This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Any chance that you (or one of your talk-page stalkers) could look over the prose at Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford)? I've put it up for peer review here to see what comments I get about whether it's a potential FA, and given your skills with getting smaller articles to FA, you might be just the person. </crawl> Regards, and thanks for any help you can give. No rush. BencherliteTalk 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your tweaks of this article - any other thoughts before I take a deep breath and take a stab at FAC? Regards, BencherliteTalk 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Iridescent. It was submitted to WP:GAN on 13 March 2009 and I read it in full on Friday evening (27th March 2009). I noticed from my watch list earlier this evening, when I was intending to do the review, that you had undertaken five edits this afternoon. As you say these are the first changes since 1 March 2009. I have no objections at all to you editing the article; but I don't see why I should review an article that is in the middle of being changed. It was flaged up as being under review when you started copyediting it. The criteria are here: WP:Good article criteria, but I'm happy to accept that (lack of) stability is not due to content dispute and/or edit wars. Let me know when you have finished editing it and I will restart the GAN review. P.S. I was particularly interested in the article; and you have a link to SubBrit's webpage (1984 & 1997) visits. I was there on the 1984 one.Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to Durova for above-and-beyond work in cleaning the image up; this is exactly what the article needed to illustrate both the relative smallness of the tunnel and its post-closure condition. Thanks to you, of course, for providing the original image! – iridescent 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As requested, I will have a look at this shortly. --DavidCane (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, job done![2] --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on achieving featured article for your article - That's put Ramsgate on the map. Thanks again for your support for Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway; unfortunately it was not enough and its candidacy was closed without it being promoted. There weren't any major issues raised with the article so I will renominate it again in a while, and hopefully it will attract a bit more support. --DavidCane (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
← Incidentally, I don't know if you're only doing the deep-level tube lines but I noticed while doing Wandsworth Bridge that we don't even have a stub for Hammersmith and City Railway (it's just a redirect to Hammersmith and City line, which itself doesn't mention the predecessor line), which seems a really glaring omission. – iridescent 22:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Tunnel Railway. |
♠TomasBat 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is coming along, as is the article on Sony/ATV. We might finally get an FL on the Wikiproject. — R2 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL you ar eusing brown on your talk page. I'm not a fan of brown but I thought it was suitable for a wood color. I've changed it to navy blue if you think it clashes. Personally I though it was an earthy color which doesn't usually clash with green and blue. Benetton Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I remembered you from my previous RfA, where you had expressed some concerns and felt that you would be unable to support. I wondered if you could comment on my current editor review, as I feel it would be best to see if those who hadn't thought of me as highly of me five months ago now think I have improved. NuclearWarfare (Talk) (How am I doing?) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering whether you'd be interested in doing the May Metro? You know the newsletter is meant to be monthly but due to other commitments i have been unable to keep to this rota. I cannot do this month's (which is due now). For the sources that need checking, see Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/The Metropolitan/sources. If you need any help with the newsletter, just drop me a line. Simply south (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi - Regarding this comment[3] sorry to be the cause of the confusion. I removed my own comments in a huff. [4] after my (hasty and ill considered) attempt to delete some uncivil sniping at me were reverted.[5] So the comments you responded to were directed to me. I didn't go there to be attacked, and if that's the reaction I don't want to participate in that discussion. I'll make a note on the page to make that clear. Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Ten days and two relists after you nominated the above article at AfD, it looks like someone finally came along and massively improved it, adding lots of sources. Just thought you might want to have another look and see if your concerns are alleviated. Cheers ~ mazca t|c 11:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I rarely know what day it is let alone the month! :P --WebHamster 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Passed, yet again. Whatever time I spent on this - I want it back. First time I've seen that we agree to agree. Law type! snype? 10:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Irdicent has been renamed User:Anhamirak. Kingturtle (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In leaving this message, I couldn't help noticing the FYI immediately above. Interesting. There is a new editor who has been using a name very similar to mine and leaving spam on architecture articles. Amandajm (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Metropolitan | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
As Simply South is busy, I've stepped in for this one; this is my first time, so feel free to fix any mistakes or let me know of anything I've missed. – iridescent 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(Yes, I know I'm delivering this to my own talk page – this is for the benefit of those TPSs who read it) – iridescent 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to spread the news. No comment necessary. -- Noroton (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll no longer annoy you by splitting conversations. Simply south (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the phrase 'dating from' - this is often used, and it is understood in such usages that the date referred to is the date of completion, not of planning or design. The reason I changed the original wording was to eliminate the repetition of 'opened in'. I'm not wedded to 'dating from' but repeating 'opened in' sounds rather clumsy. An alternative, although inferior in my opinion, would be 'completed in' to replace one of the instances of 'opened in' Dubmill (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the article from The Times I mentioned in my GA review. --DavidCane (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Congrats. I have passed Wandsworth Bridge as a Good Article. Let me know if you want me to look at the next bridge article you do. Are you aiming for a good topic? Fancy doing a GA review of Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway which is sitting on the Transport list? --DavidCane (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
← I wish you luck with this article's FAC nomination, and I certainly won't be opposing, but I think you need to have mercy on those who aren't necessarily yet tube-nerds. Anyway, depending on how the FAC goes we can pick this discussion up again later, or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you've missed a few of my posts concerning my support for WR ! Replied at the above. :) Pedro : Chat 22:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask you and your talk page stalkers to do me a major favor? Ælfheah of Canterbury, one of mine, just went up on the main page for today, and I'm utterly and totally exhausted from the foaling last night (see my talk page for a link to baby foal pictures!). If folks could keep an eye on it for obvious vandalism, it'd be great. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Iridescent. I was wondering why you made this revert for the reason you gave. If that is the case, then what purpose does the link at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry serve? Based on the reason you gave, that link at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry should also be removed. -- IRP ☎ 13:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that rule and I usually don't do that. I took an exception, but I won't do something like that again. I plan to remove my comment. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I accept that my recent activity was inappropiate and I will take a short break from vandalism patrolling to cool off from my actions. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The edit I issued the final warning for was this removal from User:Sky Attacker's talk page. I use manual warnings, so I don't get to add links to them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Iridescent, I hope all is going well for you. I noticed a couple of your posts recently, and thought I might like to expand on a couple of my own recent posts. This is basically regarding some of the RfA !votes I've made which included the phrase "by default". While I don't know if there is an actual policy which says support for an RfA should be the default (though I'd think not), I have seen it mentioned in several threads in the past - but that's not really where I'm heading with this. I noticed you actually opposed a candidate recently to "cancel out some of the inane 'support as default'". (very poor reason to oppose a candidate I would think - but given the numbers at the time, I can understand the rationale). I believe that at the time you posted that, there were only 2 "supports" with mention of default - so I figure it's a 50/50 shot that it may be aimed at me. Either way, I'd like to expand on my "default" comment. I approach each RfA with the hopes of supporting an editor, if nothing else, as an extension of AGF. At times, I do admit that I don't vet the candidate with a couple hours of research into edit history that I should, but I do look at the basics: oppose reasons, tenure, edits, block logs, etc. If I don't see anything that would persuade me that the editor would mis-use the tools, I default to support. BUT, there is even more to it than that. Having a background in real life as a network administrator, as well as multiple tours in chat rooms, forums, bulletin boards, etc. as a mod or admin., I tend to trust a person when they request another level of access. (at least until they prove to me that it was a mistake to trust them). Having to administrate a mid-sized LAN with over 250 users, 150 workstations, and 6 servers (as well as a few smaller networks) - I did find that the more work others were willing to do (responsibly of course), the less time I was required to spend doing often tedious and mundane chores; thus, I could spend more time doing other more productive tasks. That is why I will support an RfA candidate by default. I know "wiki-world" is not real life, but I find comparisons useful at times.
