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 22:29, 2 September 2009 editDavidCane (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,577 edits Wikiproject London Transport← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:04, 2 January 2025 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,270 edits →Merry Christmas! 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 350K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 11 |counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 5
|algo = old(28d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = User talk:Iridescent/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Iridescent/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Iridescent/Archive index|mask=User talk:Iridescent/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes|template=User:Iridescent/Archive template}}
{{User:Iridescent/Talk header}} {{User:Iridescent/Talk header}}


==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg==
== List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice ==
]
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)
I go to the featured list candidates page to nominate ] and what do I find but your nomination for the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice. A very nice article (bit more than a list really) with excellent photos - lots of dramatic drownings, burnings and runnings-over. I've left a couple of comments and given it my support. --] (]) 04:16, 22 August 2009 (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)
:It's in that weird borderland between "list" and "article", but I think the "list" side dominates. I explicitly don't want it turning into an article, as it would end up content-forking a large chunk of ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 19:02, 22 August 2009 (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 ]#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 ==
:Note: ]. The parent article is ], so any comments made at one are likely going to be applicable to the other as well.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


{{User QAIbox
== Request to any TPS who knows these things ==
| 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)
Can any ] who knows about poetry (Ottava and PoetTaxCorn, that probably means you, unless someone has a hidden depth) advise what the correct name for ] (by ]) is?&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:It is a type of ballad. You can tell by the repetition of sounds and the rhymes that close off the action. I'll see if I can classify what type of ballad shortly. ] (]) 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:By the way, there are quite a few ballads about Alice Ayers. ] (]) 23:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, I can't think of the type of ballad - it is a Scottish variant that has a term that refers to watching (or guarding). It will come to me later. ] (]) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


== CfD nomination at {{Section link| Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14#Museum collections }} ==
::(re post 1) I know, there are quite a lot of media of all sorts about her (everything from to ]); I'm giving dip-sample mentions to the most significant in the article, but I specifically want a link to Rawnsley as it shows that (a) the Great And Good were writing about her, not just the "she died for the Empire, you can too!" ] types, and (b) that she was a significant enough figure that people were writing about her - and she was a recognisable enough name that she didn't need explanation - more than ten years after her death. This is going to be quite an interesting article, as it will be more than 95% legacy section; while dying rescuing children is admirable, and I'd love to think I'd have the same lack of panic in the same situation, she wouldn't ordinarily warrant an article - but the way every social movement from the hardline British supremacists to the socialist radicals to the Arts and Crafts Movement hijacked the ''tabula rasa'' she left, precisely because she had such a boring life and they could all project onto her, is fascinating. (The authorities were still naming streets after her ''fifty years'' after her death.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::(re post 2) Don't worry too much; realistically, "poem" is going to serve the 10 readers per day this article will get perfectly well. Most of them will probably be looking for Natalie Portman's character in ''Closer'', anyway.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:]. I am an idiot for not remembering this sooner. I was doing work on Walter Scott and it popped into my head. ] (]) 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks!&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


<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)
== Alice Ayres ==


== pictured ==
Another great article. I see you're going for a ] with Postman's Park and the memorial wall list. Great use of the source material for three good articles; I don't see any reason why this shouldn't succeed at Good Article nomination. I might do the review myself tomorrow.


{{User QAIbox
It's OR I know, but I've done a bit of research in the 1881 census. The Chandlers were living at 26 Rosoman Street (Clerkenwell) with a David Ayres listed as brother-in-law to Henry. Although Mary Ann's birth place is not listed and Alice wasn't living with them at the time, David's place of birth is given as Isleworth. The 1881 census has an Alice Ayres born in approximately 1859 (the census records age rather than birth year) in Isleworth; she was working as a housemaid for a Doctor in Harley Street. Presumably her origin in Isleworth is why she's buried there.
| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
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 ==
The first paragraph of the introduction says she "ran into the burning building three times" to rescue the children. The account of the fire in ''the Times'' on 25 April 1885 does not indicate that she left the building and returned - what I think is meant is that she left the window to go deeper into the building.


