Misplaced Pages

User talk:Iridescent: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:23, 9 April 2013 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,484 edits →TY, and: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:04, 2 January 2025 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,092 edits →Merry Christmas! 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 350K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 16 |counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 5
|algo = old(20d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = User talk:Iridescent/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Iridescent/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:Iridescent/Talk header}} {{User:Iridescent/Talk header}}


==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg==
== Er... ==
]
Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.


If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice --> '''] ]''' 23:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the general message, but is it really necessary to imply that the editor is a ? You are not required to remove the comment, but I'd appreciate, if at least for civility's sake, you struck it. ] 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:No. ''Being'' a young child is certainly not the same as ''acting'' like a young child; a young editor behaving inappropriately would be grounds for someone to take them under their wing and either show them the ropes or quietly and privately explain why and how Misplaced Pages differs from Reddit and Myspace, whereas an grown adult with two years on Misplaced Pages behaving inappropriately is a totally different matter.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 16:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
::I understand the distinction, and I'm by no means saying Technical's behaviour is acceptable. I just don't see remarks like that as necessary - they don't contribute anything to the message. It's just kicking the person while they're down. Again, whether or not you remove it is your prerogative - just thought I'd ask. Best, ] 16:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:::A declined unblock is pretty much by definition kicking a user when they're down. Since the point of the block-request-unblock cycle is to indicate to the user in question what needs to change, it needs to explain what the problem is, otherwise the blocking admin may as well just lock the talkpage in every case. In this case, the root problem ''is'' "acting like a child having a tantrum, when you're experienced enough to know better"—as the hints-and-whispers dropped by previous commenters have failed to get the message through, there comes a point when it needs to be said in plain speech, otherwise the user in question just gets frustrated as to what they've actually been blocked ''for''. (I'm in this case, either.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 16:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


:To any talk page stalkers that are around, I (as a long-absent talk page stalker) only just noticed this non-free image deletion(of a stamp depicting the subject of the article), and am wondering whether it is worth contesting it? As far as I can tell from viewing the deleted version, the rationale was sound (not quite sure why it was nominated). Where is the best place to start here? The image was used in the ] featured article where it was commented out . Maybe someone can also explain the removal of from the same article? As far as I can tell, what would be needed there is a ''separate'' non-free use rationale added to ]? But whether that would be accepted is another matter (the differing viewpoints are whether a reader should be expected to click through to the article to see the image, or whether it is better for the reader to see the Picasso image within the article they are reading). ] (]) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
== About your decline rationale... ==
::I don't have admin goggles, so I can't see the image or fair-use rationale in question, but from looking at the article ]#8 looks like the obvious issue – {{tq|Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.}} Given the very brief mention of the stamp, it's difficult to argue that illustrating it "significantly" increases readers' understanding of the topic. (The same argument would also apply to including an image of ''The Old Guitarist'', if ]#6 didn't explicitly forbid this kind of use anyway.) ] (]) 15:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I can copy out the rationales for the stamp (image ) ("Author: original author unknown and not easily identified, copyright on textual elements will be held by Jordan Post. The central image is Hope by G. F. Watts (died 1904) and already in the public domain"; "Purpose of use: To illustrate that the image was still in popular circulation 70 years after the author's death; its use on Jordanian stamps is specifically discussed in the article" and "Replaceability: No, as it likely to be a copyrighted image and the purpose is to illustrate the image's use in the 1970s. As the graphic elements are already in the public domain, it is possible that the textual elements are below the threshold of originality."), but you are right that for the Picasso one, UUUI #6 does apply - for the record, I have always disagreed with that as articles should be self-contained (e.g. for readers who are reading an article off-line or a printed version). But I do get that some elements of NFC apply to the encyclopedia as a whole, and thus being able to refer to another part of the encyclopedia that contains the image is the line in the sand. Thank you for the advice. What do you think of the stamp rationale? ] (]) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Like you, I'm not entirely sure that I agree that our policy needs to be as strict as it currently is. That being said, on the question of what policy is and how it's currently applied, I think that the deletion is reasonable. Possibly a case could have been made for keeping the image, but suspect if would have been deleted regardless.{{br}} The two main points I would expect to be made against any such case are: (1) "its use on Jordanian stamps is specifically discussed in the article" is overstating the situation rather. Its use on Jordanian stamps is briefly mentioned in the article; the hardline free content purist would ask what the illustration actually adds to a reader's understanding here. (2) "To illustrate that the image was still in popular circulation 70 years after the author's death": is it definitely the case that there are no possible free images which could illustrate the long-term influence of the painting? The majority of the section on §Later influence discusses its influence on Barack Obama, via ]: there is certainly a free image of Obama delivering ]. Sure, it's a rubbish image, but a rubbish free image is by policy preferred to a good non-free one.{{br}} The remaining alternatives are, for my money: (1) add more sourced commentary about this stamp and write a Fair Use Rationale why makes a clearer case for the importance of illustrating that stamp specifically, (2) know enough about Jordanian copyright law to determine whether or not the stamp design is likely to still be in copyright, and if it's not upload it to commons (3) choose a different image for that section. ] (]) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Impeccable logic. :-) May do number 3 at some point. ] (]) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'll concur in not contesting the deletion. I think it was a legitimate fair use, in that it demonstrates that "Hope" remains a part of popular culture even in cultures with minimal relationship to 19th-century England. However, since it's so marginal—and since Obama provides a much more obvious and better-known example of the work continuing to be relevant—it's not worth contesting (and I will happily put my hands up to having no idea what the copyright status of a Jordainan stamp is).&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== TFA ==
Hey, Iridescent, I saw your rationale in declining Technical 13's unblock; I just wanted to mention that Technical 13's email to Anomie and me (he emailed Anomie at my suggestion, and forwarded me a copy) were to apologize for accusing Anomie of making a comment he never made. There was nothing inappropriate about the email, and indeed, it made me hopeful. I don't think now's the time for him to try again, so I don't disagree with your decline, but perhaps in time. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I haven't experienced and don't know of anything untoward as far as email goes, and your suggestion otherwise might be a little wounding to him. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;+&nbsp;]) 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:Actually, maybe I misread your post; I think I see what you're getting at. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;+&nbsp;]) 16:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:{{ec}} I've removed it; without context, I assumed it was an "I want you to unblock me" email. If it was a solicited request for information, that's obviously a different matter.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
::Yep, no worries, I can see why you'd think that. Thanks for removing it! ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;+&nbsp;]) 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


