User talk:Iridescent

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

Archives [Jan 06‑Oct 07] [Nov 07‑May 08] [Jun 08] [Jul‑Aug 08] [Aug‑Sep 08] [Sep‑Nov 08] [Nov‑Dec 08] [Jan 09] [Feb‑Apr 09] [May‑Jul 09] [Jul‑Oct 09] [Oct 09‑Apr 10] [May‑Jul 10] [Aug‑Oct 10] [Nov 10‑Apr 11] [May 11‑Apr 13] [May 13‑Apr 15] [May‑Aug 15] [Sep 15‑Jan 16] [Feb‑Apr 16] [May‑Jul 16] [Aug‑Sep 16] [Oct‑Nov 16] [Dec 16‑Jan 17] [Feb‑May 17] [Jun‑Oct 17] [Nov 17‑Jan 18] [Feb‑Jul 18] [Jul‑Oct 18] [Nov‑Dec 18] [Jan 19] [Feb‑Apr 19] [May‑Jun 19] [Jul 19] [Aug‑Oct 19] [Nov 19‑Jan 20] [Feb‑Mar 20] [Apr‑Jul 20] [Aug‑Oct 20] [Nov‑Dec 20] [Jan 21] [Jan‑Mar 21] [Apr‑May 21] [Jun‑Aug 21] [Sep‑Dec 21] [Jan 22] [Feb‑Mar 22] [Apr‑Jul 22] [Aug‑Nov 22] [Dec 22‑]

al franken and serena williams

i keep getting flagged for information that i have edited on these two people...first for putting that serena williams weighs 185 lbs...i know her official biography states 150, but i met her a few weeks ago at a party here in new york and she personally told me she typically weighs anywhere between 185 to 190 lbs depending on her training and whatnot...also, i have had sex with al franken and i am a man..i think that makes him a homosexual...i just want people to know...thanks for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.49.59 (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I know policy says delete shit like this, but does anyone have any real objection to saving this one for posterity? Wikipedia:Your first article could probably be fruitfully (or at least, accurately) replaced by this. – iridescent 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's golden :-). Do with him as you please, although he's likely correct about serena (not the meeting her part, just the weight part...) Keeper ǀ 76 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if the "fact" about Al Franken were remotely true, that would make him a man who has sex with men, but not necessarily gay. Just sayin'. Darkspots (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, our friend Mr 49.59 has already wended his way to Hardblockland, believe me. – iridescent 21:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... is this the place to message you?

Hi.

You have removed edits I have made from Aliens and UFO articles. I had put that they both exist, and I know this is true because I have been abducted, and I've had sex with Aliens. You also removed the information about Aliens weighing 185 pounds that I added. I know this is true because the Alien told me, when I was having sex with it, that they all weigh between 185 and 190, depending on when they last ate. So is it can be tiem for you to be putting this information back nao, plz?

kthxbai,

AL Coholic—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.127.68 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Although having looked more closely at this IP's history, it's making these edits using Huggle. You can only do that if your main account has rollback – c'mon, who was it? (San Francisco, to save you looking…) – iridescent 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Jennavecia? -- how do you turn this on 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 – iridescent 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was randomly logged out while huggling. But I was intentionally logged out to harrass you. Iz borked wiki and ip harrass admin. I can haz ban nao? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia has been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusive sockpuppetry and misusing automated tools. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to her talk page. But don't bother because nobody will ever forgive her evil ways. – iridescent 01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

\o/ Iz got pwn by Iridescent. Envy me! Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Retching Red

Hey, just wondering if you would somehow be able to restore the Retching Red page. Somehow the history got deleted.. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No - because it was deleted following discussion you will need to go to deletion review and follow the instructions there. This looks to me to be an out-of-process deletion - you can't see the deleted version but I can, and it clearly didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion - so the deletion will almost certainly be overturned. – iridescent 02:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the help! ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Retching Red

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Retching Red. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Writing it as we speak… – iridescent 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the review got opened and closed in the few hours I'm not behind the computer (it does happen) so I missed the chance to add my 2 cents. I had already contacted TPH about the very fast closure of the AfD. If you could post the deleted article in my sandbox I'd like to have a go at rebuilding it. Thanks,    SIS  11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added both versions of the article (the version STBB wrote last week, and an earlier version by User:Cinder Block written in 2005 and speedied in April 2008) to your sandbox. If you recreate the article using these as a basis, let me know and I'll perform a history-merge for the benefit of GFDL. – iridescent 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep you posted.    SIS  13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Retching Red is back

I've added a new version of the article to the Wiki.    SIS  00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article looks good to me, although the image almost certainly doesn't pass Fair Use (images of living people almost never do, unless it's to make a particular point about how they looked at a particular point in the past so aren't replaceable), so don't be surprised if it vanishes at some point. Cinder Block herself is a former Wikipedian (hasn't edited since 2006), but the links on her userpage will probably give you a way to get hold of her to pester her into releasing a free-use image of the band. – iridescent 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a single mention of Sarah Palin on the page?

