Misplaced Pages

User talk:Iridescent: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 15:18, 1 May 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 28d) to User talk:Iridescent/Archive 15.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:59, 20 January 2025 edit undoACarWP14 (talk | contribs)239 edits Undid revision 1270436136 by ACarWP14 (talk)Tag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 350K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 15 |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:Iridescent/Talk header}} {{User:Iridescent/Talk header}}


==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg==
== Unwarranted closure ==
]
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 disagree with your closure of ].
I concede that my initial post was clumsy and incomplete. However, I belief that my elaboration has set this straight. I started the topic by placing the finger on what I saw as a “sore spot” under the assumption that a subsequent discussion would develop an adequate formulation of the problem. Accordingly, my post
:1- is not an attempt to reinstate Peter Damian and
:2- is not a discussion of the definition of ban versus block.
Specifically, the problem is the various allegations of the existence of an unhealthy “admin culture” at . To address this problem I proposed
:that a project group be formed to investigate the possibility that there are indeed instances of “admin culture” as currently being alleged at the Foundation (as mentioned above) and I further propose that it would be prudent to reinstate Peter Damian and invite him to join that project group.
The rationale for inviting Peter Damian is
:1- as the saying goes “keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer” and
:2- the precedent of the employment of hackers by security firms.
The problem of there being a possible “admin culture” is very serious and deserves proper discussion. I assume you closure was done in haste and I request you revert. -- ] (]) 00:18, 7 April 2011 (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)
::My closure was not "done in haste", and I am not going to revert it. If you want to discuss this further, please email me.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 00:23, 7 April 2011 (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 ==
:::I have no interest in off-the-record dialog. If you are not prepared to keep this open I will lodge a complaint. -- ] (]) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


{{User QAIbox
::::I'm not going to force you to cease posting on the matter—however, I strongly advise that you actually contact the user in question to ask him whether he wants to be unblocked at this time, given the conditions and restrictions which would be attached to any unblocking at present. I'd also suggest you examine the history of ] making the allegations of an "unhealthy admin culture".&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
| image = Himmelsschlüssel, Engweder Kopf.jpg
::::I second Iridescent's comments. Your actions here are not necessarily in the interests of the person you are trying to help. ] (]) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
| 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)

== CfD nomination at {{Section link| Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14#Museum collections }} ==

<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)

== pictured ==

{{User QAIbox
| 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)


:Sorry @], missed this one when I was replying to the accumulated posts on this page last week. I haven't kept track of Jimmy recently and he may well have changed, but I certainly feel my comment a decade ago was correct at the time—2014 Jimmy Wales was right up there with 2024 Elon Musk regarding misusing his position to disparage perceived opponents. (Where the WMF differs from Twitter is that for all its faults, the WMF has mechanisms for reining in people who abuse their position. The processes may be painfully slow and poorly designed, but in general they do eventually work.)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 07:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Neither you nor Iridescent has read what I wrote. My principal interest is not in helping Peter Damian, but in sorting out this alleged “admin culture”. -- ] (]) 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


== Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==
{{talkback|WP:ANI|Request to reopen WP:AN #Peter_Damian_block_violates_WP:IAR}}


== RFA ==


] 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.
Pardon me for not being clear, I meant that I would do a simple search first, then go deeper if necessary, and that the page doesn't necessarily have to meet ] or ]. And that the "simple search" is not my sole platform for decision. <small>I will be going to bed shortly</small>. ]] 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


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 ].
''Update'': Perhaps because of the very wide generalization of the question, the answer has not been understood in the context in which it was given. If a specific question could be forwarded, perhaps the answer could come out much better? And the relevant command over CSD could also be tested. ]] 16:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:You're missing the point, and it's an fundamental point as regards the way en-wiki operates. The question is explicitly about ], and speedy deletion has ''nothing'' to do with sourcing—the fact that you're even mentioning "] or ]" shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Misplaced Pages's deletion processes work. Since you're explicitly saying you want to be active in speedy deletion—and since misapplication of CSD is one of the fastest ways in which new users can be driven off—I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of you having the ability to delete pages, as I can easily imagine you deleting new articles because you feel the sourcing is inadequate or missing.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