{{User QAIbox
== TY, and ==
| image = Himmelsschlüssel, Engweder Kopf.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
Thank you today for ], introduced (in 2016): ""Bright rising sun illuminating the clouds over a featureless horizon" has become such a staple image since the advent of modern photography, it's easy to forget that it had to begin somewhere. Likewise, if George Frederic Watts is remembered at all nowadays it's as the painter of formal portraits of dignitaries and of earnestly portentious paintings with titles like Love and Death and The Slumber of the Ages, not as the painter of dramatic landscapes. After the Deluge is an explicitly religious painting, yet contains no religious imagery of any kind, and is an interesting snapshot of the transition between 19th-century symbolism and 20th-century abstraction. Because this has spent the last century in the backwater of Compton rather than in a high-profile institution like the Tate Gallery or the Yale Center for British Art, there hasn't been all that much written about this particular piece so the article is shorter than usual, but I believe this collates together everything significant that there is to say about it. And yes, I know it looks like I've accidentally cut-and-pasted a chunk of body text into the wikilink but Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory)—The Morning after the Deluge—Moses Writing the Book of Genesis genuinely is the name of Turner's painting of the same subject." - We miss you. Best wishes for whatever you do! -- ] (]) 07:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks. I know ''After The Deluge'' isn't the most interesting topic—and this style of painting it totally out of fashion—but I do like it, and I'm glad to have seen it have its moment in the sun.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''{{Section link| Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14#Museum collections }}''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

== pictured ==

{{User QAIbox
| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
Today I had reason to look at 10 years ago, and saw ]. Thank you for clarification in that matter and many others. We'd need more of it, but best wishes for what you do instead! -- ] (]) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

== Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==


] Established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at ].