For some reason, the Price references don't "jump" to the bibliography section like the Barrington or Cross ones. They seem to be correctly formatted, but I not familiar with the <nowiki>{{harvnb}}</nowiki> method, so I may have missed something. --] (]) 02:05, 28 August 2009 (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.
{{stack|
]
|float=right}}
:Thanks! I can't find anything listing her birthdate (and given that even authors like Price, who've researched the subject far more thoroughly than me, can't find one, I suspect that there's no record). All Saints Church in Isleworth was destroyed in 1943, so I presume any parish records are lost. Her gravestone itself (right) only gives a death date and an age, which makes me think that even at the time nobody was sure. (Her father was certainly alive at this time&nbsp;– as her next of kin, it was him who was given her award from the Royal Society for the Protection of Life from Fire&nbsp;– but people were less careful about keeping records in those 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 ]. 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'm sure the Chandlers in Clerkenwell are the same Chandlers&nbsp;– for a dealer in oil, paint and gunpowder it would be the obvious place for him in this period. 184 Union Street is more-or-less at the junction of the ] and ] (adjacent to the ], and a short distance from the ]), so it would have been an ideal place for someone dealing in bulky goods to move. The Alice Ayres shown in Harley Street is presumably the same one, but NOR forbids.


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:No, she didn't leave the house; after her initial appearance at the window, she went back into the house four times (to get the mattress, Edith Chandler, Ellen Chandler and Elizabeth Chandler respectively). I've reworded the lead to "Ayres rescued three of her nieces from the burning building, before falling from a window and fatally injuring herself"&nbsp;– there's no need to give the full details, as they're given two paragraphs later.


:End of an era? ] ] ] 00:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:In the context of the ] section, I think (I hope, anyway) the summary of events is accurate. This is a bit of a funny case when it comes to the whole "verifiability not truth" thing, as a lot of the press reports are inaccurate or contradictory about exactly what happened, but because Ayres survived for two days and gave an account of the fire, and because there are quite a lot of eyewitness reports, it is possible to piece together what actually happened.
::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)
{{stack|
]
]
|float=right}}
:This is the reason ] is uploaded at a bandwidth-wasting and browser-crashing 54 megapixels&nbsp;– the detail of Ayres at the window (right) and the crowd below with the mattress is the only eyewitness illustration of what actually happened that day, before the whole event started to get mythologised, and I think it's important that people be able to zoom in on the details. It also shows the layout of the front of the house, including the protruding "amphora" sign and the distance at which the crowd were standing from the house, both of which are key to understanding the story, as well as showing that the fire brigade weren't even trying to put up a ladder.


: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>
:I have absolutely no idea why the Price link isn't working in the references. It doesn't work on the other two articles either&nbsp;– I can't work out why, as there's no difference in formatting between that and any of the other books cited. (The Arnold link on ] suffers the same problem.) It isn't too much of a problem&nbsp;– I'm sure our readers can scroll down&nbsp;– but it is odd.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 11:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
::Welcome back, anyway. ] (]) 09:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


==Invitation to provide feedback==
== RfA ==
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)
You have done enough editing on WP to be easily made an admin. Why not ]? You have been reverting vandalism too long to be just a rollbacker. ]<sup>] • ]</sup> 09:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
::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)


==Io Saturnalia!==
:], ],<span class="plainlinks"> <font color=#002BB8></font></span>. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 10:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
:Just a rollbacker, LOL. Iri, ever think that would be used to describe you? :) <font face="Verdana" color="6633FF">]</font> 18:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
|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 ===
::<span class="plainlinks"><font color=#002bb8></font></span> I'll have you know, young lady. I'm not one of your Malliesque purists.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 18:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings'''
|-
|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)
|}