This is unacceptable, and has to change. And I've just found the opportunity: "List of Governors of Alaska" has been recently featured. I know we should do something about it, but I don't know what. (Perhaps I should repeat that thing I did to the servers last week and shut the site down.)

Any ideas from the Stalking Corps? Waltham, The Duke of 03:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Take this one to Keeper's talk. I could not care less about Sarah Palin, think Intelligent Design sounds like something someone thought up in the bath one day whilst drunk, have no strong opinions for or against paid editing, and still have no idea who Lyndon LaRouche is and have no desire to find out. I'm not the one to talk to on the "hot button" topics. – iridescent 13:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I couldn't agree more about Intelligent Design. I just remembered as I was reading the late, as usual, Signpost yesterday that someone on this page had a fixation with Palin, so I thought I'd post. (For those who care, here's a quote's quotation of a quote about the subject which I find amusing; it also alludes to the problem of the unrecognisability of irony in modern America.) Waltham, The Duke of 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Er… my only edit in the entire history of the article in question was to revert one piece of nonsensical, biased OR. Go mediate something else. – iridescent 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Iri, I'm really beginning to worry if you're talking to a bot. You're as bad as me! TravellingCari 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've held conversations with a bot before this. They tend to talk more sense. – iridescent 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, despite ZOMG! he's evil, Beta and I got on well. Then again, I don't do images as a rule. TravellingCari 19:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had polite, friendly and helpful conversations on Wikipedia with Thekohser, multiple heads of the PoetTaxCorn hydra, The_undertow, Can't sleep and many more Enemies Of The People, and had some fantastically foul-tempered abuse from some of the Pillars Of The Community. One thing I do agree with the WP:BADSITES about is the arbitrary nature of who's "good" and "bad" at any given time. (Just read the sorry story of MyWikiBiz for a demonstration of how policy's made up as we go along). Beta's problem wasn't so much the clique of ZOMGevil dramamongers, but his unwillingness to ever admit that anything he did was wrong – just compare the streams of "fuck off and don't argue with me"s in his talkpage history with all the "thanks for bringing this problem to my attention, I'll fix it now"s on Gurch's or Misza's. – iridescent 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydra, I like. I love staying fairly under the radar. I think the only person I've come to debate with was a debate of A7, really low key. I don 't care enough to argue, truly. It's just not worth it. I agree, communication is key. When I first started to launch the museums project, there was a tagging related fall out which I brought up at the RfA to show I wasn't hiding it -- and no one voted on it. What came up? Kurt, Le Grand Roi, and Majorly trolling; plus a handful of very valid neutrals (including one from the hydra, whose screen name I didn't recognise). TravellingCari 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Kurt, Le Grand Roi, and Majorly trolling"? Oh, surely not! (In some defense; Kurt makes some very good mainspace contributions, and Majorly's vision of how things ought to work is genuinely internally consistent, it's just totally different to everyone else's, and I honestly believe he sees his posts as "helpful". LGR was, well, LGR). – iridescent 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually how I meant that was only Majorly trolling. And in that one he blatantly was - he was in his "User is an editor" mode. LGR and I never saw eye-to-eye, but like other editors he was young and meant well. At least he tried to contribute. Kurt amuses me. I've never had much interaction with him outside is "it exists" and "prima facie" !votes but I think I did thank him for being the first to call me a vandal. I live. If that was the worst that people could find to say about me during that week, I think I've done OK. there are others now more active in RfA who would oppose me -- Realist for one - but that's OK. I think RfA is broken but not because of the people involved. I'd support anyone who's rationale explained why they said what they did. Everyone has their right to an opinion -- it's trolling and drama that drives me nuts. TravellingCari 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I reached a mighty six threads on my talkpage before getting my first ever torrent of abuse. Closely followed by my first accusation of being part of The Cabal™ and my first piece of batshit insane trolling. I haven't looked back since. – iridescent 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And you really shouldn't look back. Red and yellow? Really?