Iridescent, I know you're a high-profile, prolific, and respected editor here - so I'm open to any counter-points you'd care to share. I noticed you mentioned the "status-quo" at one point, and I'd be interested in you thoughts on that. I do realize that once an editor has obtained the "bit", it can be difficult to remove it from a disruptive or even rouge admin. Perhaps there's something in that which I'm not thinking all the way through as well. As long as I don't get "the cat treatment" (your user page) - I'm always up to getting some insight from another editor, especially when they've got a great deal more wiki-experience than I do. Sometimes I can be inquisitive to a fault I guess ... lol ;) — Ched : ? 05:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, on a side note, if you'll have a glance at this you'll notice that I don't blindly support with blanket !votes. Just in case it was a concern. — Ched : ? 06:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Not promising. Looks like it wants a block. Enigmamsg 08:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Gender question resolved, no? لennavecia 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
On a small private company owned Wiki, we're wanting to set up some sort of keyword imbedded in the page that allows more robust searching. Does anyone know how to work that with the wikimedia software? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Iridescent, thanks for restoring my userspace pages. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Iridescent. Do you have any idea why this message was posted to me? Actually, I'm a bit surprised, as I can't remember having edited something with regards to this topic ever. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Another FA for a Thames bridge. If there are 33 in London, how many until you get a Featured Topic for those articles (33% FA minimum, the rest GA)? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
Hi, sorry for the late reply: I've been reconsidering the Category:Animals who attempted suicide with regard to Bubbles, and I essentially concur w/ what you wrote. I've posted on my talk page as requested, but just wanted to let you know because I've been slow as heck. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to artists THEMSELVES, I was referring to articles about the artists. Sorry, my New York english may have caused some confusion. ^^' CarpetCrawlermessage me 20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Legal threat here. I'm not noted for my ability to handle these sorts of things without biting... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
anyone feel free to remedy that by posting hawt pix. just sayin'. Gurch (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I did spot your comment on the Vauxhall Bridge FAC. I wasn't objecting to anything, just thought there might be some extra info that might not be in your sources. As you say they were ahead of their time and would have been very happy to see the glass curtain walling being used in office buildings and even apartment blocks being built these days. I assume the closure means that it was a promotion as it is certainly covers the subject well. Congrats.
You must have been reading my mind on the FAC for GNP&BR as I was just wondering where to put some posts in to attract attention to the article. Both the Trains and UK Railway Projects seem to be dry wells in this respect but I'm heading over to WT:FAC right now. Fingers are crossed. I've got a GAC in the architectural section for Charles Holden's Senate House and am also almost ready to put Charles Pearson up for GAC. --DavidCane (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to ask you again but your the first admin i think of. Could you delete all of April from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 1, 2009 to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 30, 2009 per G6? Simply south (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The images are okay; I only had to perform some minor maintenance.
However, I am slightly concerned for File:Johnspencer.jpg. Worldroots does not allow archiving and its site is down. There is no way to verify that the portrait is what it claims to be. I found Amanda Foreman's site. She is supposedly the "best" biographer for Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, so she probably knows her identitification of the Spencers; others, however, might not agree (credentials of Foreman? primary source?). I was unable to find books that provide visual authentication of the portrait. There are a few that states Gainsborough did indeed paint a portrait of the 1st Earl Spencer, but no "here is the picture". Maybe you would have better luck. Jappalang (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The Metropolitan | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I've decided to fill in the empty job vacancy for the Metro for this month, feel free to correct any mistakes or add any missing information. Cheers! Crest of London (T|C|A) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be able to help out this fellow if you get a chance? I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Thanks, Majorly talk 01:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This might interest you, since I know you like the older music more. :) — R2 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Long time no speak - how are ya doing?
Anyway, i'm wanting to get active here again and would like to jump straight in at the deep-end. I really want to get a GA or FA before too long, as well as get content building, and involved with WikiProjects again! I also want to help out with more mundane jobs too ;).
So, my main point: can you point me in the direction of anything, do you need any help etc? I want to (re-?)establish myself as a good editor here, and you've been great in the past so was hoping you could help again :).
Regards,
BG7even 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I have nominated Scream/Childhood for peer review. I would like to send it to FAC over the summer. Any assistance is appreciated. — R2 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Jappalang just gave me some advise with the fair use material, I should be OK if I follow his pointers, but the bottom image of the "Childhood" music video will have to go. Would you mind deleting it as a fair use image not used in any article, if I go and remove it now? — R2 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
good posting it here\ and I'm sorry I never looked at it like I was supposed to. StarM 02:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that reverting the recent change didn't fix the bug? Note that, because of caching, you often have to change the page that calls the template, or otherwise purge the cache somehow (I'm no expert here); merely changing a template won't immediately change every page that uses the template. I'm asking because reverting the recent change did fix the bug in the sandbox, and it'd be very strange if it didn't fix the bug in the actual template. Eubulides (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Ordish–Lefeuvre Principle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be a Bridge person. I just nominated an interesting Bridge at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you an architect\geologist? Do you know who or where i can find one or anyone who has knowledge on the subject? I just need someone to sort the links on the Dollis Viaduct. I asked you seeing as you seem to be doing all about bridges. Simply south (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually going back to Dollis Viaduct, could i ask for and independent review? Knowing myself, i tend to start off good and then move onto something else. Simply south (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