===Merry Christmas!===
:::I think of it more as ascetic rather than purist. I don't want anything that some daft plank can arbitrarily take away in a fit of pique, or threaten to take away as a punishment for some imagined crime. --] ] 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
{| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; padding: 5px;"
|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!'''
|rowspan="2" valign="centre" padding: 5px;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|-
|style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray"|
<br />
<big>Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>Cheers</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>] (]) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</big>
|}


*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)
Didn't actually look at your userrights, I was going by what the OP said above. We all know you're such a slacker trying to get by doing just the minimum :p <font face="Verdana" color="6633FF">]</font> 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
: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 ==
===Serious answer===
Serious answer, as I never answered the original question other than with a flippant aside: ManishEarth, I've no doubt you meant it in good faith and thanks for the offer, but I'm not the right person to be asking. While there are some extremely good users among the current active Misplaced Pages admins, they tend to be the ones you don't generally notice because they don't get involved in admin actions very much. The whole Misplaced Pages system is currently extremely (some&nbsp;– not me&nbsp;– would say hopelessly) corrupt; I've been a part of it, and seen from the inside how poorly run the current system is, which simultaneously allows cranks, obsessives and outright psychopaths free rein on the grounds of "free speech", while often stifling people with genuine grievances for "disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point".


(If you want to see one of the thousands of examples of this, today I happened to notice ] being<span class="plainlinks"> <font color=#002BB8></font></span> for the "vandalism" of saying that '<nowiki></nowiki> has said that the misspelled title is "an artistic flourish. A ] touch, if you will."'&nbsp;– and this little minidrama of "do it my way or you're blocked" is constantly repeated in every area of Misplaced Pages.)


] 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.
I strongly believe that adminship should either expire, or at least should have an enforced desysopping periodically to let them see things from the other side; far too many of our problems are caused by an "old guard" who have got so used to bullying people into doing things their way&nbsp;– or at least, their every utterance, no matter how wrong or, worse, irrelevant, being taken more seriously in discussions than it deserves&nbsp;– that they've lost touch with the great mass of content-writers, vandal-reverters, script-programmers, image-creators, article-categorisers* and copy-editors who drive Misplaced Pages forward. I still have the right to request admin rights back, and if there was a specific task I needed them for I would, but I don't want to turn into one of the people who stomps around Misplaced Pages hassling people just because I can.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
<br><nowiki>*</nowiki><small>The article-categorisers are too often overlooked in any "important people on Misplaced Pages" lists, and there aren't enough of them, because it's tedious and difficult work with very little visible result. One of the main reasons Misplaced Pages works and Google Knol, Citizendium ''et al'', and even the big guns of Encarta and Britannica are failing on the internet, is that Misplaced Pages has a hierarchical structure that's simultaneously intuitive, rational and unobtrusive, and most people seem to think that's something that happens automatically.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)</small>


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 don't want to turn into one of the people who stomps around Misplaced Pages hassling people just because I can.''" That's a serious problem, and one which wikpedia refuses to address. There are no checks and balances, and as a result administrators are very reluctant to reverse the abuses of their fellow administrators, as all that usually results is a childish chant of "wheel war, wheel war". I don't believe that the present system is "hopelessly corrupt", but I do believe that those who fail to recognise its corruption most certainly are. --] ] 23:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::We suffer because we're applying rules devised by a group of a few hundred people, most of whom had a shared background in computing and technical writing, to a semi-coherent (as a whole, not as individuals) rabble of 10,000 plus. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, it still works better than the more "rational" systems proposed elsewhere. (See ] below for context.) It seems to be a rule of the internet that the more trivial the issue, the more venomous the argument&nbsp;– I suppose because when there's a serious point at stake, people are more willing to accept that other people will have different views.


