Um,hi—I'm looking for AN/K—somebody said it moved over here someplace??
Hey Iri....by the way, that link to the "mastercool hoggish plaza" was amazing (even though I had to head into the page history to see it). That whole talk page is a hive of wonderful English-mangling and bad bot-translation. Simply awesome!
On to my main question, though. I don't want it to seem like I'm canvassing or anything; however, you're one of the more-common names to see at an RfA, and it seemed unusual to me that you were silent on mine. Would I be correct if I said that you're acting under the time-honored principle of "if you don't have anything nice to say..."? I drew that conclusion after reading some of the RfA-related exchanges between you and Keeper; and if that IS the case, though I'm sorry I don't meet your criteria, I'm also grateful for your kindness in not piling on.
(However, on the off chance that you just "missed" that I was running--c'mon down! :)) Seriously, though-- if you're sparing me an oppose, I appreciate it. And if I've totally misjudged the situation...well, then I shall go stand off in a corner and look like That Weird Girl Who Asks Inappropriate Questions. Either way, I'm good. :) Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 05:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been deliberately avoiding you; contrary to what Majorly may think, I don't stalk RFA Kurt-style looking for reasons to oppose. Unless it's someone I've worked with in the past where my non-participation would be taken as a "passive oppose", I generally don't comment (either way) on RFAs if it's clear which way they're going to go, so I only comment either on newly-opened RFAs, or on ones that really are "in the balance". That's why I have such a high oppose rate (although not that high – it's about 45%), as I never do drive-by comments without checking (unless the RFA itself provides a clear reason to oppose, as in the case of Asenine for example), and I don't see the point in spending time reviewing your history just to be support #61 on an RFA leading 60-13. If the opposes start going up and yours looks more in the balance, I'll go and check it over. – iridescent 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(adding) – have gone to have a look and the level of fuckwittery in the "oppose" section has prompted me to support that one. Most RFA miscarriages have failed for reasons that are at least potentially valid. Most of the opposes on yours are just plain nuts. – iridescent 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (I really just figured I didn't have enough article experience for you, and that was why you hadn't said anything.) Yeah, there's a couple of opposes in there which kinda knocked my socks off too. At least they'll give me a peg to hang my argument on, over at the Talk:RfA thread. But again--thanks for the support. It really is much appreciated...Gladys J Cortez 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy at RFA
I'm a bit confused by 'While we all have different standards in an RFA, it would be ridiculous for an RFA to fail on grounds like "swore on a blog", "2500 edits is not enough", "hasn't written any GA/FA" or "participates heavily in user talk pages"'. Your opposes at RFAs have, to me, always seemed to fall into vaguely the last two categories. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to provide any examples of my ever opposing on either grounds? Nope, can't find them? Funny that. I will oppose on grounds of no article work (the boilerplate text is "I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do") but that does not apply here. For the record, I swear on Wikipedia (let alone on blogs) all the time, have never once opposed on editcount grounds except for obvious 50-edit WP:NOTNOW RFAs, have never once worked on an FA and never will, think DYK is a total waste of electrons, and currently have 22,750 edits to user talk pages. – iridescent 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I was obviously completely wrong. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further musings on this
Since this isn't the first time I've been (implicitly) accused of being That Evil One Who Always Opposes RFAs, I've had a look over my RFA stats; of the 72 RFAs I've opposed, three have actually been successful (Philosopher, Penwhale and Elonka), and all three of those scraped through with 20, 20, and 61 opposes respectively. It's not like I'm some lone trolling voice-in-the-wilderness launching random attacks on hapless wannabees. – iridescent 21:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
I completely agree with you (iridescent) about DYK, it's always been a bit of a puzzle to me. To take one example from today's main page: "Did you know that that the Niue Star, founded in 1993, is Niue's only printed newspaper?" Strangely enough I didn't, as I've got idea wtf Nuie is. A village? A town? A country? A planet? Why would anyone suppose that I, or anyone else, cared about its newspaper? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my last (yes, I know I'm replying to myself…), part of the problem is that the "hooks" are often worded in a really dull way. "Did you know that that the Niue Star, founded in 1993, is Niue's only printed newspaper?" could more accurately be retitled DYGAF, but "Did you know that until the founding of the Niue Star in 1993, there was not a single newspaper published in the entire nation of Niue?" has a "fancy that!" factor. (There is a particularly wretched one today, incidentally: "Did you know that the Bangladesh Police inherits much of its structure from the police of British India and contributes to U.N. peace-keeping missions?". Er, that would be along with almost every other country in the world then?) – iridescent 15:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the Niue hook on the main page, never heard of the place either, but the cool thing is one clicky on a blue linky is all it takes to learn something new. I was musing on some of the criticisms and believe that maybe if folks looked more at the 5x expansion of some existing stubby articles, more notable things would crop up. I placed a competition here - note you don't have to expand them, I was hoping folks would just list a whole bunch first to see what was out there. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do my share of new articles and 5x expansions – there was a 12x expansion here a couple of days ago – but because there's generally no "killer fact", I never submit them to DYK. My problem (and I suspect Malleus's as well, although I can't speak for him) isn't with the concept of a DYK section, but with some of the facts which are chosen for it and the fact that many of the hooks are presented as duller than they should be. (My proposed rewriting of the Niue one above, for example, would have avoided the "why is that on the main page?" factor). I do think DYK is treated as an article-expansion contest regardless of quality – it always makes me cringe when I see someone proudly boasting that they "have 5 DYKs", or when people equate DYK with GA/FA. I understand that part of the reason is to reward new editors for contributing instead of myspaceing, Huggling or RFA-gaming, and that DYK has become our de facto "official barnstar" and the reasoning behind that, but it doesn't mean I like seeing "Did you know that San Marino debuted at the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 with "Complice", a song performed by Miodio?" on the main page of the Eighth Most Powerful Website In The World™. – iridescent 22:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Hmm...that article had a ghost, and some cool postboxes,and the stuff about the moat is interesting, I would have read any as a hook. The problem with any of this is the quality of the contributions. DYK is a good entry-level 'notch' in one's wikibedpost as it requires some degree of collaboration, which is what the whole project is about. Everyone has different levels of 'interesting', but I do take your point. I love trivia in all its bizarre shapes and forms and the day when Manatees in popular culture was a sad one for me. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you really want to be on this page, in that case – I was the one responsible for the deletion of Mythical chickens. – iridescent 10:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, an article with potential but in pretty woeful shape when axed..as many are. Well, at least you do other stuff 'round the place. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HorseMadK
Can you block this account, which is getting worse since this warning. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I would have referred him to WP:AIAV, but felt I couldn't because you had issued a level 4 warning omitting the earlier levels. Why would you do that? --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh... the fiend had blanked the earlier warnings. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It had the full 1-2-3-4 warnings – I'm not sure what the issue is here, exactly. An account is perfectly within their rights to blank warnings from their talkpage, but that's just taken as proof of having read them, and doesn't in any way "cancel them out". In any event, the 1-2-3-4-block escalation scale is purely for convenience and not any kind of policy; vandals don't get a "quota" of four vandalisms, and an obvious vandal-only account can be blocked without making any edits, let alone waiting for it to make five. – iridescent 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was rushing out the door, and I'm not an admin, but I wanted the account shut down quickly to stop the vandalism spree. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what comes of forgetting your bathrobe.Damn, my secret is out. – iridescent 18:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A vandal who uses proper spelling and nearly proper grammar. That's a new one. J.delanoygabsadds 18:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's really the case that ones sexuality determines how many friends one has? :-) J.delanoy, they have failed to use a capital letter at the start of a sentence, and have misused punctuation. There's always one mistake... -- how do you turn this on 18:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, why is it vandals, especially when delivering angry messages, never seem to use proper English?--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 18:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HDYTTO, it has to be pointed out that your punctuation is also wrong... – iridescent 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... I do know when to use capital letters though :-) -- how do you turn this on 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the sentence fragments... –xeno (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, you really must stop posting pictures of the two of us without my expressed consent... I mean, it's not like I don't express my consent for everything else. >_>
In Great Fire of London you recently "corrected" impassable to impassible. According to the OED:
Impassable: That cannot be passed along, through, or across; impossible to traverse or travel through.