← I do, far too many, and this doesn't help: "The name is thought to have mean ...". Iridescent will probably disagree with me again, but I think it's important to at least try to give your prose a bit of va-va-voom when writing this kind of article. As an example, I've rewritten the first two sentences of the Length, span and architecture section. Wouldn't you agree that's a significant improvement? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec, re to SS, and I note I disagree with Malleus – go with M not me on things like this) Not at FA level, but I'd imagine it would be sufficient for other purposes. Fansites are a definite no, and promotional material if it's for anything controversial (it's fine for opening dates and such, though). Middleton Press may well have published something that gives the exact dates. – iridescent 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I have a baleful stare? (Boy, wish it worked better on the teenager...) And I agree, Subbrit isn't going to cut it, I think I recall that with Tunnel Railway it was moved to the ELs precisely because it couldn't be shown reliable (I may be wrong, too lazy to check) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask a favour? Would you please remove my rollback flag? I'm disgusted at the way some administrators use its removal or threat of removal as a childish punishment, and I can't remember the last time I used it anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. User:Kbthompson suggested you would be a good perosn to ask. Would you like to have a look at Newington Green Unitarian Church? It is the first substantial article I've written. Many thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
<unindent> Thank you for all these suggestions. I have just spent an hour reading through the articles mentioned, of other buildings/insitutions. I will contact some of the editors suggested, too. And I'll put a link to this discussion on the article talk page, to help me keep track of it. As for "how does this affect people", I think there are a fair number of citations for how the church did affect people, up until WWII, when my sources of info peter out. Its usage has varied a lot over time, e.g. with social outreach in late Victorian & early C20. Current notable members is one lead to follow: I wonder how I'd find out what is public and fair game, and what is private. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Quit spreading lies that I give good copy edits. Lies! --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Replied on the talkpage so others can see my comments and add to them/argue with them as necessary. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this one. – iridescent 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Vauxhall_Bridge#Misleadingly_precise_currency_conversions Tony (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on that rarest of things, an actually interesting DYK hook. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, Iridescent. Just wondering whether you are interested in contributing to the FA review for the above article, as you did a good job of finding prose issues with the Leader class. Any assistance you can give in improving this article further will be of invaluable help to me and the other editors of this article. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the article, and you put across the argument regarding the difficulties of writing an engineering topic better that I could. The livery section is not ideal, but it never will be unless someone takes the time to take photos of various aspects of this. Maunsell grey is pretty much just that, a grey livery. The only reason a designer attaches his name to it is to differentiate from previous liveries- its a way of creating an extra chronology for the paintwork!. Once again, thank you. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
How would you go about making an annotated colour chart on wikipedia? I think its a good idea, but the creation of such a table is beyond my capabilities at the present. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I am so sorry. I was chcking the archive for something else and misread the first wikilink as the bold wikilink, and figured someone hadn't deleted when prepping the queue. Won't do that again! Have restored it to talk page and it will find its way to DYK. apologies once again. hamiltonstone (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for nominating me for this Irid, your continued faith in my abilities is much appreciated. However, I have decided to decline at this stage. — R2 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Since it was your idea originally, I thought I'd let you know that I'm currently working on a draft here. Feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, could you please comment here and watchlist the article for a few weeks. Cheers. — R2 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey I didnt do anything to Harry Potter go away please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.201.186 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That message was posted back in October 2008.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I know. I was talking to the IP.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You are still a racist piece of scum. And you're probably not a woman but a dirty old man who gets his kicks pretending to be a girl so you can hassle everyone younger then you. Well stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.27.39 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No-one ever sent me any ascii art :(
Extended content |
---|
The following content has been placed in a collapsed box for improved usability. |
QQQQQQQ QQXXX*QQQ QQQQ QXXXXXX**QQQQXXX**Q QQQQQQQQ X*$$$$$$*XXXXXXXXXXQQQQQ..QQQQQQQ $$******$$****XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*QXXQ $********X$X**XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX**QXXQ ***$$$$$$$$$**XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX**QXXQ **$**XQQXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*QXXQ *$XX*QMMMQQ$QXXXXQQQQ$$$QQQQ*XXXQXXQ $XXXQ***/////***Q*XXXXXXXXXX*QQ*XXXXQ XXXXXXXXX$.$XXQ***///,,///***'QQ$$QQQ $XXQ$***////,,,,,....**..*QXXXXXXXXXXQ $XXXQQ***//,,,,.*Q$*'''* //*QXXXXXXXQ *XXXX$Q**//,,L ;$Q .../*QXXXXXX*XQ XXXXXQ***/,... *$ .*QQQQ$ .*QXXXX$QXXQ XXXXQ *. . .Q$Q $'' .*QQXXX$*XQQ XXXX$Q$$$Q., ,Q $Q' ./**QQ$XX**XQQ XXX$ .,.,.. 1 .. .,/**QXQX***X$ XXQ . *Q$''Q.. ,,... .,/QQX***XQ X$ *'Q$$* ... .,Q, ../QXQ***XQ * *Q*QQ' ,,. $Q 1. *XQ**XQ $Q **//,,.. * Q$ *... *QXX*XX QXX ***//,. *,Q .. ..* *QXX*X *QX$ XQ**/, . .*Q$$*** .,$XXXX* QXX*' XX'*&&&// . *Q$$Q*Q$$* .,*/QXXXXQ QXXXX*Q XXXXQ&&&&/, ., Q$Q**Q$$Q*,.. &Q&&$XXXXXXXXXXQXQ XXXXX$&&&&// ..Q*$$$Q*',. &Q&&&QXXXXXXXXXQXX$ XXXXXX'Q&&&&//,. .,. //*'&&/&$XXX*Q*XXXXQ XXXXXXXXQ&&&//,,L .. ,//Q*&&//&QXMMM$$QQ*- Q$*XXXXXX$&&///,,...... .//*$&&///&&$X///////M$$$QQQQ***-. QXXXWXXXXXX$&//,,..,,///Q$'&&&//,//&QXM***&&&///,,*1/,.../1$Q* XXXXXXXQXXXXX$QQ*-**Q$/'&&&&&//,,,/&QXQM**&&&,../DP/,.. ,PQ* XXXXXXXQXXXXXXX$&&/,,//////&&//,,,/&&$XQM*&&&,.&PD&/,. '$Q XXXXXXQ$XXXXXXXXQ&///,..,//&&&//,,,/&&Q**Q$MM//QD&/,. '$Q PQXQXXXXXXXXXXXXXX$&///,.,/&Q..,,,///&&&M*&&//,DD&/,.. ..$ $1QXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX'Q&///,.,/Q...,,,//&&&///Q',OO&/,... .,,8 &&&&QXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXQ&///',/&Q...,,,//&&Q$..//PO&/,..... ..,///PQ DDDDQQXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*Q$&&///&&Q...,,,&Q$..,,//QDQ&&&///,,... ..,///&&&&&3Q DDDD$ 1QXXXXXXXXXXXQ$&&&Q&&//.&Q$../&Q...,/////*O3MN&&&&////,,......,,//&&33Q DDP$ '**QQ$QX*Q$&&//&&$Q&//.&Q..*Q.,/////JJJN*$PMMMN&&&&&///,,,,///&&&&&33$ &&Q$ Q$&&///,//&&*Q&/&$...$..,,,///JJNNNQ$QMMMN&&&&&&////,,..,,//&&&3 &&Q $&&///,,L,///&&Q&&//..&&/////&&&NNNMMMQ$QMMMMNN&&&&&&/////,,.../&& DQ *Q&&&///M/.,,///&&Q&&///,,,/&&&&&&&&&&*&Q$$*MMMMMNNN&&&&&&////,,.../ Q Q*&&&&//NMN&&,///&&$&&//,,,//&&&&&&&&&&***JDD//PPJMMMNN&&&///,,..