: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)
::Interestingly (well, stretching the boundaries of "interesting"), one of the most spectacular self-destructions of a user-generated site in the history of the internet was the self-immolation of the original user-generated and user-controlled ]. I was always interested in HoN as an experiment in bulk-user-moderated content that was peculiarly amenable to statistical analysis. Some of my earliest work on Misplaced Pages was, along with ], a rearguard action to stop the wars on HoN from (you may not be surprised to know ]). In a ''truly'' bizarre twist, some of the leaders of the old volunteer-led HoN now form a significant chunk of the admin corps at ]. I'm not sure Schlafly has ever realised.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


== Race condition ==
== Who'd have believed that a bloody witch trial would be contentious? ==


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)
Remind me never again to get involved in an article on any subject that has the words "Catholic Church" in it. I'd say more, but it wouldn't be pretty. --] ] 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
: I've been reading that and I'm not sure what the heck the problem is, honestly. I got lost a while ago. I do tend to think that once you say "Catholic Church" anything can happen. ] - ] 21:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

::The only thing I can do now is to step away from the article, and if the nonsense continues to erode its FA status then take it to FAR. I've used up my reverts anyway, so if I look at it again I'll only get myself blocked for 3RR. Best just to ignore it now and let the religious warriors have at it. --] ] 22:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Bizarre. Given that the context was fifty years of religious warfare, I can't see the issue. I don't think anyone seriously questions that witchcraft trials – in both Europe and the New World – were a product of the Reformation (and more specifically, the loss of the Inquisition as a means of social control); they appear as the Catholic Church weakens and tail away as the modern concepts of formal sedition law take over from the Star Chambers.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Further thought - although it's potentially pouring high-octane fuel on the flames, you might want to ask Ottava to poke his head in. I suspect he's one of the best-qualified people to comment on 17th-century religious trends here.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Ottava has already offered his opinion as it happens, entirely unsolicited by me. --] ] 22:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuck 'em. I've put back your original text Mal. It's the wording the source uses and as far as I'm concerned accuracy to the source trumps any other bollocks they may come up with. --''']<font color="#ff0000">H</font>]''' 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

:I'm staying out of it now, as I know I'll be in for a 3RR block if I look at the article again. --] ] 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

::Same advice to you I gave to Realist and Slim on <span class="plainlinks"><font color=#002bb8></font></span>; leave the article alone completely for a few days, then come back and clean up the mess once the edit-warriors have had their say. The end result is still the same, and it avoids all the "I have no opinion and I demand it be heard!" brigade who invariably turn up once an argument like this starts.
:::Actually, looking at your talkpage it seems you've already decided to do this...&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Yep. I remembered that good advice and decided to take it before it was offered. :-) --] ] 22:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::If you want to see a ''real'' storm-in-a-teacup taken to insane levels, that really does put the serious issues of "were the Scots still Catholic after the Reformation?", "should sentence fragments be followed by a full-stop in alt-text?" or "was Bubbles the chimpanzee 'bought' or 'rescued'?" into perspective, have a look at the insane naming dispute, which has now attracted some of Misplaced Pages's most hardline edit-warriors, POV-pushers and outright loons, at ]. AKA ]. AKA ]. AKA ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
:: On a completely unrelated topic, I have a new candidate for the coveted title of ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

== Adding u's and replacing z's with s's ==

Might I get you to peek through ] to make sure I sufficiently Britishised it? Imagine me with my broad American accent reading this, peppered with Southernisms like "y'all" and Californianisms like "Dude, no way!" I feel like such a fraud. --] (]) 20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

:Will do - but (aside from a couple of exceptions like "advertize"), most "z" spellings are actually correct in British English (civilization, realize et al)&nbsp;– if anyone tries to tell you different, point them towards the ]. You might want to ask someone like Malleus to have a look as well; because I'm originally from the US I tend to slip into a transatlantic mix quite easily.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 20:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