Anyway, I shouldn't be so ungrateful in your place for having such an interesting talk page; you'll only find discussions about dashes and succession boxes in mine. Cartwright spends most of his day solving Sudokus. Waltham, The Duke of 03:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing what was in my e-mail when I came back online. I'd prefer the batshit to stay on my user page. People go seriously over the line. Really, do you check your common sense while editing. Seriously people! TravellingCari 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(tDoW) My original sig was stolen from someone else. I'm far more embarrassed by the Comic Sans than by the colors.

(Tcari) I have a firm "If there wasn't a good reason to keep this offwiki I won't reply to your email" policy and stick to it. The loons give up very quickly. Albeit come here to be loons instead. (Look up, look down). – iridescent 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In honor of Keeper, unindenting the colon farm. That's why I've taken to responding on their talk, c.f. User_talk:Callpr. I don't want them to know my e-mail and I can respond without disclosing the e-mail. I don't get people's allergy to the unblock template. Why make it complicated. OK, it's 23:55, I could theoretically be in bed before midnight :o TravellingCari 03:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate Comic Sans. My impression is that people use it whenever they want something to "feel friendly", even if it shouldn't (or won't anyway). Waltham, The Duke of 14:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I stole my font from someone, I don't like the standard wiki sig one. There's a whole thread in Keeper's archives when I tried to change the colour. It's "Bug zapper blue" TravellingCari 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I can see it, I suppose. I have a short script, courtesy of Tony1, that darkens the colour of links. I just can't tolerate that sea of bright blue in every second page, with the abundance of over-linking that characterises today's Wikipedia. Waltham, The Duke of 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So what colour does it appear to you? I wanted to change it but the colour names don't look like what they're supposed to c.f. lavender, purple, silver so I stay boring TravellingCari 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's still the bug-zapper blue. The script doesn't make all links appear darker than normally, but changes the colour of the proper links to a certain, darker hue. It's here, in case you're interested.

I don't mind the colour of your signature, but if you want to change it, why must you enter a name? Can't you use a six-digit code? Waltham, The Duke of 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a very good color wheel here. – #E45E05#C1118C 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all of your work reverting vandalism, I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Royalbroil 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop beating me already!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Here, now quit beating me to reverts! Lol. Vandalism destroyer (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They really need to rename that thing, it gets more ironic each time I see it. I wonder if "The Poetlister Barnstar" is available? – iridescent 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering how much anti-vandal work Rick did, it seems appropriate to me even though his account is blocked, since it was blocked only because it was compromised, not because he did anything wrong. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you missed something here... Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious too. All I see is: 15:36, 16 July 2008 WBOSITG (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RickK (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Compromised) (Unblock) which reflects what JD said. I think I'm one of a small handful who doesn't know the RickK story. My e-mail is open if this is a case of beans to discuss on wiki. TravellingCari 20:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks Tombomp. My e-mail is being wonky so I can't respond. Some people get *way* too vested in Wiki drama. TravellingCari 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy, you've got mail. – iridescent 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi Iridescent. I couldn't help but notice that your last 35+ blocks prevent the user from editing their talk page to appeal their block. There's currently a thread denouncing this practice at WP:AN. If you are using a blocking script please update it, and please revisit your recent blocks, especially the longer ones. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle bugs... I thought this one had been fixed. I'll redo them. – iridescent 15:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done – I haven't re-done some 24h blocks from yesterday evening which are going to expire in a couple of hours, but everything else has been re-done with talkpage editing permitted. – iridescent 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My, you have a busy talk page :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should have seen it two hours ago. Between Keeper76 and I, we keep Miszabot in business. – iridescent 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know why this is happening: if you block someone with Huggle, for some reason, it automatically unchecks that box in the API. So for now, we're stuck using Special:BlockIP. Which sucks. I didn't realize before now how much I like Huggle's block feature. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't uncheck that box in the API, there is no option in the API to enable/disable it, and for some insane reason it defaults to blocking talk page edits. This is bug 15787. It is rather annoying when poorly thought out changes to MediaWiki render previously working external tools unusable :/ -- Gurch (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot I'd coded this in. Assuming it actually works, should reduce the immediate problem -- Gurch (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially, a change to MediaWiki that nobody wanted and there seems no particular use for. Yes, zOMG Grawp uploaded goatse to his talk page. That's why why we have an "undo" feature. – iridescent 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Ifil

