It looks like I deleted User:Arielvilla07/sandbox just as you were declining the CSD, a race condition based on when I loaded the page. As far as I know, it's common practice to apply G3's hoax subcriterion to sandboxes, if they're formatted like an encyclopedia article and obviously fictitious. WP:FAKEARTICLE says Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project. Pages that egregiously present false information may be tagged with {{db-hoax}}. and makes no exception for sandboxes. As a result, I'm hesitant to self-revert here, but at the same time, I don't want to step on your feet. I'm about to go to bed, so if you want to restore the sandbox, I don't object, although I'd be inclined to blank and/or MfD it if it's restored. Either way, I leave this in your capable hands. All the best. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I've no problem at all with the deletion. My general feeling is to allow pretty much anything in sandboxes regardless of whether it's true or not—it's certainly not unusual for someone who wants to write about (e.g.) a boxer to copy-paste the formatting of an existing boxing biography and play around to get the feel of editing, how templates work, etc. As such, I generally extend maximum AGF to sandboxes, even if what's going on in them would normally be considered vandalism. In this case, looking at Special:Contributions/Arielvilla07 it's fair to say that AGF is well past any reasonable limit. ‑ Iridescent 14:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I always try to tackle sandboxes first when I look at CAT:CSD, because they have some of the worst mis-taggings. Entirely valid drafts tagged as U5, unfinished bits and bobs tagged as U5 or G3 (or G1 or G2, which don't even apply in userspace), you name it. Sometimes I wonder what some CSD taggers think sandboxes are supposed to be used for, because it's apparently neither testing nor drafting. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I've been completely incommunicado myself (but lurked a bit), so I'm gingerly picking up the threads. Mainly cleaning up the junk that's got into some of my favourite articles and trying to avoid the politics because if anything, the place has simply got even more toxic and chaotic than when I left it almost exactly 2 years ago.

Anyway, I'm so relieved to know you're alive and kicking. Happy New Year! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)