&&&& Q Q*&&&&//NMMN&&&&&&&QNNM&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&JFAAF//AA&&&&&&&AAA///,,,../ Q*JJNNMAQXXXXJMM&&&&&//////&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&//////JXXXXXJ&&&////,,,,. Q*JJNNMMQXQXJ&MMM&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&///////&&/////&&&&&&/////,,,....,,,////, Q*///JJMMQQMMNN&////&&&//////////&&&&&&&&&&/////***QQ$Q**&&&&&&&&&/////,, Q*//NNNMMMM&*QQMNNN///&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&/////////*****Q*&&&&&&&&&&/////, Q*/////NNNMMM**QMNN///&&&&&&*********&&&&&&&/////////&&**$$Q*&&&&&&&&&&////, Q$&&&&///,,,,,,//QMMN,,,,//&&&&&&&&&&&//////,,,,,...,,/&&NMMMX*Q&&&///&/,,,,,, $*&&&&&///,,,//&&$MMNN,,,///&&&NMM&&&&////,,,,,,....,/*&NNMMNNNNQZ&&////&&/,,, &&&&&///,,//&&&&&$MMN,,,,////&NMMN&&&////,.. .,/&&&ND&&&&&///Q&&&////&&&// &&&&&//,,//&&&&&&X$QN/,,,,///&NMMN&&//... .,,/&&&&&//////&1Q&&&////&&& &&&//,,,//&&&&&&&NX$N&/,,,,,//NMN&&&//.. .,,&&&////////&&1Q&&&////&& &&//,,//&&&&&&&&NXX$N/,,,///&&N$Q&/,,. ..,,//////&&///&&&2Q&&&//// //,,//&&&&&&&&NXXXQQ&/,,,///&&&Q/,,. . ..,,////&&///&&&&X1Q&&&/// /,,//&&&&&&&&&NXQ $&/,,...//&&&Q/,., .,. ..,,///&&&&///&&&&XXXQ*&&/ ,//&&&&&&&&&NXQ Q/,,. /&&&$/,..*QMQ,. ..,,///&&Q&&//&&&XX$Q&&&/// //&&&&&&&&&&Q 1Q,. /&&M/,.$....Q.. ..,,//&&Q&&//,,,&&&&7X$ Q& /&&&&&&&&&Q $.. .//&M/.Q......Q.. ..,,//&&*&&//,,,,/&&&XXQ &&&&&&&&Q Q,. .,/&&$/,$.1$...$.. ...,,///&&Q&&///,,,,/&&&XQ &&&&&&Q **. ..,/&Q/,Q.($...Q.. ...,//////&&$&////,,,,,/&&&$ &&&&Q Q.$. ..,,*&*//,Q....Q,,...,,,,//&&&&&KQ&&//,.,,,//&&&Q &&Q' )$..Q. ...,,,&*&*///$.*$'..,,,,,///&&&&KK$&&///..,,,///&8Q Q )$..$....,,,,,&&&**&&Q*/////,,,,////&&&&&KKKQ&&&//,....,,,//H* Q,,Q...,,,//&&&-KQ&&&$&&&/////&&&&&&KKKKKK$&&&&//,....,,,/&H* $,Q,&/,,.,,/&&KQ$&&&&$K*&&&&&&&&&KKKKKKQ$&&&&//,.....,,,/&* '$/&&&//&&&KQ$&&///&&$KKKKKKKKKKKKKQ$'&&&&//,.....,,,//&4* Q&&&&/&&&KQ$&&/,,//&&*$$QQ$$QQ$$*&&&&&&&&//,,.....,,//&4 *$KKK&KQ$&&//,,,//&&&&&HQ$Q*&&&&&&&&&///,,......,//&$ '*Q$Q'Q&//,,...,/&&&&NNMMMNN&&&&&&///,,,......,,/&Q Q&//,,.....,&&&&&NMN&&&&&&////,,,.......,,/&$ Q//,,.......////'&&&'///////,,,.........,,,/Q $/,.,/,.........,,,,.................,,,//1$ Q&//.,,/,......,,,,,,,............,,,,,////. *&&/.,,/,..........,,,............,,,,,///$ QQ&&&////,,....................,,,,,,,,///Q Q&Q&&&&----//,,,,,,,,,...........,,,,,/////Q $&Q&&&&&&----///,,,,,,,,,,.......,,,,,,,//*/$ Q&&//&&&&&&&&&-----&-/////,,,,,..,,,,,,/////Q/. *$Q&&///&&&&&&&&&&&&&&-----/////,,,,,,,////////QQ $Q&&&//////&&&&&&&&&&-----///////,,,////////////$ Q&Q&&&//,,/////&&&&&-//////---//////////&&//,,////Q $//&&&////*//////,,,,,///////////////-&&&*//,,,///& Q//&&&/,,Q$$Q..........,,//////,,,.,,,&&&///,,,////&3 $/.&&&/,,QQQ...........,,,,////,,,,/&&&&///,,.,,////3* */..&&/,,.//&*...............,,,,,///&&&&//,,,..,,///HQ. Q/..Q&//,.,//.................,,,,//&&&&//,,,....,,//Q$I .$/.Q&&//..,,/.................,,,//&&&&//,,,......,,//I* .Q//..$&&//..,/................,,///&&&&J//,,.......,,///Q QQ/...&&///.,,................,,//&&&&&///,,.......,,///$I $.Q&..$&&&///.,...............,,//&&&&&////,,,......,,,///* .Q.$&..Q8&&////,...............,/&&&&&&&///,,,.......,,,///QI QQ..&Q..$L&&/////..............,&&&&&&&////,,,.......,,,///$) *$*,&,..QLL&&//////,,,....,,,///&&&&&&&&////,,,.....,,,,///1*) 1/Q,&,..QLLL&&//////,,..,,,///&&&LLL&&&////,,,......,,,,////Q) .Q-Q,/&L&&*LLLL&&,///////////&&&LLLLL&&&///,,,......,,,,/////$$ *$//Q/&&**LLLLL&&&&&,,,,,//&&&LLLLLLL&&&///,,,......,,,,/////$1 1// 0Q&&LLLLLLLLL&&&&&&&&&&LLLLLLLLLL&&&///,,,,,...,,,,,//////* *1// /$&LL33&&LLLLL3&LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL&&&///,,,,,,....,,,,////&Q .Q // Q&LL&33&//LL33LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL&&&&////,,,,,...,,,/////&8 ($ // Q6&333&LL3333LLLLLLLLLL33LLLLL&&&&/////,,,,,..,,/////**$ 2Q // Q&&333333333333LL33333333LLL&&&&&&/////,,,,,,,,////**&$ M/ /// Q&K33333333333333333333L,L&&&&&&/////////,,,,,/////&&& P// /// Q&Q33333333333333333333L,&&&&&&///////////,,//////&&& $// //// QK333333333333333333,L&&&&&&&////////////,,//////&&Q M// //// $K333333333333333,$&&,,&&&&////////,,/////&&&&&&&,Q I// ///// $KK33333333KK333Q,,&&&&&&&&&&&&&////////////&&&&&Q$* I// ///// QKKK3333KKKKKKQQQ&&&&&&&&&//////////&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Q IN/ ,//// ,*$KKKKKKKKKKKK3QQ'&&&&&&&&&/////////&&&&&&&&&&&&&$ *J/ ,///&&Q$KKKKKK$$$$$Q &&&&&&&&&////,,,,,/,,/////&&&&&Q$' '$/, ,//&&&$$KKKKK$$$$ &&&&&&///,,,..,,////////&&&&&&&$1' Q/, ,,/&L^Q$$KK$$Q/ /&&&&&//,,,,.....,,,,/////&&&&&&$Q) */,. ,/&&LQ$$$$$$Q /&&&&&///,,,,.....,,,,////&&&&&&&$' *M/, /&&&LQQ$$$Q /&&&&///,,,.......,,,,,///&&&&&&QQ) '$/, /&&&LQ$$Q /&&&&,,,... .....,,,,,//&&&&&&&$Q Q/,. ./&&&LLLQ$ ,&&&&,,... .....,,,,,//&&&&&&&&QQ *M/, ,/&&&LLL$ /&&&,,... .....,,,///&&&&&&&$1) ,$/, ,/&&&&LLQ/ /&&,,.... .....,,,///&&&&&&&&$' Q/,. /&&&&LL$&/&&&,,,.... .....,,///&&&&&&&Q/ */,, ,/&&&LLQ&/&&&&&,,,.... ....,,,////&&&&&&&* *$/,. ./&&&&L$&/&&&&,,... ....,,,////&&&&&&&&* Q/. .,&&&&&*&/&&&&,,... .....,,,////&&&&&&&&$' *$/. .,/&&&&Q&&&&&&/,,,.. .....,,,////&&&&&&&&&@ 'Q/,. /&&&&&$&&&&&///,,,,....,,,,////&&&&&&&&&Q ''$/,..,/&&&*M&&&&////,,,,,....,,,,////&&&&&&&$* Q/,,.,/&XX*&&&&////,,,,,.....,,,////&&&&&&&*'/ 'Q//,,/&&XQ&&&////,,,......,,,,////&&&&&&&$Q '$//,/&&X$&&/////,,......,,,,//////&&&&&&Q Q&//&&X*&&////,,,......,,,,,///////&&&&Q '$&//&*Q&////,,,......,,,,,,,//////&&&$/ Q//&XX$&///,,,,......,,,,,,//////&&&$' Q/&XXQ&//,,,.......,,,,//////&&&&&Q $&XQ&//,,,.....,,,,,//////&&&&&&Q' QX*'&/,,.....,,,,,/////&&&&&&&&$/ $*Q&/,,......,,,,,/////&&&&&&&&Q 'Q$&&&.......,,,,,/////&&&&&&&&Q* .Q$&&&.......,,,,,/////&&&&&&&&QMQ. QQ*&,.......,,,,////&&&&&&&&&&$MN$) 'Q$&&,......,,,,////&&&&&&&&&&QMN//Q Q$&&&,.......,,,/////&&&&&&&&QMN&//$. $$&&,........,,,////&&&&&&&&QMNN&///Q '$&&&,......,,,,/////&&&&&&&&MNN&////$ *$&&,.&/,...,,,,/////&&&&&&&QMMN&////$. .$&,..&&/...//,,/////&&&&&&&$MNN&//////Q .$&,..&&/..00,,/////&&&&&&*$MNNN&//////$. $&,.,//&&/....,,,//&&&&&&&$MNNN&///////,Q .Q&..///&&&/....,,,&&&&&&&&QMMNN&&/////,,$. (Q&.../&X/....,,,,/&&&&&&$MMNN&N&///////,,$. ($&../&&X/....,,,/&&&&&&&$MNNNN&&//////,,,,$. '$&./&&XXX...,,,/&&&&*&&$MMNNNN&&/////,,,,..$ *Q&./&&X/...,,,/&&&&&*&$MMNNNN&&/////,,,,,..'Q Q$&../&&/....,,,/&&&&*&QMNNNNN&&//////,,,,,..$' Q&.,,,//,,...,,/&&&&&&$MMNNNNN&&///////,,,,,..Q$ $&.,,///,,,..,,,/&&&&&QMMNNNNN&&////////,,,,,,..$ Q,,&///,,,,,.,,//&&&&&*QMMNNNN&&////////,,,,,,,..Q. Q,,,&///,,,,,.,,//&&&&$ Q*MNNN&&/////////,,,,,,,..'Q $,,,&///,,,,,.,,//&&&&* 'QMNN&&//////////,,,,,,,...Q $,,,,&///,,,,,.,,/&&&&$ 8&&&&&//////////,,,,,,,...'Q $&&,,,,,//,,,,/////&&&* QM&&&&//////////,,,,,,,...$Q. '$&&,,,,,//,,,,/////&&$ *&&&&&//////////,,,,,,,...$.Q Q&&,,,,,//.,,,,/////&&Q Q&&&&&&/////////,,,,,,,..... $&&//,,,,.,,,,,////&&&Q Q&&&&&//////////,,,,,,,,... $&&&///,,,,///////&&&&Q Q$&&&&//////////,,,,,,,,,. 'Q&&&,///,,,,,////&&&&&Q Q&&&&&/////////,,,,,,,,,. Q&&,.,///,,,//,,///&&&*Q 'Q&&&&/////////,,,,,,,,, $&,. ,,/////,,.,,//&&&&Q Q&&&&////////,,,,,,,,, $Q,. ',,////,,. ',,//&&&$ $&&&&///////,,,,,,,,, Q,. ',,,////,. ,,//&&'Q Q*&&&//////,,,,,,,,.. .$,.. ,,,///,. ',,//&&Q $&&&&//////,,,,,,.. *$,.. ',,,///,. ,,//&$' Q&&&////////,,.... Q,,.. ',,////,. ',,//&Q. '$&&//////,,,..., '$,,.. ,,,////,. ,,//$*. Q&&//////,,...,, *$,,. ,,,////,. ',,/&*Q '$&/////...,,,, Q,,.. ',,,///,, '//&$*, $&/////..,,,,/ '$,,.. ,,,,///,. //&&$Q $/////.,,,,// Q,,.. ,,,,,///. '/&&&$*. $////.,,,,,/ '$,,..,,,,,,///, //&&*Q $///,,,,,// *$,,. ,,,,,///,. '/&&$*. $//.,,,,// 'Q,,. ,,,,,///,., /&&&$' $/..,,,,/ '$.. ',,,,///,.. /&&&$* 'Q...,,,, 1.., ,,,,////,,...&&&&$* $...,,,, '$., ',,,/////,,..,&&$^* Q...,,, Q.,, ,,,,/////,,,..&&$1 .Q...,, $Q., ',,/////,,,..&&&$* Q...,, 'Q,,.,,,/////,,,.&&&&Q$ 8..,, Q,,. ,,,/////////,&&QQ '.,,, 'Q,,. ,,,///////,/&&1, $.,, '$,,. ,,,,/////,/&&11$ $., 'Q,,. ,,,,,////,&&&1$Q 'Q. '$,,.',,,,////&/&&$$* Q. Q,,,,.,,,,,////&&&QQ '$ '*,,.',,,,////&&&C$* $ Q,,,.,,,,,///,/&C11 ' 'Q,,,,,,,,///,/&D$' $,,,,,////,,,/&DM. @,,,,,,////,,/&D$1 'Q,,,,,////,,/&D$) Q,,,/////,,,,&DQ' '$,,////,,,,,&D$' Q,,,,///,,,,,&DQ /Q 'Q,,,//,,,,,,&D$. Q.. $,,,//,,,,,,&DDQ Q,,, 'Q,,///,,,,,,&D$* Q..,, 'Q,,,///,,,,,,&DQ. .$..,, Q,,,,///,,,,,KD&$. Q$..,,,, 'Q,,,////,,,,KD/&&Q *&&,,,/// $,,,/////KKD&///'&$.Q&&&.....,/ 'Q,,,//////&&&///&&&Q//,,,,,/// 'Q,,,,///////////&&&&$&&&&&&&&& '*,,,,///////////&&&$QQ$**$QQ* 1,,,,///////////&&&&1 A$,,,&&/////////&&&$ Q&&&//////////&&&&Q A&&//////////&&&&Q* $&///////////&&&$' *&///////////&&&Q |