Hi, since admins are the only ones who can protect articles, i was wondering if you could protect the Gwen Ifil article, i noticed you had reverted recent vandalism of the page, such vandalism is becoming a problem as right wing editors continue to try to create controversy where there isnt any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.45.26 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done – I've put a 24hour semiprotection on it as it seems to be being targeted by a lot of IPs today. Remember, this will also prevent you from editing it. – iridescent 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind being locked out, i'm not a very active editor anyways, thanks for taking such quick action though. (99.241.45.26 (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Robert Sungenis/Heinrich Himmler

Thank you for your help on the Robert Sungenis page and the Himmler page. I just noticed that 130.13.216.248 tried to insert an entire article written by a friend of Sungenis and also a load of other strong POV, original research and misinformation. If you look at the history, you'll see that the edits this person tried to put in are almost exactly the same as 130.13.217.229 tried to put in back in August on this entry. And then Antique Rose reverted the changes. You'll also notice that both times, the person targeted Sungenis' and Heinrich Himmler's entries. So it would seem that the same person is at work, but from a different computer. Both IPs trace back to Denver, CO. Thank you again for helping to protect both of these entries (Sungenis and Himmler) from mischief.

Liam Patrick (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pevensey

I have reverted a few non-constructive edits recently on the Pevensey article, and a few minutes ago I had to do revert once more. There have been two IPs involved, but its the same bit of vandalism each time. I do not know how I should proceed, so I thought I would bring it to an Admins attention. I chose you because you reverted the same article last week, and issued a final warning. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be enough disruption to warrant any kind of protection; I'll keep an eye on it. – iridescent 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Soapfan06

I'm having trouble with Soapfan06 who never uses edit summaries when removing content from Britney Spears. As seen here, here, and here, the user continually removes content without an edit summary or discussion on the talk page. I may have broken the 3revert rule myself, I didn't keep count, but this is becoming disruptive. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it to AN/3RR or the appropriate talkpage(s). I sorted out the previous problem regarding images on this article as a favor to R2, but I have no interest in or knowledge of Britney Spears so am not going to get involved in deciding what edits are or aren't valid. – iridescent 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bethel School

You banned the schools IP for vandalism. Fix it NOW!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.57.21 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the shouting, but no. If you want to request an unblock, follow the instructions on the "blocked" notice. It might help your case if you stopped vandalising, given that your last piece of vandalism was three minutes before this request. – iridescent 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

HG

Your on a roll tonight, beating me to the revert 4 times so far :P   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a race, especially not with MediaWiki and Huggle not cooperating with each other and every edit needing checking. The logs of Wikipedia in recent weeks are littered with blanked huggle.css pages... – iridescent 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies regarding the Medditeranean Games, I was attempting to remove "Who Farted?" by undoing but I did not notice that before that their was another vandalism comment.(Hi I'm Cole) Please reply on my talk page. A Cool Editor (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem... – iridescent 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Craziness

I just copied this from Recent Changes...

1. (diff) (hist) . . N User talk:79.70.26.36‎; 18:15 . . (+784) . . Iridescent (Talk | contribs) (Message re. Paper chromatography (HG))
2. (diff) (hist) . . m José Carreras‎; 18:15 . . (+30,533) . . Iridescent (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 12.218.118.56 to last version by 92.40.157.57 (HG))
3. (diff) (hist) . . m Homer Simpson‎; 18:15 . . (+1) . . Iridescent (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Crazyturd to last version by Iridescent (HG))

You got three in a ROW! (and 4 out of 7...) ...sick. =) Cheers! —the_ed17— 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I rever the Hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. – iridescent 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that it is a race...it was just more a way of saying "good work" without actually saying "good work"... =D Cheers! —the_ed17— 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wasn't biting, and thanks - more just a general warning that the "use it at your own risk" warning currently at the top of all the Huggle pages means what it says! MediaWiki changes have made it very unstable, and everyone using it who doesn't check their edits is leaving a trail of destruction at the moment (witness the 35 incorrect blocks I made yesterday, for a rather glaring example). – iridescent 18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Display it proudly from your porch!