::A couple of thoughts:
::*This one is jumping out at me at present due to ]: while obviously, go with what the book says, but assuming the book is set in the 1870s, a lot of places that are in London today weren't considered part of London then and wouldn't have been referred to as such. The creation of the ] in 1889 was the first time any real concept of "Greater London" came into place, and "London" as a single city covering the whole built-up area didn't come into existence until the ]. The most significant aspect likely to affect this article is that ''nowhere'' south of the Thames or west of the ] – significantly, including Chelsea, mentioned in the article, and the theatre-and-brothel district of ] – was a part of London at this point; in American terms, it would be like calling Hoboken a part of New York City, or Oakland part of San Francisco.
::*"Frank depictions of lesbian sexuality have been quieted by censorship that equated lesbian sex with aberrant mental behavior or employed it as an erotic element that is controlled by and for the benefit of men." is ''very'' misleading if you're discussing British literature. Sex of any kind is absent in British mainstream literature between the ] and the ], and in the early 1960s the floodgates open.
::*"In the history of English literature, the only type of character who was able to enjoy adventures native to the picaresque novel were males who acted as the observer or stroller" just isn't true. Ottava can probably say more about this than me, but off the top of my head (depending on how loosely you use the term "picaresque") you have '']'', (arguably) '']'', and certainly '']'' (Becky Sharp is practically the archetype of an English-language picaresque hero); if you stretch "English" to include Canadians, you also have '']'', and if you treat it as a novel rather than a thinly-disguised-autobiography, '']'' certainly qualifies.
::*"Hawes' latest role is starring as DI Alex Drake in the BBC TV drama series ''Ashes to Ashes''" and "Jodhi May as Florence, who has since played Anne Boleyn in the BBC dramatisation of Philippa Gregory's historical novel ''The Other Boleyn Girl''" jar quite a bit. What does a role in a 2008 TV series about time-travelling police officers, or a part in a 16th century costume drama (since remade with Natalie Portman – just saying), have to do with ''TTV''? (While Rachel Stirling's career has not exactly gone from strength to strength, it seems particularly odd that relatively minor cast members get a "where are they now?" but not Stirling herself.)
::*If there's any way to quietly get rid of "A persistent rumour claims...", it could probably happily be lost. Besides, I find it hard to think of a less appropriate cast than Beyonce Knowles and Eve Longoria, and assume it started as a joke somewhere. Probably here.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 21:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the thoughts. Some replies:
:::*I haven't yet taken on the adaptation section. I'll do that over the next several days, probably rewriting it. I would agree that a false mention of that horrible idea of Beyonce Knowles and Eva Longoria should go, but it keeps getting added to the article. I've watched it for over three years. Would a blind note be better?
:::* What I know of London I have learned in this book, '']'' and '']'' and a 6-hour layover at Heathrow. Hahaha. Want me to give you a guide? I might be able to sing "Portobello Road" for you. I'm sticking with what the source say on this one, but I'm also open to the discrepancies between historical reality and Waters' portrayal of the city.
:::* The source about frank depictions of lesbian sexuality was probably clearer, or I understood it to mean written by and for women as opposed to written as porn for men. I'll check the source and clarify as necessary.
:::* All neighbourhoods changed to districts. Appreciate the time and effort. --] (]) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