:End of an era? ] ] ] 00:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::No, . <small>Maybe I'm going haywire because I'm staying up late to answer questions. I'll be back tomorrow. (Yes, I do start my day very early)</small>. ]] 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
::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)
:::Rehman, I think the issue is that you haven't mentioned once (or even clearly alluded to) the fact that A7 is based on a ''credible assertion of importance or significance''. I can't read your mind, but all I can say is that, as you haven't discussed anything about the ''claim of notability'' (sourced or not), your answer is being interpreted as focusing on a Google search rather than on what is actually in the article. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/]]]'''</span> 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
:::@] Same! ] ] ] 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} Your comment above ('…that the "simple search" is not my sole platform for decision') makes it clear that you ''do'' mean that. Searching and sourcing have nothing to do with speedy deletion, and the fact that you keep mentioning it indicates that you don't understand either how Misplaced Pages's deletion processes work, nor why they're (very intentionally) set up that way.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 16:40, 7 April 2011 (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)
:{{Od|:::::}}Please reconsider at Q5, that was a genuine human weakpoint. ]] 23:46, 7 April 2011 (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.&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've just read and you're ''still'' talking about searching and verification. Misplaced Pages's speedy deletion process is very explicitly set up to judge only on the basis of content of the articles and not in terms of searching and verification; that you're still talking in these terms seems to show me that you don't understand how deletion works on en-wiki, and more importantly ''why'' it's set up in this intentionally cumbersome manner. Being an admin at Commons is irrelevant to this; although both are owned by the WMF and they work closely together on occasion, Commons has very little in common with en-wiki when it comes to policy. (Neither ] nor ], the two basic rules underlying all Misplaced Pages's content policies, apply on Commons.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 07:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
::Welcome back, anyway. ] (]) 09:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ===
== Little me? ==


] 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.
block an arb? No, no. That was Bishzilla. And what a good illustration it is of the deplorable state of RfA that Bishzilla made admin, while it seems impossible for Malleus. I'm sure he'd make an excellent admin. Instead, we get twelve-year-olds opposing on the strength of "maturity issues." <s>Fuck that.</s> I mean, what a waste. ] | ] 12:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC).


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 ].
:Maturity '''''n.''''': A positive character trait shared by everyone who agrees with you.
:Immaturity '''''n.''''' A negative character trait shared by every poopy-pants pee-pee head who disagrees with you.
::—Source: ]
:] ] 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Blocking ==


: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've been taken a lot from you lot today and have been labelled "talking useless bollocks" and"Troll" by Pedro who quite frankly has done nothing constructive to[REDACTED] in years. If you can't see that my comments are light hearted and intended in good jest rather than homophobic or racist then I am very sorry. You of all people should know by know that bringing on the civility BS at me is the least constructive thing you can do and in fact if nobody had made a mountain out of my response then the conservation on Malleus's talk page would not have taken place. It is pointless attacks from non contributors like Pedro who have nothing better to do other than observe my "behaviour" that make such situations unfold. You of all people should know by now that I'm not the sort to tolerate such nonsense and that blocking me would be the dumbest thing you could possibly do. I will not comment any further on this on Malleus's talk page and will continue editing to prevent any unrelated admin going to an extreme but you disappoint me with your outlook on this at the end of what was imply just a frickin infobox and map I had made added in good faith. ♦ ] 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