I'm shocked. Just shocked. 35 incorrect blocks? That's it? Shocked and disappointed. You're slipping, Iri... you're slipping. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:BayAreamerica and Tipping Point Community

Eh, instead of biting the user maybe you could read his edit summary about why he blanked it? The user wrote the article and then realized he wasn't in the sandbox and apparently wanted to write a bit before putting it in mainspace. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hey Iridescent. May I ask you why you did not block these (1) IPs (2) yourself? ;) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm patrolling recent changes using Huggle which doesn't currently have a block function. It's a far more efficient use of time to report x number of vandals to AIV, then flip browsers and block x number of vandals from AIV (to "cancel out" any additional burden on the AIV patrollers), then to flip between programs and manually block the editor each time a problem user is identified. – iridescent 19:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle has a block function for me, which automatically pops up if a final warning has already been issued. In cases where I don't see the need for a final warning, I just go into the browser tab, click to open page in external browser, then click the block button from there, leaving a warning with TW. It's super speedy. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be disabled - Gurch has removed the option from the configuration. If it's still giving you the option, don't use it, and go to system/options and manually disable it from within Huggle. See this thread, and then have the joyful experience of manually fixing the last 40 blocks in your log. – iridescent 19:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see. Did not know that the block function of huggle is currently disabled because of that great new blocking option. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that once whoever made that "improvement" owns up, there won't be enough trouts in the sea. – iridescent 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugzillas seem to be able to pass through with like 2-3 people agreeing to the change. cf. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 25#Stopping search engines from indexing the user talk namespace.3F which was acted upon. –xeno (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That particular one had a subtext to it, regarding two (ahem) high profile former users objecting to talkpages discussing their alleged misdemeanours being the first Google hits on their names – it didn't just come out of nowhere. Jimbo would probably have unilaterally enforced it once the suggestion was raised. – iridescent 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

eh, it has consensus after the fact anyway. –xeno (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that particular one. Google should only be indexing the mainspace IMO. – iridescent 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, the 'allowusertalk' block option was added to the API in this revision. So now I have to wait until that revision goes live, and then release a new version of Huggle, and then you can have blocking back... -- Gurch (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting the vandalism to my user page. →Christian.И 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome… I will be so glad when the Vandalism Contest is over. – iridescent 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What vandalism contest? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This one, which is sending the levels of subtle vandalism through the roof. – iridescent 12:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Why are you reporting to AIV? Tan | 39 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

n00b, look two threads higher. –xeno (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Tan | 39 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

always there 4 u ;p –xeno (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

jennaivier shoulda bin banned a long time ago

ok guys jenaivier or what ever her name is has bin banned. finally. have you seen the pages she vandalised?? I mean with socks like this

• 
  rainbow socks? Really?

ya think she woulda bin blocked a long time ago.

anyways thanks for bloking her. Suparebel35—Preceding unsigned comment added by SupaRebel35 (talk • contribs)

Seen and noted, thanks. – iridescent 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If anything, this made me feel a bit less stupid. Tan | 39 23:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel dumb after having read this. Like, I think I lost English knowledge in reading this tragic insult to our language. I'm not even sure what is being said here... it's like... stupid in text form. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that image SFW? I feel like it may add context to this? or not –xeno (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Lara) How did you find out the Wikimedia Foundation's new motto?

(Xeno) Yes. – iridescent 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, if ever there was an account that didn't need unblocking, that was surely it… – iridescent 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

lol... he didnt vandalize past the 3rd warning though =] –xeno (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You know they don't get a quota, right? What do you think the odds are that this one has something useful to say? – iridescent 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What, what, what? Leave him blocked thus ensuring no more epic jewels of wisdom like the above are bestowed upon us? Psh. Please, wo/man. Get wit it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 00:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

AGF is a guideline not a policy. – iridescent 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have faith that vandals can be reformed, you never really know which one is going to be that golden reformee. –xeno (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this is Wiki brah/JeanLatore (he's the only long-term vandal I'm aware of who stalks my talkpage, and if it's not him it's a reasonable facsimile) it's a moot point, since his odds of being unbanned are zero – iridescent 13:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, but none of the other identifiers are there? Though, my JL detector seems to not be as good as it used to be... –xeno (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To-may-to, to-mah-to. – iridescent 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Second Coming, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This edit was unconstructive. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... c.c ... hi, Iridescent... uhm... so, *twists toe of shoe on floor* u.u ... I just wanted to say that, uh, I'm... I'm sorry for templating you. .___. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I hope you've learnt your lesson and will go on to become a valued editor here, rather than a vandal who ignores policy and consensus. ChaoticReality 01:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're evil. Evil, I tell you. – iridescent 01:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to User talk:Jennavecia, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. This could be considered harassment in some circles... not saying in my circle... just sayin'. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Iri: I've warned Jenna against templating you again. Some people here just don't understand how to co-operate with others to build an encyclopedia. Take it easy, ChaoticReality 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. She is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. – iridescent 01:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching her contribs. Next time she does something like this, I'm taking it to AN/I. ChaoticReality 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bruce Castle redlinks