The above content has been placed in a collapsed box for improved usability. |
– iridescent 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't racism bigotry against marathon runners? I get so confused in these politically correct times. --WebHamster 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on Albert Bridge. Congrats. Risker (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't go deleting egg and chips - where else would we find out interesting factoids like it being John Lennon's favourite food, which his Aunt Mimi prepared for him with a cup of tea? Majorly talk 22:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As I keep saying to anyone who'll listen, engineering/transport/architecture articles by definition have to include a lot of boring technical material and facts-&-figures, but it's possible to hide the fact that the material is dull. To cut-and-paste a reply I gave at Talk:Newington Green Unitarian Church last week on a similar situation, compare these two wordings:
They both say exactly the same thing – "the bridge was authorised, but building was delayed because the waterworks took a long time to move" – but the latter puts the issue into a broader context as to just why these things were happening when and where they did, and makes it (marginally) more likely that readers are going to care. While I disagree with Giano on a lot, one thing I think he's absolutely right on (even though he doesn't stick to it outside of mainspace) is, always write everything as if you're addressing a reasonably bright 14-year-old with no previous knowledge of the subject. Thus, throw in fluff about sex and violence, and any curious factoid trivia, if you can possibly find any; we're not writing technical manuals here, and you want readers to think "hey, that's not as boring as it sounds". Google news archive is almost always a goldmine for this kind of "background noise" material – in particular, look for the words "strike", "crash", "murder", "love", "film" and "disaster". – iridescent 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sex, various food items, parrots, a railway station and a church have to do with a great bridge that was structurally unsound... Simply south (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations for getting Richmond Bridge on the main page. Good luck on keeping the vandalism at bay. :) --DavidCane (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Despite my best efforts to explain what a tontine is, it seems 1⁄3 of the readers didn't believe me. – iridescent 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Iridescent, as you're a clever chap who uses the IoE website, can you help me with this? In entries such as this, this and this, what does the "1485" refer to? It's not the date of the building - is it a register number of some description? Any suggestions gratefully received. Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I apologize to you Iridescent for offending you. You are right .. I was wrong. I did not realize that the wording I used could be considered to be abrupt and offensive, and I am truly sorry. I apologize for my "American arrogance", and for my uncalled for familiarity. I will do my best to improve your views of me by working hard to improve, and reduce my own ignorance. Sincerely Charles H. Davis — Ched : ? 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
the result of this debate for me. Would I be right in saying everyone agrees to the parameter idea? — Please comment R2 14:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, thank you. It does look like a good map to use, and I'd be interested in seeing the Rocque 1746 map too, if it's no trouble. Much appreciated. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You'll be getting charged rental on the main page soon. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 11:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the US FAC. You wrote:"but there just seem to be too many "well, everyone known that" assumptions such as "Superman, the quintessential comic book superhero, has become an American icon" (again, unreferenced and not mentioned in any of the linked subarticles)"
I hope to have resolved the issue about the Superman statement with a suitable ref. Can you give me a couple more examples of such 'assumptions' without references? GeometryGirl (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That list is impressive idirescent! Especially for a 'skim through'. The following is to help me keep track of progress: GeometryGirl (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I made this same kind of comment just a little prior, and I got Lar insinuating that I was a troll for it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting image....--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Expanding abbreviations can be helpful. WP:OWN → Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Let's dispel this myth that that policy applies outside the article namespace, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I knew I would find a discussion about me somewhere. MZ, I clicked your link, but IMO I don't think it applies in this case. The link says that a user may remove anything they want from their talk page (except warnings/blocks), and also per Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments (it's an essay however). Jimbo said he didn't want the letter on his talk page and that he didn't want to be involved in the discussion. Larry and a few others kept readding it, even after we (User:DavidShankbone, me, and maybe a few others [my memory isn't that good]) asked them to stop per Jimbo's comments. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, when I try to insert this on my user page it completely messes everything up. Any idea how to fix this? — Please comment R2 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please watch... — Please comment R2 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if/when you'll see this, but can I advise not touching the article for a couple of days. Let the vandals and cranks have their say, and let someone else do the reverting. In a couple of days when it's clearer what exactly has happened, then go back and clean up whatever they've left behind. Enough eyes are on the article, and trying to keep it clean by yourself will just wear you out. Giano's advice regarding articles on the main page applies just as much here; once the vandals and the reverters are through, the article will end up more or less back where it started, whoever does the actual editing. – iridescent 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Why have you made your userpage black? Simply south (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Your threat to block me is IMO incredibly inappropriate and uncivil. Details are on my talk page. Shiggity (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote, CSD isn't shoot-till-you-win. The problem is that when I re-tagged the article, it was under a different criterion than the one you declined. But I will go to AfD. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Andy Bathgate is an old ice hockey player. His son is also an ice hockey player, and they have the same name. The article was created as Andy Bathgate (b. 1991). I moved it to Andy Bathgate (hockey player), as I believe that's the standard. The article was then moved to Andy Bathgate (ice hockey b. 1991) and the previous redirected to the father.