:*<s>{{done}}.</s> Sufficiently Britishised. Although I'd have preferred to say corrected to use proper English. :-) --] ] 03:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
: How can you preface a serious statement with one of those nasty and childish green graphics ? ] (]) 23:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
::My {{Remark}} is this: now that she has {{Reopened}} this can of worms, some may {{Agree}} with Sandy (with comments such as {{great}}), others will {{Disagree}} (saying {{Works for me}}). The resulting discussion eventually be {{Close}} as {{Inconclusive}} and {{No action}} will result, {{Unlikely}} though this may sound at the moment. ]] 23:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
:::To be honest Bencherlite, I quite like what SandyG calls the "childish" {{done}}. She and I don't always agree, or indeed even usually agree, :lol: --] ] 23:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
::::I've always liked {{tl|done-t}} (<big style="color:#690; font-size:1.4em;">&#x2713;</big>&nbsp;'''Done''') and {{tl|not done-t}} (<big style="color:#c30; font-size:1.4em;">&#x2717;</big>&nbsp;'''Not done'''), which have the same effect but without using images. Two of our less-well-known but useful templates.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks Iridescent and Malleus! --] (]) 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Regarding the adaptation section, I'd probably just mention that it exists, and a link to the article. There are some cases when it's worth going into more detail—on ]* I go into detail of the plot and cast to illustrate why I'm bothering to mention the movie—but in this case it's almost an "in popular culture" section. If the TV adaptation featured big names, it would be worth mentioning as a demonstration that TTV was being taken seriously by the mainstream and wasn't just a niche, but while Stirling's not a nonentity, I don't think she's significant enough to confer inherited notability.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki><small>Eleven days now ] and so far 0&nbsp;supports and 0&nbsp;opposes, if anyone feels the urge—I can't fix the problems with it if nobody even mentions what the problems are. Just saying.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
::::On the adaptation section, I've already rewritten it, making it more about Waters, the plot, and the characters, though Stirling does have a quote, since she does have a notable view on the main character. And it's a kickass quote. It made news as well for being bawdy and true to the novel. Three sources I've found have mentioned the Longoria/Knowles nightmare. Still not sure if I should place that in a blind edit, footnote, or what. At any rate, off to read an FAC about some show about a park... --] (]) 22:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Oh, another thought - is the American edition the first edition? The article talks about Waters being rejected by British publishers and thus contacting American publishers, but then says it was picked up by Virago which is a British company. It's not entirely clear where it was actually published first. (If it was first published in Britain, the British cover should probably be the cover-shot.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Another thought (2): Do the British and American versions differ? (I'm always amazed at how different the US and UK versions of books often are. The most spectacular example I've seen is '']''; I remember re-reading the British version years after reading the American one, and trying to figure out why I didn't remember half the characters.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Another thought (3); careful about using the '']'' as a source, particularly as a source for a statement like "When news releases told of the BBC featuring swearing and sex toys, viewers began to protest". The ''Mail'' isn't really a reliable source on matters like this - it's an ultra-right-wing tabloid which mixes "diseased gay perverts are corrupting a thousand years of British morality" and "foreigners are coming to steal your jobs and women" ranting (the is remarkably accurate) with "are there aliens among us" credulity and an apparent . The likelihood that the ''Mail'' response to anything relating to homosexuality would be anything other than "decent people protested in their thousands" is zero.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
<reset>
* Yes, the image should be changed to the British edition. I'll do it. Might even be able to keep the American one because I recall a source mentioning it.
* Good to know about the Daily Mail. Actually, ''Tipping'' was not the primary target of that article, but that basically the BBC was going to hell in a handbasket because of all the randy sex on ''Queer as Folk''. Perhaps I should clarify that the huffing and puffing was reported in the ''Daily Mail''. It's worth it to say there were complaints, but perhaps the source might be considered. I don't know if this is significant, but the BBC seemed to reply "Eh, so what. Besides, it's on BBC2"...
* Feel free to give more tips as they come to you and you peek at the article. I'm still adding info to it as I find tidbits here and there to flesh out the concepts. --] (]) 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

== Continuing an old discussion ==

:

*''Re the 16 year old, if you mean WW she is still about from time to time – she was even on the main page a couple of weeks ago.

Yes, WW. What I was working on when blocked. It was ultimately successful, apparently. In other words, I'm not so hot with creating articles, but may be better at helping keep editors who have been badly treated.

*''I still think the proxy model is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages, and I doubt you'll convince me otherwise. With 10,069,032 registered accounts, of which only around 10,000 are active at any given time, it's far too easy to build up unbeatable blocks of semi-active editors. Additionally, we don't have anything akin to parties and people strongly agreeing on one area can vehemently disagree in another – check out the strange bedfellows in the various columns at RFC/ACPD, for example. Besides, it would horribly skew discussions ("don't bother disagreeing with me, I've got 10,000 voters behind me").

You've made assumptions about how it would be used. What I have in mind is much closer to what you think might work.

*''As I understand it, you're proposing something similar to the block votes of shareholders at a corporate meeting, but using the benefits of instantaneous communication technology to allow rapid shifts of individuals between voting blocs.