I only removed the few that seemed to be non-notable, but if their notability has been accepted, than it seems I did so incorrectly. Sorry about that. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem... It looks like you actually only removed one, which I've restored. The English Parliament with its hereditary positions is confusing if you're not familiar with it. – iridescent 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw your note, this week has been batshit, with tomorrow likely to be more of the same and then I'm going to be offline for some of the weekend. Hope to look at this by Sunday. TravellingCari 03:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No rush, it'll still be there… – iridescent 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, for the benefit of anyone stalking this talkpage who wants to make those redlinks turn blue, here's something to help you on your way:

If this biography is accurate – and I have no reason to doubt it – I'm somewhat surprised that we don't already have an article on him, not to mention the lack of sources for someone who appears to have been a major figure both in British politics and in the founding of the United States. We do, however, have featured articles on Cannibal Holocaust, The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) and The Beginning of the End (Lost). Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. – iridescent 16:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Kittybrewster wins that one… – iridescent 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. StaticGull  Talk  12:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And on my user page too :-). StaticGull  Talk  12:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...

Not really a response or a follow-up to my own response to your post on my talk page, but I noticed the changes to the protection and block interfaces...and I've only been gone a month. Perhaps if I go away more often, more improvements will happen. :D (Rollback-like adminship? No further use of dispute resolution, as disputes become a thing of the past? Meh). Thanks again. :) Acalamari 17:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The change you'd better be aware of is, if you're using any kind of blocking script (including Huggle etc) they'll auto-ban any blocked editor from editing their talkpage, as for some insane reason the devs have made that the default setting with no way to change it – see this thread. Welcome back… – iridescent 17:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Acalamari 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing

You are a legend at reverting articles and have beaten me to quite a few now. What is your secret? What tools do you use? You are currently my idol on Wikipedia!! A Cool Editor (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle. If you're planning on using it, be aware that it's very easy to make mistakes with it if you don't know what you're doing, and that you will be held responsible for any edits you make with it, as if you'd manually typed them in, and that no admin will bat an eyelid at blocking you if you appear to be misusing it. – iridescent 19:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at this before but it says the following : MEDIAWIKI CHANGES/BUGS HAVE BROKEN HUGGLE USE SOMETHING ELSE THANKS

is this a vandalism comment designed to prevent people from reverting vandalism??? Or is it not broken at all?A Cool Editor (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-stable - the block function is totally disabled; the deletion functions work about 50% of the time; the revert-and-warn mechanisms work, but sometimes don't allow you to self-revert, and occasionally revert the wrong page. As long as you (literally) watch what you're doing it's usable.

That said, you currently have 108 mainspace edits and I would very strongly suggest not using it until you've got a lot more experience as it's very easy to screw up very badly with it. – iridescent 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally revert the wrong page? not another bug :/ (first I've heard of that)... -- Gurch (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's only happened to me a couple of times, which is why I haven't bothered reporting it; it seems to be that when the server's frozen and then unfreezes, when it comes back it reverts the next item in the queue as well as the one you intended to revert. It's not really an issue as long as you watch the log at the bottom to make sure the correct pages are being reverted. (Someone somewhere mentioned it doing the same thing with AfD tagging, too). – iridescent 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for your concern and I will stick to my User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool in which I can simply Rollback if neccessary after checking Before and After. P.S Why does rollback only occasionally work on User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool??? A Cool Editor (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Have you tried reading the talkpage or asking there? – iridescent 19:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia...

... a mastercool hoggish plaza of truth or reality. EyeSerene^talk 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please… I'll have you know WP:NOTPIGS applies here. – iridescent 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not even if they're unusually hoggish? You must be one of those philistine and simple average mens in the centre of scabby, peevish world I've heard about. EyeSerene^talk 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a pig about it… you know you'll reap what you sow. I'll get my coat. – iridescent 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That hamfisted pun really brought in the bacon. I'll be out now EyeSerene^talk 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're just going to make lame pig puns, sty away from my talkpage. – iridescent 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Scratching head, have no idea what to do about this IP

IP keeps inserting an external link to an article that goes against me and seemingly everyone else's understanding of Wikipedia:External links. It's only just dawned on my that it's the same IP every time (seriously every editor should create a user name for this reason alone). Obviously hasn't taken the hint that no-one agrees with him. Is it just a standard warning, edit warring against consensus or should I take this to a certain notice board. Never seen this over external links. Opinion welcome as always. — Realist² 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Level 3 spam warning given... that gives them a couple of extra chances before the cluestick-whacking starts. – iridescent 22:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I can't believe that same IP was doing it for days under my nose. Oh well, some will slip through the net, but not for long. — Realist² 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The lengths people will go to. — Realist² 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cabal™ Sees Everything… – iridescent 01:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have accepted it now. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 12:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