==Invitation to provide feedback==
:I don't know who "you lot" are supposed to be, but the issue is not infoboxes; the info is that you're making blatantly homophobic and racist edits. Regardless of how funny you think you're being, not everyone shares your sense of humor, and you don't seem to understand this. Per the many previous comments to you, you're past the point at which many admins would be considering a lengthy or even an indef block; please cool down and don't dig yourself any deeper into this hole.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 20:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
No, I simply questioned why you and Malleus stuck so strongly together with Giano at my post to him and the truth is I simply get a comical impression of Pedro being a little Spanish waiter and always have whenever i've seen his name at RFC . Sorry if it is offensive but what he said inflamed a situation which had already died down and I sorted out my issues with Risker by email. It was not me who turned it into a conservation about anal sex or racism. It was gross exaggeration of what was originally said that sparked it off. I guess I shouldn't have said anything but I don't like being told I'm wrong and then have you and Malleus who I thought was on better terms with now turn up to seemingly gang up on me. If it was just one editor that would be fine but the fact you also turned up looked like you relished the chance to put Blofeld in this place. The bizarre thing in this is that my edit which I thought was constructive and I made a map especially and it turned into accusations of homophobia and raciasm which to be honest with you is very extreme. During all this I've been trying to move forward constructively and indeed address the issue about infoboxes civilly with Giano. But one editor upon another stacking attacks on what I've said '''always''' adds fuel to the fire and I'm not content for people to talk about me like that. As soon as Giano indicated he knew what I said wasn't intended maliciously, jsut a conflict of views, he cleared the air. And did you notice how I suddenly started speaking civilly and maturely to him? I dish back what I'm fed. Start accusing me of things and making situations worse than they really are always brings out the worst in me and one post after another about "bum sex" turns in a juvenile conservation which turns into something rather embarassing for intelligent adults on here. Sure i like a bit of crude humor, but would certainly rather do it in an environment where people are not attacking each other but laughing together.
::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!==
Now I apologise if your perception was that I was out of line or whatever. But once again it is the judgements of editors and playing the moral judge which are too blame for this current scenario. Refrain from making judgements about me and attacking me and I'll refrain from heated debates and talking pointlessly and unconstructively. In this instance I am glad you and Malleus were not active in the attacks on me and I think it is likely because you know this, the others who commented against me didn't . No I dislike having any edits I make reverted and especially multiple editors turning out one by one to make bad light of them which is what started this. The fact of the matter is still that the decision to have an infobox or not in the Winter Palace is a personal choice of the editors who wrote it, there;s no policy which says I was wrong to add an infobox or indeed that nobody wants them. I think the infobox or without and larger image has its strengths. Personally I would rather[REDACTED] was consistent as possible. Maps are my thing, I can make a close view birds eye view of the palace locations to add to the article if it is desired. Believe it or not I would rather not get into conflicts but one thing leads to another and before you know it a simple infobox adding procedure turns into a ludricrous situation where you are being accused of some rather serious allegations. I'm far better than to stoop as low as juvenile conservations, so people taking swipes at me clearly want to bring out the worst rather than the best in me. "Your thirdly" post was exactly what started this whole ordeal. Didn't it occur to you that your vote stacking might provoke a strong reaction, or is that what you wanted, you appear to dislike me, so you rejoice in pointing out my errors and making a fool of myself? ♦ ] 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
OK . You can support Giano all you like but NOBODY has a right to remove good faith GA nominations. That's disruption. ♦ ] 20:39, 13 April 2011 (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 ===
:Giano's explanation seems quite fair. According to your user page you're on a wikibreak and as Giano isn't interested in GA a reviewer would probably be wasting their time. ] (]) 20:42, 13 April 2011 (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!===
== Zuggernaut's ban ==
{| 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)
Please take another look at , request made as per ] (]) 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
: ] (]) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC) :And delighted to see you back again after such a long break! - ] (]) 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm recused from this case due to prior involvement with one of the parties, and that won't change come what may.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC) ::Per my comment to Kudpung below I'm not really 'back' per se—more 'less absent'.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 08:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Noun "due to", verb "owing to". There's really no excuse for this kind of slackness Iridescent. ] ] 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::Even I knew that and I'm foreign, we will have to strictly enforce grammar soon, or we shall have split infinitives next. ] ] 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::I do stick to that when it gets to FAC level, but I've never been convinced by it. "Due to" always sounds more accurate—compare the Google hits on "closed due to" () ''vs'' "closed owing to" (, and probably most of those are pedants making the same point). There comes a point when "overwhelming common use" trumps "what Fowler's says".&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