Okay, so the current title, which includes (ice hockey b. 1991) seems wrong. Considering they have the same name and same profession, how should this be disambiguated? I ask you because you know everything. لennavecia 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I am writing an essay to post in the Wikipedia namespace here. There are two things I would like to know before I keep going:
-- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:PAIC, "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space." Tom B (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Iridescent. I wanted to stop by and say thank you! I'll do my best not to drift off into a "but I (any one of numerous self-justification/rationalization excuses here)" threads. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to help me get up to speed on this topic. I can see clearly now that there were many items that I was completely unaware of. There are a ton of things I completely agree with you on, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain so many various items to me. Even if I don't always agree with someone on a topic, I still want to hear all sides of it. It's the only way I feel I can develop an informed opinion. Without a doubt, there were numerous items, threads, links, and issues that I was completely unaware of, and I appreciate you helping me "get a clue". Aside from the "destroy" items that became so prevalent throughout the Peter threads, I also found numerous "user names" and this redirect which certainly raised red flags in my thought process. I can see that this is a much more complex topic than I originally thought. As a single parent who raised a daughter on his own, and a strong supporter of animal rights, I can certainly see a great deal of value now to Peters efforts here. I do have to say that if he could perhaps be a bit more subtle in his approach, it might not be such a rocky road - but I understand that we all must travel our own paths. Anyway, thank you once again for all the links, information, time, and input. It has certainly broadened and improved my perspective on the issue. All my best. — Ched : ? 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The Metropolitan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Sorry about that. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It may not be a real castle, the readers won't know until they've read the article :-P Because it's got castle in the title I expect Bruce Castle to get a lot of attention while it's on the main page (military articles on the front page are usually very popular). Warwick Castle got over 70,000 views and had to deal with a lot of vandalism and I'd expect Bruce Castle to be on par with that. Congrats on getting it onto the front page, IMO any exposure for castles is good. Nev1 (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The Featured Article Medal | ||
Well Done. For getting yet another article on the main page. I think it's time you had one of these. --DavidCane (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC) |
I posted my counterargument at Talk:List of place names starting with "The". Spikebrennan (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I probably like you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
o.O. — Please comment R2 23:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thriller album will be appearing on the main page on Tuesday, please watchlist it. — Please comment R2 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
"Dave will sure as hell never forget the exact wording of WP:V and WP:RS after the last couple of days" - and that is the best anyone can seem to really hope for around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me. I have never looked at CFD so I may abstain and just learn or I may come back in a few days, if it's not too late. I see your point. Considering what the proposed opposition may say is the following: Murder articles are typically "Murder of John Obscure". Articles in the murder category are concepts of law, methods of killing, etc.
If we are strictly to be a scholarly encyclopedia, many of the murder of John Obscure articles are unsuited and not notable. What has made some of them newsworthy is that tabloid TV and the internet has memorialized many of the murders. In the newspaper age before the internet, many similiar murders were covered but in order to get a reference, you have to go to the library and search the microfilm. There were some sensational murders in the 1970's that are not in Wikipedia but less noteworthy murders of the 21st century here.
Do you object to the name of the categories? Or do you object to having one category for concept of murder and another category for articles about actual murders? User F203 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
Do you know if the Beyond Edgware book covers the whole line and may cover the historical structure made of the material that the bad wolf could not blow down? Simply south (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Iridescent, I need some advice for an article that I'm currently working to expand. The article is John B. Weber and what I'm running into is two contradictory statments from the sources that I'm using. The statments are "He was the youngest colonel in the American Civil War" and "He was one of the youngest colonels in the American Civil War". I'm currently leaving the statement(s) out of the article until I can find other sources. However, if I can't find anything more definitive should I skip the statements or include both with a reference for each? Shinerunner (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have created a Timeline of the London Underground as a complement to the History of the London Underground article which you might want to have a look at. The references section will follow. I have included all of the opening/closing dates for the various parts of the tube system but have deliberately not included individual station opening/closing dates. I have also kept the dates just to the year of the event as this seems neater and easier to read.
There is probably some more information to be added on the economic side of the history, e.g. 1 billion passengers carried for the first time and the like but I need to do a bit more research in that area. If you spot something is missing or you can think of another "type" of information that the timeline could usefully include let me know.
I have added the timeline to the ((Undergroundconnect)) navbox. --DavidCane (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it is helpful to provide inline citations to an article and appropiate external links can be useful too.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Open editing may be a good way to start an encyclopedia, but I am starting to think that posting video of cats making sweet love is not a good way to finish one, iridescent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justindavila (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
Further to your comment on Oleg Lapidus article I added several new references, including article by Mike Cohen in Jewish Telegraph with a mention of Oleg Lapidus as clarinetist and saxaphonist, a recorded broadcast of Channel 9 Israeli TV programme 7:40 with Oleg Lapidus performing, Capital Calendar of Jerusalem newsletter with Oleg Lapidus photograph, two pages of Street Piano London 09 website with Pianocrasher artist statement, etc.
You also mentioned that all the references were self-published by the subject. I obviously included the subject's own website and his social pages on youtube and myspace. All the rest were definitely not published by him.
Could I ask you, please, to have another look at the page now?