Impassible: Incapable of suffering or pain; not subject to suffering. (Chiefly Theol.)
It was certainly the first that was intended. David Underdown (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the mistake of assuming something on a Wikimedia project is accurate, and used the Wiktionary spelling and definition: Impassible (adj): 1. Unable to be passed or traversed. If the OED disagrees, then obviously stick with them as they're a considerably more reliable source than we are. – iridescent 10:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In related news, water found to be !dry... EyeSerenetalk 11:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"OMG the rain is wet!"
"Sex makes babies!?"
Fave actual female quotes. Alex Bieser (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't know how to proceed. I do know it's frowned upon to edit a page in which one has a personal stake. So instead I will ask for help:
An editor named "Darius1973" has recently been attacking my short Wikipedia bio. Based on his information it seems "Darius1973" has an interest in clinical psychology and has decided to personally retaliate for my position that clinical psychology isn't a science.
On 12 September this year "Darius1973" deleted from my bio a list of academic awards. This particular edit was not later reverted.
On 21 September "Darius1973", seeing victory in sight, deleted the entire article. This edit was reverted but the list of academic awards was not restored.
I ask for one of the following:
1. Please revert the article to its state prior to the first edit by "Darius1973".
2. Delete the article.
As it stands the article has been pared down to a ridiculous degree, such that a reasonable person might wonder what purpose it serves. I think you may be familiar with the expression "damnation through faint praise" -- this might apply to the article's present state.
If this sort of appeal is inappropriate, please say so. Again, I am not familiar with how things are done at Wikipedia.
I've reverted to what appears to be the last valid version before the IPs and SPAs got hold of it. It still needs sourcing, though; at the moment there's no way to verify that what you're telling us it the truth. It's not against Wikipedia policy to write articles about yourself, although we do strongly discourage it, as it's almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view.
I agree. This is a rather delicate matter -- I know how to produce the evidence, but everyone will be justified in questioning my objectivity. --Lutusp (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that helps! Be aware that as long as it remains unreferenced, there's nothing to stop people re-removing any statements they take a dislike to. – iridescent 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Without touching the article itself, I have added a list of references for its claims. This is as close as I want to get to actually editing my own bio. --Lutusp (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pi pie
Jumping on the latest trend, and thinking it may be time to start the article List of Wikipedians who have been pi pied, Jennavecia has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Greetings Iridescent. You recently slapped a couple of warnings on User talk:198.62.218.41. Someone has since used that IP again to vandalise the Thorstein Veblen article. Please block. Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hugglers will take care of it. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High five
You are getting a wiki-high five today! I'm sure you know why. MBisanztalk 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really, really don't… – iridescent 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because you are awesome *hugs Iridescent* -- Gurch (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, on your home page, your user page, you quote Zach Parsons: "The Internet could be great. It could be a place for ideas to flourish without the fickle constraints of the flesh. It could be a place to commune and collaborate on projects that help all of humanity. It could be the best résumé ever, limited only by the imagination," do you not? Yet you more or less contradict this quote with one of your own: "I also periodically go on long stub sorting sprees, loiter on Articles for Deletion arguing the case for patently hopeless causes, do the thankless-but-necessary jobs of spellchecking, copy-editing & standardising headers and watch new pages for vandalism and nonsense."