== Race condition ==
== Necro-bump: Soft-block of School IPs ==


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)
Some people do come up with some wonderful time wasting proposals at the VP - even in good faith. --] (]) 07:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
:I can see the arguments—regardless of whether I agree or not—for abolishing IP editing altogether, but sorting between "good" and "bad" IPs would be a, um, courageous idea.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 07:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
:(add) Looks like a brand-new user who thinks they've spotted what we've been doing wrong for the last ten years. Be gentle.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 07:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
::Well, yes. The other thing we did wrong was to allow just anybody to be a new page patroller. If the other RfC gets its way, it might be a problem solved. --] (]) 08:08, 17 April 2011 (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)
== BLP ==
::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)
:::IMO most of those mis-taggings are entirely in good faith. Those of us who've been here a while forget how confusing Misplaced Pages's rules are. To someone with a decent but incomplete understanding of Misplaced Pages's workings, "even a userspace sandbox is technically released to the world under the Misplaced Pages name, so anything inappropriate or inaccurate should be deleted no matter where it's posted" is intuitively entirely reasonable. This is especially intuitive to the sizeable proportion of newer good-faith users who've themselves been slapped down at some point for posting an unsourced or insufficiently-sourced claim.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 08:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== Welcome back! ==
If you restore defamatory attacks on a living person, I will block you. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
:You could. I'd suggest you be ''extremely'' confident that you're in the right, though, since the content you're edit-warring to remove is very clearly the personal opinion of one editor, as expressed on a {{tl|noindex}}ed page. To save you looking, the relevant line of ] is "and not related to making content choices"; since the comment in question is an editor discussing whether a particular person is a serious academic or a ] theorist (a matter on which I have no opinion) their credibility is obviously material related to making a content choice; if you're primly removing swearing from a thread ''about'' swearing, you're stifling debate and trying to force the decision your way, even if in this case I'd tend to agree. (If you really think "nutjob" qualifies as a gross personal attack, though, I envy you.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
::Iridescent is a nutjob. Please tell me this warrants a block. --] (]) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
:::Careful, Moni. Aren't you the one who committed ?&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
::::That clearly is my post, but that statement is as honest, true, and verifiable as what was written on stones given to Moses. I challenge anyone to claim it a violation of the BLP policy. --] (]) 21:45, 20 April 2011 (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.
::This exchange demonstrates one of the differences between an arbitrator and a lowly lout like myself. My reply to Fences' nonsense would have been a little more direct and a lot shorter, consisting of only seven letters arranged into a well-known phrase or saying. ] ] 22:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
:::"Marry me"? There's a danger in being ambiguous, Malleus :-P. ] (]) 02:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Not enough "f"s in "marry me". The danger in not being ambiguous is that some officious clot of an administrator ... well, you know the rest. ] ] 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::I do indeed. Of course, if you had said "marry me" to F&W in response to the initial comment, someone likely would've felt justified in blocking you for being off your rocker. ] (]) 02:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps. I think though that in my small way I've given administrators pause for thought before they impose daft blocks on established editors, which is a good thing. Did I ever tell you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Or ] five-second block? ] ] 03:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::You've mentioned it once or twice. One can always hope. ] (]) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry to butt in but... "sycophantic"... seriously? I'd love to hear about that one :) --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::You'll find it in my block log, but you may have to scroll down a bit. ] ] 03:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