Yours sincerely,
Eugenie Absalom --Eugenie Absalom (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
For your impressive cojones doing this [10] --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Damn right there.[11] I'm appalled. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
How is telling someone they're fucking with cats not a personal attack? You yourself removed the personal attack from your page not long ago, so I am baffled how you contradict yourself.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
As seen here. So, I really am lost. Were you offended by that or weren't you? Your assumption that I'm trying to disrupt to prove a point is insulting. The user was personally attacking you, and I gathered, from your revert, that you were offended by such material. They were warned against doing that before, and as it seems they've been here awhile, they should know better, hence the assumption of bad-faith warning.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please consider that not everyone you post a "warning" to is new. Your posting on my talk page was inconsiderate and condescending and inaccurate. The fact that you are the co-proposer of the policy in which I was arguing against leaves a tarnish on what you wrote to me and makes it a clear conflict of interest and smells of an attempt at intimidation of someone who disagrees with your policy, though I will give you the benefit of the doubt and in good-faith consider that you simply were mistaken on what I wrote, for at no point did I ever attack anyone personally, perhaps if you had chosen to make your posting to me personal and typed out specifics instead of using a cookie-cutter that was inaccurate from the beginning this misunderstanding may not have happpened. Further clarification of my position and views on the generic template you used is on my talk page. Unless there are two of you jointly using this one user name at the same time typing there is no WE warning ME about anything, you are not the spokesman for the Wikipedia community, your "warning" was from YOU, you are not a plural, you are an individual to my best knowledge. No need to respond here nor there, since the current and any further postings on this matter on MY talk page are going to be DELETED and not archived per my right, and any reply here on your talk page, well, I just wont be reading as I do not have this on my watchlist nor do I want to. Thanks and please dont post to my talk page again.Camelbinky (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Camelblinky may not have written any FA's this year but has received a number of barnstars.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Snigger at the puffed out chest and reliance upon one's own self importance. It's not like anyone gives a fuck. LMAO --WebHamster 09:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
How about we retitle this thread "Please help me learn to not dish it out if I can't take it" or perhaps "Please help me grow a thicker skin". Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Everyone's time here is wasted. As someone (I think it may actually have been Jon Awbrey before he slipped into total gibberish) once pointed out, part of the way Wikipedia maintains momentum is that one's work decays if not tended, so people tend to come back to clean up the mess even after they've retired. The half-life of the decent content in an article is generally in inverse proportion to its popularity (the deterioration of Michael Jackson last week was so obvious it could be watched in real time). This is both Wikipedia's key strength – that it draws people in faster than it loses them – and what will eventually kill it.
But trying to build something permanent in any medium is an exercise in futility; yes, it will decay, but so does everything. "There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them" is as true today as ever, but so is "So I saw that there is nothing better for people than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?". The "why bother" mentality is an argument against doing anything, and what the critics of Wikipedia fail to realise is that ultimately, the flaws in the model don't matter because every model is flawed, and every model is doomed to failure. For better or worse, this is currently one of the most visible media in the world, and what we do here affects people's lives more than one might think.
Children read pages here and develop interests that divert the course of their lives; people can look up things they never knew; people can jump in seamless logical progressions from videogame characters to the geography of Uruguay. And there is nowhere else where this is possible. Those who criticise the much-maligned Kid in Africa speech miss the point – and I'm not sure Jimmy Wales himself understood the underlying point – but what is unique here isn't the whole "free knowledge" principle, in either of that phrase's double meanings. There are any number of gratis information providers; there are any number of information providers without a set agenda. But what Wikipedia does is allow people to realise that research isn't some ivory-tower pursuit that they can never aspire to, but something anyone can do and be valued in so doing. The chain of events that begins with a 13-year-old correcting the spelling on a cartoon character can lead to the 23-year-old who isn't willing to accept what they've always been told, and to the 33-year-old who changes the world.
So, don't look on Wikipedia as writing a work that will take a thousand years to die; look on it as a garden. Some people don't have the right mentality to spend year after year pulling up weeds in the sure knowledge that one day the weeds will win, and that's fine, but some people are willing to, with varying degrees of effort. The reason I don't believe Jimmy Wales should be in a position of authority on Wikipedia is not that he's a bad person; it's that I don't really think he appreciates that the Garden of Eden configuration he built has grown into a full-fledged world that's too big for top-down control.
I look forward to this post being mercilessly sneered at for years to come by all and sundry, but I suspect a surprising number of people in the most unlikely of places will find themselves agreeing. – iridescent 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Iridescent, you wrote today, Even in the cases that generally get pointed out as evidence of my "rudeness" – Abd, [et al] - to be honest, I think you'd struggle to find something that an outside observer would consider rude.
I was quite surprised to see this, since if I were asked to list administrators whose lack of civility was a serious problem, you would not be on the list. I've seen you refer a number of times to what must be about your block of me almost a year ago, and it is apparent that some aspect of that isn't resolved for you. I don't know if you have noticed that, on many occasions, I have referred to your action blocking me, and your immediate recusal from further action, as an example of how to do a block non-disruptively. That doesn't mean that I agree that the block was proper, for you didn't understand what was happening; nevertheless, lots of people don't understand what was happening, and if we insisted on full understanding before action, we'd be paralyzed. You invested some time researching my background, and that it was hopelessly inadequate and that you jumped to conclusions wasn't exactly your fault, it simply comes with the territory. Lots of people don't understand me at first, and sometimes it takes years.
You made some errors with that block, but, because you immediately recused, you made them moot. I would not take an admin to ArbComm over a mere error; by recusing, you turned what could have been Iridescent vs. Abd into a relationship and discussion between the community and me. Because the beginning of the block process was Jehochman's warning of me, and because that was deeply rooted in prior interactions that were clearly interfering with our relationship, and he had made, directly, some very serious charges, I did run a self-RfC to gain some confirmation, then ran ordinary DR with Jehochman, and, as often happens with reasonable editors, we really didn't need to go more than one rung up the ladder. Jehochman, now, I consider one of my best wikifriends. I never went through this process with you because you had not created the necessity.
But we might consider it. Iridescent, do you have any continuing complaint about my behavior as an editor? Would you care to explore it? If not, I'd suggest, you should drop the continued mention of it. I'd prefer to work out whatever disagreements we might have of any weight and not allow them to damage future interactions. I am not a critic of you as an administrator, whereas I do have serious problems with how other administrators, sometimes, have conducted themselves. I do not hold a negative opinion of you, at all. Are you holding on to one of me?
You might be surprised to hear that I agree with much of what you wrote in the thread above where you mentioned my name. However, I've also been working on the problems of organizational structure for what have recently been called "starfish organizations" for roughly thirty years. (This is a reference to The Starfish and the Spider).