No. Not what I propose. Something very different and simpler, in fact.

*'' The advantage of "cellularising" the project would be that these issues wouldn't arise, as it would create a simple pyramid structure in which each cell is equal, not each member.

In a sense, that's more like it. Think of the delegable proxy structure as a communications hierarchy, not a control structure, formed spontaneously from the bottom if a significant number of editors name a "proxy," -- in Europe they call this an "advisor," which does represent some of the downward or outward flow of information, the proxy represents the upward or inward flow.

However, it could be used to elect a proportional representation assembly. (We currently vote on ArbComm and board positions, and sock arguments would apply there. The fact is that the ''last thing'' a puppet master wants to do is to have the sock name him or her! The arguments about sock puppetry are almost certainly false.) Just vote for the editor you most trust, and if every editor does this, a set of loops will be formed, and then editors in small loops can break the loop by naming an editor outside the loop, until the loop is large enough to be represented in the Assembly. That's more or less what Lewis Carroll came up with in 1884, now called ]. But that's a voting application, not the core idea. Nevertheless, if we did elect such an Assembly, it would provide incentive to name a proxy. You'd gain representation.

No change in policy is involved. Outside of a possible election situation, an editor would gain no special privileges by being named a proxy, no "extra votes." In some situations, where a closing decider wants to estimate a general consensus without having a general discussion -- which is usually very impractical to actually do -- the decider ''might'' take a look at proxy assignments. It becomes a way of factoring for participation bias. In the other direction, if, say, all those who have !voted for a community ban are in the same "caucus," we'd have a sign of some kind of involvement against that editor. This usage of the proxies is simply information, not control, and the actual usage up to the one who wants to be advised.

The formation of editors into natural caucuses, though (a "natural caucus" is a proxy together with all editors who have chosen that proxy, all editors who have chosen the direct "clients," etc.), creates identifiable channels which can be used to negotiate consensus using small informal discussions, on or off-wiki. It's ''structure,'' the kind of structure that is necessary for group intelligence to exceed the intelligence of the individuals comprising it, efficiently.

Non-coercive, voluntary, simple, but what it could build is far from easy to see. While there could be a certain hazard if some special-interest group were to adopt this kind of structure, if everyone does it, there is no hazard.

''Regardless, this is all castles-in-the-sky, since as we've seen in the last 24 hours the community won't take a governance structure imposed from the top, and the grassroots won't agree on such a radical change from below. – iridescent 18:26, 12 July 2009 (UT)

We'll see. Delegable proxy can start one editor at a time, from the bottom, and it has such low organizational overhead that it doesn't have to be highly useful to survive. At least in theory. It does create a cellular structure that would be theoretically, again, relatively immune to disruption and corruption. It may start off-wiki (actually, I should say, "is starting off-wiki." It is partially a device to keep retiring editors from ''completely'' retiring. Leave behind a proxy who will inform you if certain conditions or needs arise.

If DP were widely implemented, the community would have the ability to rapidly respond to any emergency, it could reconstitute the whole wiki if it were needed, it could raise whatever funding was necessary, and certainly it would be immune, if done properly, to central disruption, because it doesn't depend on on-wiki control or communication and filtering mechanisms. I would never appoint, as my proxy, someone with whom I had no means of direct communication, nor would I accept a proxy from someone I couldn't contact directly. Anyway, I hope this wasn't too much and that you are doing well.... --] (]) 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

::Still don't see it. Either you work on a "one editor one vote and everyone is equal" principle, which is horribly open to gaming, proxies or not (just look at ] to see how well OMOV works in the Misplaced Pages context); or, editors are weighted, which just turns the project into a battleground between cliques. See ] and its talkpage (and its many archives) to see what attempting to shoehorn a Misplaced Pages discussion into a PR format results in.