Anyway, I'm so relieved to know you're alive and kicking. Happy New Year! ] (]) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::(re Malleus's original post) One thing which is noticeable to me—and I shouldn't have been surprised—is that there's a reason so many Misplaced Pages higher functionaries communicate publicly in that strange stilted lecture-to-the-royal-society-of-tax-lawyers style. (This seems to apply across the spectrum, from Jimmy Wales himself through to Alison.) When one always has the knowledge at the back of one's mind that anything you say can be taken as a public pronouncement and waved at one of the drama boards in support of some wiki-crusade or other, it forces one to be very measured and pedantic with the wording of anything said for public consumption; Bradspeak is a virtually inevitable consequence. This isn't peculiar to Misplaced Pages, as anyone who's had any dealings with politicians, CEOs or high-ranking military and police will know, but it is interesting (to me) how strong this particular pressure is, even in an environment like Misplaced Pages which prides itself on its (generally artificial) unstuffiness.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 18:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:
::::I had exactly the same thought when I read your reply to F & W above. Surely the old Iridescent would have been content with something on the lines of "Knock yourself out"? ] | ] 21:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
:I'm still alive, albeit minimally active at best. I've not looked at the internal politics yet, but even if it's got worse over the past couple of years I find it hard to believe it could have become {{em|more}} toxic than it was {{circa|2010–15}}…&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 07:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::*I am minded not to entirely agree with your comments concerning Bradspeak; I think one has to deliberate and evaluate fully and then come to a considered opinion before giving one's opinions in a forum where one's opinions could be subject of debate and conjecture which could reflect upon oneself and lead to others to form an opinion as to one's opinion. ] ] 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} Probably, although I did preach my share of sermons back then too. (As an aside, F&W must surely be the first user in Misplaced Pages's history to be such a hardline crusader for civility that both and tell them to stop.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::Anybody who gets Sandstein to say "fuck" (not when he quotes it, but when he actually ''says'' "flying fuck" in his own voice, and the negative is missing) deserves a barnstar. P.S. I know, I'll ask him to marry me. ] | ] 21:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
:::::::(serious point) The long-winded replies do serve a point. "Go away" or variations thereof would just send F&W away annoyed and confused, since he probably thought he was being helpful in Defending The Purity Of The Wiki. (As I and others have said many times, many people have genuinely never stopped to think that "civility" is a relative concept and the civility policy is aimed at "intent to offend", not "offence caused".) Explaining to him why he's mistaken serves the short-term purpose just as well, but also stops him making the same mistakes again, and doesn't annoy him so much he goes away in a huff and we lose another editor. Most people here ''are'' trying to help; if someone has the potential to be useful it's never a good idea to drive them away.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Some people here though seem to believe that it's their job to drive others away. Many of them are member of the civility police. ] ] 22:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::r.e. to iridescent; If RL (and my job specifically) has taught me anything it is that such language has its place... it sometimes helps to come across as the "cool capable <s>beurocrat</s>bureaucrat" {{small|(that's a word I can never spell :S)}}. i.e. "I have the right answer, listen to me", people do listen. It is rather scary how unimaginative they can be. I've seen "Bradspeak" work a decent number of times. The issue isn't that it's used.. it's that certain people simply cannot step out of it and bring themselves to say "sod off" (even if they mean to) and take the criticism that ensues. Anything you say, even if it is couched in bullshit, can be "used in evidence against you". So it strikes me as a false economy. But, then, I am reliably informed that I am a member of the "civility police", so that could be a load of crap ;) --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


== Take a look at this draft page ==
(Responding to the original post; I'll try to avoid spreading Bradspeak as best I can, although I fear the condition may be terminal) I think everyone posting on this page understands the importance of the BLP policy, but this strikes me as a situation where "why are you restoring this material, which I think is inappropriate?" would have been a better approach than starting off with a block threat. Just a thought. ] (]) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
:You're almost certainly right, but why is it that so many administrators lace their admonitions with threats? Because they can? ] ] 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
::The root cause of anger and threats is almost always fear—but the trouble with the written word is that it carries so little information in comparison to a physical meeting. If I offer what you perceive as a threat of some kind, unless I choose my written words very carefully it may be very hard for you to tell if I am: drunk; venomously angry; 'avin' a larf; offering a polite and well-meaning warning; etc., whereas in person it would almost certainly be much more obvious. ] ]] 07:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


], all of its content is cut, copy, paste from the article ], with no reference linking to any incidents in Bangladesh, no mention of Bangladesh anywhere in draft article itself. Does this not qualify for speedy deletion? — ] (] • ]) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:(re Brad) You're missing the point here. The reason F&W didn't say "why are you restoring this material, which I think is inappropriate?" is that at no point ''did'' I restore the material or, indeed, make any comment, reversion redaction etc to this or any other thread at ANI; my last edit to ANI in any context was on 9 April. This thread is F&W issuing a pre-emptive block threat against me just in case I ''was'' thinking of daring to take an action with which he disagreed. The people who complain about a culture of admins acting as if their status makes them "power users" with the right to boss people around may be overegging the pudding in that 95% of admins are completely non-problematic, but it doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. Consider what would likely happen if one of our more vocal non-admins were to start issuing threats against other users on the grounds that they thought they ''might'' violate their particular interpretation of a disputed policy, in which consensus is broadly against them. ("If you replace that double-hyphen with a spaced en-dash I will report you to ANI.")&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 11:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
::(1) Actually, your post reminds me that in checking the history, I couldn't quickly find whatever it was that led Fences & Windows to warn you, either&mdash;but I assumed that he or she wouldn't have warned you without some sort of triggering event, so I figured I must have overlooked something. (2) Re "Bradspeak," a point of causation: it didn't happen that I became whoever it is I am on Misplaced Pages and then started to talk the way I do; rather, I always talked more-or-less the way I do from more-or-less the day I started editing. Make of that what you will. Regards, ] (]) 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
:::You know what they say about "assume". AGF has much to answer for. ] ] 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