And now, what I'm actually about
|
---|
There are aspects to the organizational problem that you have not yet discovered; one of these would be that true starfish don't own property; property is owned by spiders, and spiders have heads. Starfish organizations normally function on a very local level, with decisions being made locally, and that's how the vast majority of work on Wikipedia is accomplished. But Wikipedia has centralized access, which requires ownership and legal responsibility. It also has centralized "non-negotiable" policy, the same. It's possible to conceive of a truly decentralized encyclopedia, but it would look quite different from Wikipedia; Wikipedia is a hybrid, like all the reasonably stable large-scale quasi-starfish of late; there is a starfish (the editorial community), and there is a spider, the Foundation. The property is owned by the Foundation, which exists in symbiosis with the editorial community, both need each other under current conditions. Neither controls the other, the relationship is consensual and voluntary. The Foundation has chosen to continue to designate a manager who does have operating authority; that authority is rarely exercised directly; it's possible, though, that to cut certain Gordian knots, there should be more use of focused authority; the sign of the wisdom of this would be that it would be confirmed by increased consensus when discussion has broadened sufficiently. The real power is in the hands of the community, but the community is not organized sufficiently to make coherent decisions quickly. That could be changed, and the implications of this would be huge. (Note, though, that the changes that most people would imagine as improvements would likely destroy the starfish character, creating, instead, some kind of oligarchy.) For now, though, one of the signs that Wikipedia isn't yet ready to "Come of Age," is the lack of consensus over Jimbo's block in May of a popular administrator for incivility. If we were ready, we'd have either confirmed this action, or we would have clearly rejected it, and we'd have done one or the other efficiently, and our consensus would have been clear and effective, and formed within a matter of days without disruption. AA Comes of Age was a book written by Bill Wilson when the membership of Alcoholics Anonymous, through the formation of the General Service Conference, a supermajority-elected body with provisions for minority representation and a strong traditions of seeking complete consensus, was able to begin to coherently advise the Board; but legal responsibility still remained, and still remains, with the Board, over the affairs of Alcoholics World Services, Inc. But not over the fellowship itself, for "AA ought never be organized," the central work of AA is in the local groups, which are all independent and not supported by AAWS; indeed, the money flows entirely the other way, just as Wikipedia doesn't pay or subsidize editorial groups, but editors can and do fund Wikipedia. AAWS, though, would not accept large gifts or grants, because Bill Wilson understood the danger and established strong traditions against that kind of funding. AAWS, Inc., is continually and directly dependent upon the voluntary support of the members, through the purchase of literature (at low prices, in fact, roughly distributor equivalent), and through relatively small donations, I think the current limit is $3000 for a bequest. Why this talk of Alcoholics Anonymous? Because it is a classic starfish, and practically bulletproof because of it. AA was a phenomenal success, it spread like wildfire, until it reached a position where there is no real competition. Yet it has no central authority. Local intergroups in some metropolitan areas sometimes publish their own literature, and every group is free to structure itself; there are some very simple rules about what an AA group can and cannot do, and even these are sometimes disregarded; only a violation that threatened to seriously damage AA as a whole would bring some kind of legal intervention from the central office, prohibiting the use of the AA name. I'm not an alcoholic, but AA has long been an example for students of anarchic structure that nevertheless, through consensus, develops a high level of coherence. Bill Wilson carefully documented the structure of AA. Later, other work with other organizations developed techniques of negotiating consensus that far surpass what we do; our process is quite primitive in comparison, yet Wikipedia grew so quickly and the default power structure so rapidly that it has become quite conservative and resistant to change; none of this is really surprising, it's quite what would be expected from limitations in the founding vision. Which was brilliant, but not necessarily deeply understood. |
--Abd (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Details on cold fusion
|
---|
Let me just make some assertions; to try to prove this to you would take, possibly, months, unless you were willing to do the research independently, which can take .... months unless you know where to look first. Just the incorrect statements to start.
I was banned a month ago from editing Cold fusion and the Talk page. My offense? Well, it wasn't actually stated! But it's obvious: I know too much, and I write about it, and I was starting to put reliably sourced information, from secondary sources, into the article, and it was being removed, with bald reverts, contrary to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, and there is a contingent of editors, quite active, who very much opposed that arbitration result, and who continue to oppose it. My position is that we should follow the reliable source guidelines, purely and simply, and consensus process. *Not* that we should present some particular point of view, my own or anyone else's. But what I've seen, again and again, is weak sources allowed for rejection of cold fusion, and strong sources disallowed, based on an editorial assumption that the field is "fringe" or worse (many editors clearly believe that this is pseudoscience, even though that's been rejected by consensus.) Because the anti-fringe crowd has assembled a local majority of editors, it's often necessary to move outside the article itself to find wider consensus. That takes time, lots of time. |
Sekrit discussion of something I won't mention at the top level, but it's long. Nothing to see here.
|
---|
|
I don't do images, and I definitely don't do commons. Can someone help. After playing whack-a-mole w Lewishnl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his socks here, he helpfully mentioned Commons as a source for why this article shouild be created. It's a non-notable now salted article for a 14 year old "upcoming chef" who's working on his first book. Yes, there are ghits for the name, none of them other than what Lewish has added are about the chef. The commons stuff is here and I don't know what, if anything, needs to be done to deal with it there. Can anyone help? I'm watching here. Thanks all! StarM 15:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm avoiding posting on RFA talk as much as possible, so I'll say my "well put" comment here instead, for this. This whole thing is becoming incredibly tiresome. Luckily I unwatched every RFA related page, so I don't have to put up with this sort of thing polluting my watchlist, but I had the unfortunate idea of glancing at RFA talk today and noticed that. Majorly talk 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have closed the RfC you co-proposed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Role_of_Jimmy_Wales_in_the_English_Wikipedia#Notes and the subsequent section. I am sorry to say that I did not find consensus for the proposals. Please review my closure and let me know if you think I have made any errors, either in interpretation or administration. --Dweller (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't blanking, I was edit-conflicted with you as I was completing the process of fixing a cut-n-paste move. I do know better than that, you know. Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Less tab clutter, for the win. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the standard decreases because of resignations just as much as new admins. I'm not willing to commit to a percentile but I assume that one side is higher than the other (/POV). So I can't say I'm pleased you went -sysop but I can understand your reasoning which follows above. Just don't stay away too long. Regards. :) Syn 22:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
But then I wonder if I'm the one who's changed - maybe giants never walked the Earth, the people I admired were always irascible, and the majority of RfA's were always clusterfucks. I don't want to overromanticize the past, since abuses and inept admins have ever been with us. In fact, I sometimes think that the power of roving cliques of bullies is objectively less today than it was 2 years ago. I've thought about giving up the bit myself - I've taken virtually no administrative actions for some time now - but I just can't get by without seeing deleted revisions anymore. It's too hard to figure out what's actually going on around here. Anyhow, I've been coopted into the Jimmilluminati, so what do I know. :) MastCell Talk 20:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to open the "ageism" can of worms, but my sense is that the overall level of maturity among admins has declined. I could name some fairly prominent figures and trends that I believe have played major roles in the decline of standards at RfA, but that wouldn't be very useful, would it? And I'm not talking about specific "underage" admins; I mean that the overall trend has been toward people who view adminship as leveling up, as a matter of checking the boxes you outlined a few threads above. I can tell at a glance that, no matter what they say, most candidates at RfA view adminship as a trophy and a merit badge, not as a set of useful tools or as a position of increased responsibility. The people who are mature enough to realize that adminship isn't a trophy tend to quickly make the logical leap that it's not worth putting oneself through RfA in its current form.
I've actually considered whether it would be feasible to transfer my admin bit to someone whom I think would be an exceptional admin, but who would have difficulty passing RfA in its current febrile state. I don't really use the bit much anymore. If I really care about an issue, I tend to "involve" myself as an editor, and I'm too tired and cynical about this place to take on many altruistic administrative tasks like WP:SPI or WP:RFPP. So someone else may as well get some use out of it, right? MastCell Talk 21:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a shame as it's only the decent admins who do ethical things like this. The non-ethical shitehawks just hang around like a cheesy fart with no intention of removing their hard bribed for fought for admin bit. I'm afraid the decent admin pool has been greatly diluted with your withdrawal. It's a sad day :( --WebHamster 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Am I a Jimmilluminatus? Cool nomenclature, but not sure I'm pleased to be painted that way. Perhaps I deserve it. Anyway, any time you want your bit back, drop me a line and I'd be delighted to whack it back on ya. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the exact stub..
"Jonny Bowden, Ph.D., CNS, is a board-certified nutritionist and the author of seven books on health and nutrition, including The 150 Most Effective Ways to Boost Your Energy and The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth. "
qoted from Forbs.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/07/healthiest-foods-nutrition-lifestyle-health-healthiest-foods.html
The heading of the article/stub would be "Johnny Bowden"
This is simple, to the point, and accrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartpiles (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am new..so I am learning the correct form and such.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartpiles (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank your for your time and consideration..
Stuartpiles..7/16/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartpiles (talk • contribs) 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your support in recent months, I'm glad that we were able so overcome disagreement in the distant past. I have decided to leave Wikipedia and I won't be returning. — Please comment R2 15:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies, I had your intentions confused with the intentions of others. Although I misjudged at first, I know your intentions were sincere. Rest assured, now that the dust will settle, I will examine your suggestions and will incorporate them into my learning. I will also revisit the issues you have raised and address them. Best of luck to you, and regards, Dave (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)