::"Proxies" only work if there are editors who broadly agree on most points (what you describe as "broad caucuses"), and that just doesn't represent the active editors at Misplaced Pages. If there's one thing the whole ] debacle, or the whole toxic mess bubbling out of the discussions about ] and ] (and many others), ''do'' show, it's that even editors who are generally seen as peas-in-a-pod buddies can be diametrically opposed when it comes to 'major' issues (top-down ''vs'' bottom-up, central control ''vs'' decentralization, right-to-free-speech ''vs'' right-not-to-be-pestered-with-vexatious-posts...). A proxy-based model relies on people broadly agreeing; while that works in, for instance, the context of trade-union block votes, where the interests of members of a particular group can be assumed to be broadly similar, it doesn't apply here. (The contributors to ] are a respectable chunk of arguably the most powerful of all Misplaced Pages's interest groups, because the FA/GA crowd and their hangers-on have the unique nuclear option of migrating ''en masse'' somewhere else and leaving Misplaced Pages as Facebook for ugly people, attached to a directory of rivers, TV episodes and asteroids. But there's little you'd get any of them to agree on. Head over to ] and say you'd like to hear everyone's opinion on alt-text, enforcement of the ] and whether ] should be deleted, if you don't believe me.)

::Misplaced Pages has serious structural problems, but ''it still works better than any of its rivals'' despite the time and money Google, Microsoft et al have thrown at driving it under. The (often followed by ) doesn't really apply to what is&nbsp;– despite all the critics, problems, and predictions of imminent doom&nbsp;– arguably the most successful information resource of all time.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Hey, the Daily Mail rant popped up on my watchlist (which may well have been on target, I have no idea I've never read it) and I noticed I'm mentioned above. I couldn't quite divine what exactly I was an example of or whether I was in a pod with someone (I do hope they're cute!) other than perhaps to note that I'm a focal point for dispute? Or is the suggestion more generally that I'm toxic?
:::Anyway, I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. I don't particularly care for the '']'', they seem to rant on and on with the same tirade of more free markets are needed and America is bad/ evil place full of ignorant redneck gobbledy gook. And the '']'' is very dry. The WSJ is much better written and has great feature stories. Did you know the lefties running ] have the Financial Times on their campus but not the WSJ because they're very PC (meaning they lack patriotism? :)
:::And y'all have those papers with the nudes on page 6 don't you? How Victorian! Nothing like that here, we keep those hidden away at the truck stops. But we do have the Enquirer and Weekly World News (if it hasn't gone under) which are filled with the most absurd exagerations and fantastic stories. Truly they are the only sources that can be relied upon to capture the high crimes and misdemeanor shenanigans going on at the top of the Democratic party. I guess it's a case where only periodicals that literally make things up all the time can fully capture the craziness accurately?
:::I'm sure I'll be misunderstood, what with the language barrier and all, but I'm just saying hi and doing some friendly rambling. Have a good one. Cheerios. ] (]) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

== DYK for Postman's Park ==


{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|]
|On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page <sub>(])</sub> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
|} — ] ] 11:14, 1 September 2009 (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 ] it's fair to say that AGF is well past any reasonable limit.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 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. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Welcome back! ==
==Wikiproject London Transport==
Thought you might be interested in this. Back at the end of July I put in a for the creation of a favourite pages list for WP:LT. The ] is not active yet (looks like it will come live at the beginning of October to show September's stats), but the stats themselves are now being compiled and can be seen . Whilst this is for just a couple of days so far, and the order is likely to change as the month progresses, it is interesting to see what people are looking at that fits within the WP:LT domain.


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.
Unsurprisingly, ] is near the top, but, at the moment, there are only four GAs and two FAs/FLs in the top 200. I notice that there are a number of bridges in the list including London Bridge and Tower Bridge in the top 10. Looking at what's currently in the top 10 at B class, Tube Map and Piccadilly Circus could probably be developed to a GA with a bit of work, London Underground will need some graft and ] will probably never get there due to its ability to attract controversy.


Once it's settled down, the list could be used to to help assess the importance rating for articles.--] (]) 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Anyway, I'm so relieved to know you're alive and kicking. Happy New Year! ] (]) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (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)