:I wouldn't say so—copy-pasting an existing article into draft/sandbox space so one can use its structure as the basis for another article on a linked topic isn't at all unusual, especially for a new user. The only potential speedy deletion criterion I could see applying would be as a {{em|technical}} copyvio as one is supposed to include an attribution in the edit summary when copying within Misplaced Pages, but usual practice is to retroactively attribute, rather than delete-amd-start-again. An article that fails to mention its purported topic obviously wouldn't be valid in mainspace, but as a draft is legitimate provided there's a reasonable assumption the creator intends to expand it.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 13:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* "''Bradspeak''"??? ... are we gonna have to add a new term to ] now? And yep, that Sandstein post made me wonder if someone had hijacked his account. Cheers and Happy Easter to all (rather all that it applies to). — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
*Belated apologies for misinterpreting your comment on my talk page. I thought your reference to censorship referred to my redaction of defamatory comments that Orangemarlin had made at ANI about an article subject, which someone else had already reverted once. I was not aiming to threaten someone simply for disagreeing with me (I hope I've never been that petty when acting as an admin). I now realise that your comment referred to the revdel of his edit summary, which is another matter entirely. While I disagree with the restoration of that edit summary, that's not something I'd consider blocking over. So, sorry. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 12:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:59, 20 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)

Sorry @Gerda Arendt, missed this one when I was replying to the accumulated posts on this page last week. I haven't kept track of Jimmy recently and he may well have changed, but I certainly feel my comment a decade ago was correct at the time—2014 Jimmy Wales was right up there with 2024 Elon Musk regarding misusing his position to disparage perceived opponents. (Where the WMF differs from Twitter is that for all its faults, the WMF has mechanisms for reining in people who abuse their position. The processes may be painfully slow and poorly designed, but in general they do eventually work.) ‑ Iridescent 07:44, 14 January 2025 (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)

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)

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)
Per my comment to Kudpung below I'm not really 'back' per se—more 'less absent'. ‑ Iridescent 08:01, 12 January 2025 (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)
IMO most of those mis-taggings are entirely in good faith. Those of us who've been here a while forget how confusing Misplaced Pages's rules are. To someone with a decent but incomplete understanding of Misplaced Pages's workings, "even a userspace sandbox is technically released to the world under the Misplaced Pages name, so anything inappropriate or inaccurate should be deleted no matter where it's posted" is intuitively entirely reasonable. This is especially intuitive to the sizeable proportion of newer good-faith users who've themselves been slapped down at some point for posting an unsourced or insufficiently-sourced claim. ‑ Iridescent 08:08, 12 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)

I'm still alive, albeit minimally active at best. I've not looked at the internal politics yet, but even if it's got worse over the past couple of years I find it hard to believe it could have become more toxic than it was c. 2010–15… ‑ Iridescent 07:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at this draft page

Draft:Hindu terrorism in Bangladesh, all of its content is cut, copy, paste from the article Hindu terrorism, with no reference linking to any incidents in Bangladesh, no mention of Bangladesh anywhere in draft article itself. Does this not qualify for speedy deletion? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so—copy-pasting an existing article into draft/sandbox space so one can use its structure as the basis for another article on a linked topic isn't at all unusual, especially for a new user. The only potential speedy deletion criterion I could see applying would be as a technical copyvio as one is supposed to include an attribution in the edit summary when copying within Misplaced Pages, but usual practice is to retroactively attribute, rather than delete-amd-start-again. An article that fails to mention its purported topic obviously wouldn't be valid in mainspace, but as a draft is legitimate provided there's a reasonable assumption the creator intends to expand it. ‑ Iridescent 13:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Iridescent: Difference between revisions Add topic