I believe you hopelessly slaughtered my article, System of Imagination. Perhaps I could've kept it to two realities instead of inducing my own belief on the matter. No, I did not make this up at school. I graduated from Southern Illinois University two years ago. I believe the problem is you might've not understood it. I am slightly technologically impaired, and was hoping administrators and SYSOPS would help constructing my thoughts. Apparently not.
Now I'm sure you don't believe it is utter nonsense. Millions of occasions have occurred where someone is dreaming and they have a vividly accurate experience as to achieving euphoria in their sleep (*not a wet dream reference, mind you). The brain is miraculously powerful and can stimulate nerves to your so desire. More than twenty people in person I've shared these thoughts with agree. It is not an impossibility to be partially in an alternate reality where things are not occurred physically, but instead mentally. Maybe how I explained it to you might have made you reconsider, and try to recreate the article professionally. Thank you. Alex Bieser (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that Iridescent nominated the article you created for deletion; six other editors also recommended that it be deleted in the discussion, so it wasn't exactly deleted out of hand, which your language suggests. We don't always evaluate articles based on what is true and what is not true, but instead on what is verifiable. Essentially your article was deleted because it was original research. Please read at least one of those two policy pages, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. We're not trying to be all things to all people; we're trying to be an encyclopedia. Darkspots (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already understood that, Darkspots, and I read most of these pages. You'll find conclusive evidence of many humanitarians noting something very similar. I believe if Wikipedia believed the information was unverifiable, they should have contributed, offering references. I noted Iridescent personally because of the fact he came as the appearance as the over killer. More or less original research is a term a bit too well thrown around. This is very much verifiable research. Besides, show me evidence it's not. Google search key terms in this matter, and see if you don't find other people whom agree. Thank you. Alex Bieser (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any article you bring to wikipedia should come at least partially formed, with supporting references to prove that it's not just your wild imaginings. It is not reasonable to expect "Wikipedia" to do your research for you. Do it yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shucks! You know, I thought that Wikipedia was going to do everything! My, I must have been under horribly wild assumptions that are not the least bit correct. Alex Bieser (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
('Scuse the TPS intrusion) Shucks indeed. Wikipedia is not going to do everything that occurs in the painfully imaginative thing called the brain. Wikipedia is going to do what's verifiable. IceUnshattered[ t ] 00:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)T[reply]
I believe you caught the sarcasm but altogether it is not what I was refering to. What I mean by "brutally slaughtered" is that I did not have sufficient time to complete or even start research. I now attend Oxford University and was actually in fact studying on the matter there while keeping up with other work on human biology. Too many people roughly turned down the subject as child's play where it still needed more work and people failed horribly to recognize this. I will try recreating the page with sufficient research to do so, and Iridescent, I am not asking you to take sides, but I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. You've been so quiet, please express your thoughts. Alex Bieser (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. First, Iridescent's last contribution was before you started this thread; you can check a user's contributions by hitting the "User contributions" button in the left column, when you are on their user or user talk page. So Iridescent isn't ignoring you. Second, if you want to work on the article, you may do so in user space. Just click here: User:Alex Bieser/System of Imagination and create the article, with references, taking as much time as you like. When you think it's ready for the main space, you can ask any established user for an opinion as to its merits. If you need a copy of the article as it was before it was deleted, the deleting admin, ffm, would be happy to help you out, just go to his talk page and explain what you need. Darkspots (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the point you are trying to make, yes, I did create this thread after it was deleted. Are you suggesting he might not have computer access at this time? Thank you for reveiwing the deleted article and discovering it was ffm who deleted it. I can also simply go to page history and find the page before it was deleted. Finally I have progressed. TTYL, Alex Bieser (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←The first point that I was making was that Iridescent's last contribution to Wikipedia was a few hours before you started the thread. It can therefore be assumed that Iridescent has not seen the thread yet. Regarding the second point, no, you can't go to the page history, because the page history has been deleted. So I was attempting to give you tools to deal with the fact that your page, along with its history, was deleted. Darkspots (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