~*Bump*~

I keep bumping (smashing, more like) into you when I'm doing RC, lol. You are so speedy! You beat me almost all the time, hee hee. But I'm confuzzled... Are you not an admin? lol. Why report to AIV when you could take care of it quickly yourself? :) Ariel♥Gold 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

↑ Look up. – iridescent 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL I didn't read your entire talk page :p Sorry for asking what seems to get asked a lot. :D Ariel♥Gold 23:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly blame you for that. Looking at this talkpage you would not believe that it's auto-archived after 3 days... – iridescent 23:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Before my computer blew up, forcing me to be gone for months, my talk page was like that, as well. Hee hee. Ariel♥Gold 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We're, like, popular. Or respected. Or hated. Or something. – iridescent 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I think it is more like, we enjoy communicating! That sounds so much more diplomatic, do you not agree? Ariel♥Gold 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Stupid enough to reply" would probably be more accurate, looking at the quality of some of the posts on this page. – iridescent 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! WP:TLW? (j/k) <3 Ariel♥Gold 23:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, we never quite understood the spirit of DFTT... – iridescent 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(butting in) I think it is all the aesthetic colours which are relaxing, like those experiments where they paint all the prison walls pink and the prisoners are less violent...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. – iridescent 23:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey wow, that's a cool effect, maybe everyone at one of those long arbcom debates could choose a different flashing colour and you could follow the threads of particular editors better..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That is why I have that horrible color-clash sig - it lets me spot any post of mine while scrolling. – iridescent 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)>

Your sig doesn't clash, it matches very nicely :) I've always liked it, anyway. But I think if you use that flashing color on ArbCom debates, I'd get an even bigger headache than I already get on reading some of them, lol! Ariel♥Gold 23:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is specifically forbidden by WP:SIG. For what that's worth. All, together now, "that's a guideline not a policy"... – iridescent 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Forbidden in signatures, yes. Doesn't mean one couldn't emphasize certain words or phrases that way... ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 23:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

←I'm sure someone would have words of advice to offer if you tried. – iridescent 23:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You really think so? Probably the same people who hate when people put 10k graphical smileys on talk pages. ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 23:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely no-one would object to that? – iridescent 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ROFL Omg at that picture! Ariel♥Gold 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Where would we be without Commons? Now, go play the video clip on my userpage. Turn the volume up high. – iridescent 00:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of courtesy blinking. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page Chrysler LeBaron

The edit might have appeared to be nonconstructive, but I don't think it was. All topics on that talk page are old and I thought it'd be nice to clean things up a bit. Are talk pages never cleaned up? - Rderijcke (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No. You can move posts to an archive if the page is unusably long (look at the talkpages of high-traffic articles), but it's never acceptable to blank other users posts from any talkpage except your own, except in the case of blatant vandalism. – iridescent 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry! - Rderijcke (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Y'know, I'm not entirely sure how your talk page got onto my watchlist, but it must be one of the busiest! And it's certainly the most colorful! Mine is pretty plain and bland sadly, (no color or pictures) though my userpage is better... anyway, just thought I'd tell you that. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And apologies for making yet another pointless thread... -- how do you turn this on 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverts with Huggle

When you revert with huggle, it is important to make sure that your revert catches all of the vandalism. For example, Piracy, where you reverted only one of two instances of vandalism. A lot of editors would see your edit summary and assume that all of the vandalism was reverted. Plasticup ^T/C 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps I should make Huggle prompt for confirmation if asked to revert to a revision by an anonymous user in the same /16 range as the user being reverted -- Gurch (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No point taking feature creep to that extreme IMO. Huggle is for the reversion of immediate problems and identifying active vandal accounts and it does that fine. I don't think it's wildly violating WP:BEANS to say that the vandal edit/legit edit combination will fool any automated system. Besides, far more vandal edits are hidden in the "most recent edit is valid" problem by the date-delink and recategorization bots than will ever be hidden by Huggle.

How come everyone with a grudge against Huggle seems to wind up on this page, while your talkpage contains four threads? I'm hardly the most active user - or the most vocal critic/enthusiast - but for some reason no-one goes to the real 2000-edits-a-day hardcore users to vent. – iridescent 18:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that these two edits were almost certainly made by the same person, from an IP address dynamically assigned in the 138.162.x.x range, or from two machines on the same school/library/academic network – the sort of thing a human, even a careful one such as yourself, often fails to spot, or does not even know about, but is easy to detect and throw up an extra confirmation prompt. You're right about the problem with bots hiding problem edits; perhaps we should ask for bots that operate on articles to edit only when the last editor is an autoconfirmed user, and build up a list of pages it can't edit that the operator can check are free of vandalism before having the bot go over them. But that would be too much work for bot operators, I imagine -- Gurch (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Can't really call it WP:AN/I though, can we? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm sorry, I was obviously completely wrong. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

If it had a strict superlatives-only (biggest, first, fastest) or "must be interesting" policy I could see the point in it, but IMO it's frankly an embarrassment that the main page of the 8th biggest website in the world contains gems like "Did you know that the Rufous Songlark is an Australian songbird that sometimes ends up as roadkill?". – iridescent 22:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

September\October Metro

Simply south (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm replying to a bot again, but I assume posting here will get seen by, well, everyone; I think part of the reason the portal gets so little traffic is that it's so low-profile. We really need to make the links in the infoboxes more garish – if you look at Hammerton's Ferry for example (the same problem exists on every other LT page), the link to the portal is buried at the bottom of a TL;DR infobox, with a graphic that has nothing to do with said portal. I don't see why we can't at least use a red-and-blue link and an LT roundel, given that's it's possibly the most famous corporate identity in the world. – iridescent 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a bot, sorry. Maye if it is inserted in the project banner? See UKWs. Simply south (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Eek, you deliver all those by hand? (If you want to bottify it, Misza and Gurch (and probably Beta) are currently watching this page and could probably automate it for you should you want).

I'd be inclined to keep the portal link in the infobox, but make it far more garish. It might be worth making WP:LT point to the portal instead of the project page (as WP:TRAINS does currently), but that would lead to Howls Of Protest. – iridescent 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine delivering it as i am.

Would an imagelink do you think be good for this? I would disagree on redirecting the shortcut as that is the main one for the London Transport project, just like WP:TWP is the main one for Trains. Maybe altering your idea, it would be better if more linked for P:LT. Either of those.Simply south (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs more promoting, anyway - there's a lot of interest (potentially) in it, but at the moment it gets bypassed. – iridescent 21:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot reverts

Hi, Iridi (mind if I call you that?). By noticing the super fast lightning speed of your huggling, I guess that you may start to get lots of vandalism here soon. So is it alright if I add your talk page to User:ClueBot/Optin? If you feel satisfied enough, I guess you may add it yourself. SchfiftyThree 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Provisional yes, with one proviso (based on the fact that I don't know what it searches for); if it reverts blanking, that's fine, but I don't want it removing "fuck you you bastard" posts which don't mess up any other threads; I don't know about ClueBot but I've already doled out a number of WP:TROUTs to overzealous RC patrollers "removing uncivil comments" in the mistaken belief that they're being helpful. – iridescent 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot has been reverting deleted character amounts (page blanks, page replacements) for a while now, so if it would catch page blanks or page replacements on your userpage, it may go ahead in reverting, but the bad news is it hasn't reverted since 30 September... but it could return, though. SchfiftyThree 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it the more uncomfortable I am with ClueBot touching this page. This is one of the most watched talkpages on Wikipedia, so someone will no doubt spot any vandalism within minutes of it happening. – iridescent 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You suck bad. 190.58.216.50 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. – iridescent 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "You suck badly"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean dialect. (More glamourous than the usual "school in Burnley", I guess...) – iridescent 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Then shouldn't it be "Hey man, you suck really, really bad, know what I mean?" --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: The encyclopedia kids from around the world can vandalise. Eventually, the world will be united in a single global village, and The Kid in Africa will be equally able to write "poop" on randomly chosen articles. – iridescent 19:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana approacheth. I can see it on the horizon. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to put things in a little perspective: this talkpage has had 92k of posts in the last 3 days. I joined Wikipedia in January 2006 and reached 92k of posts on my talkpage in June 2007. Just saying. – iridescent 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

so... only you are allowed to undo vandalism? :P :lol: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.240.184 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The posts on this page get more baffling by the day. – iridescent 21:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that after i undid a vandalism i got a weird message that the page was reverted to the vandalized version... When i checked the page i saw that the vandalism was undone again... lol. or was that a bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.240.184 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent removed his/her warning right after it was left. Look at your talk page again. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, I get it - no, that was me thinking you were blanking a page and then realising that what you were blanking shouldn't have been there in the first place and restoring your version... – iridescent 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)