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:End of an era? ] ] ] 00:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::I hope not. Hope you are well and that we will see you back soon, Iri. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] Same! ] ] ] 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, bollocks. ]'']'' 13:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Still hoping they may emerge in time. ] (]) 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Admin tools or not, I hope Iri will be back around. Much missed. --] (]) 20:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Fun though an Iridescent re-RfA would be, it would be a massive hassle for Iri, so I don't want us getting any closer to that. Also concerned; hope they don't have you in a sealed bunker somewhere or something. Please return soon, if only to tell us how we're all messing up :-( ] (]) 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not dead, just busy. If they do want to desysop me I won't argue. I think we dinosaurs still have benefit as "admins of last resort"—our history means we can close contentious RFCs, take action against pages/editors with large fan-clubs, etc, without being bullied/intimidated by one side or the other, and I have enough of a history that "do you know who I am" is unlikely to work on me.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, it's good to hear from you! --] (]) 20:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::(probably very brief) Welcome back, ]. Glad you're ], yay!! ] (]) 21:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hey, if it would simplify matters, just go ahead and block me for a while. No skin off my teeth. ]] 20:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You came back!! Yay! ] (]) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm unlikely to be back in any very active sense for a while yet. While I'll try to check my talkpage every so often, any activity is likely to be at the "looking at things if people ask me to" rather than the "going looking for trouble" level.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC) <br><small>P.S., good to see you back ]—last I saw, you'd been kicked off for reasons that look way to complicated to investigate.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::Welcome back, anyway. ] (]) 09:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

==Invitation to provide feedback==
Inspired by Worm That Turned's ] where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my ]. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my ''''''. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, ] (]) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:@] Iri is, at best, on a long-term Wikibreak. ] ] ] 09:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Because of my recent inactivity it's probably not appropriate for me to comment on anyone else's recent activity. (I {{em|will}} say that I think this kind of feedback process is a good idea. Because 99% of the routine 'feedback' one gets as an admin—or even as a general editor—is cranks and weirdos complaining, we've all been guilty of ignoring or dismissing legitimate complaints, praise, and good advice.)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

==Io Saturnalia!==

{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}

=== Season's Greetings ===
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The '']'' (1563) by ] is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. ] (]) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}

===Merry Christmas!===
{| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; padding: 5px;"
|rowspan="2" valign="center" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: center; height: 1.1em;" | '''A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!'''
|rowspan="2" valign="centre" padding: 5px;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|-
|style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray"|
<br />
<big>Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>Cheers</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>] (]) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</big>
|}

*Thanks to all three of you <small>(Since we're still within the Twelve Days, Hanukkah and Twixmas, I can just about avoid making it "belated thanks")</small>&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:And delighted to see you back again after such a long break! - ] (]) 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

== Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==


] Established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next several days.


Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at ].
Thank you for your input Iri, much appreciated. If you see something you think would be better as far as lay-out or presentation, please feel free to sort, move, adjust, format, etc. as you think best. I'm hoping to push it out to a public area with a RfC listing by maybe the beginning of next week; so the cleaner it looks and easier it is to use the better. Thank you again. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 03:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
:Unless Misplaced Pages has drastically changed in my absence, a formal RFC on infoboxes isn't a good idea. While there are certainly good-faith, reasonable people on both sides of that debate, in practice the dispute is driven on one side by two of Misplaced Pages's most toxic personalities<!-- No, this is not "a personal attack", and the phrase is chosen for a very specific reason of which those involved should be well aware -->—aided-and-abetted by a gaggle of serial sockmasters venting old grudges—who will refuse to compromise in any way and if any decision goes against them will resort to trying to bully opponents off the project until the numbers are back in their favor, and on the other side by a clutch of highly-strung people who will overreact to perceived provocations and escalate minor disputes into full-blown battles.
:Unless you can persuade Arbcom to issue a ruling by fiat—and I can't imagine there's any enthusiasm on their part to get involved in MOS issues*, since they're all familiar with Mabbett, Malleus, Mattisse et al and will have no desire to renew the acquaintance—the only way this firework could be extinguished once lit is either by total capitulation to every demand of the "Misplaced Pages as spreadsheet" hardliners, or by long-term blocks, since experience has shown that two of the users involved in particular will refuse to compromise on anything and thus the usual discussion/consensus cycle isn't possible.
:If you haven't already, you should probably speak to ], who's familiar with the previous occasions in which there was a petty MOS dispute where one side took a "death before dishonor" attitude and preferred to try to take the temple down with them rather than compromise. (Date delinking is the most notorious, with an honorable mention for en-dashes, but there are plenty more.) I don't always (or even usually) agree with Tony, but his analysis of the failings of Misplaced Pages's decision making process is generally spot-on.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 11:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki><small>They all watch this page; I dare say Brad or Risker will pop up in a moment to make the same point in more diplomatic language.</small>
:: Suggestions on further articles that do not play well with infoboxes (this from someone who generally does use them on articles I edit) - ], ], ], ], and ]. A number of other articles where I've just dealt with the incompatibilities - ], ], ] - where they all have two infoboxes because others have insisted. (Note that ] has managed (so far) to avoid the dreaded second infobox.... lets see how long this lasts...) And I like infoboxes - but there is no denying that there is a group of folks who push them all-the-freaking-time. And there is also a group of people that seem to feel that every-single-detail-needs-to-be-in-the-infobox - have you checked out the insane number of fields in ]??? "Net worth"??? "Agent"????? Is that really necessary? I highly doubt that any person is noted for their agent, so why do we need that field in an infobox? And if it exists, someone will think it's needed... ] - ] 12:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
:::]- he's noted for his agent.] (]) 20:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
:::: Thank you all for the input. I see I have a TON of work to do as far as reading, and will try to absorb everything as quickly as possible. I'll likely be doing more reading than typing for a bit - but I will be paying attention. Iri, for email - is your "Email this user" link to the left still the accurate one to use? — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
:::: Quick note: Being a person that loves irony - I did notice that ] does not have an infobox. I can fully understand the "''why''", still, how can you not appreciate something like that? — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::The "email this user" link will still reach me, although I don't check it very often. Regarding how Google searches work, there's a fairly good explanation at ], and a (probably over-technical for Misplaced Pages's readership) explanation of the old system at ]. Needless to say, neither has anything to do with infoboxes or metadata, which is a piece of puff spun by the "every article needs an infobox" brigade; the only way metadata would affect a Google search is in the unlikely event one was searching for a phrase present in the metadata/infobox which wasn't present in the article proper.
:::::(For TPSs baffled by this thread, it's a continuation of ], which I'll reiterate that I think it would be a Very Bad Thing to send live, unless you're ''really'' in "hasten the day" mode and have a blinding urge to see old scores being bloodily settled in your userspace. I can save Arbcom three months of their time and tell you now that the result of the case will be "preserve the status quo", but at least three of those involved—I can even give the names—will come out of it sitebanned.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: I'd love to see an email about that list of who'd be banned. Curious if it agrees with my list. ] - ] 21:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::You've got mail.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
*The ''LAST'' thing I want to see is ''ANYONE'' site banned. The more I read the less anxious I am to go the RfC route. My original intent was to put out a few of the fires that have been flaring up lately, but the more I read the more unsure I am of how to accomplish that. I will likely drop you an email in the next few days, when I do I will note it here as well. Thank you all again. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since Iridescent suggests that I might have something to contribute to this discussion, here I am. Suffice it to say, though, that I don't have strong views relating to infoboxes, nor do I want to comment on any of the user-conduct issues since the entire situation may come before ArbCom at some point. (I'd love to know whom Iridescent is referring to in his comments on both past and hypothetical future cases, but I'd better not ask.)


:Commented ]. If they want to desysop me I won't contest it, but I'm not actively supporting it either since I think I'm still of more use as an admin. (I'll nip on over to the backlog now and do some adminny stuff, so I have logged admin actions in 2024 and the bean-counters can be happy.)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 03:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
"Should there be infoxes" on a given class of articles is often treated as a single question, but in reality, I think the objections to them fall into at least two major categories:
*Objections based on formatting of the article, and the view that a summary box messes up either the aesthetics of the formatting or the structure of the article or both.
*Objections based on the oversimplified nature of the information that can be included in an infobox. We recently had a request for arbitration over the infobox in ], which is our article on the war between the USSR and Finland from 1941 to 1944. Everyone seemed to be in agreement that the content of the article itself was balanced or at least acceptable, including in its discussion of the outcome of the war&mdash;but we had rampant edit-warring over whether the infobox should describe the outcome as a "Russian victory" or a "limited Russian victory" or a "split outcome" or whatever. This is the inevitable result of trying to reduce complicated historical issues to a sentence fragment, and can be extrapolated to infoboxes on other topics.


== Race condition ==
As against these objections is the response that infoboxes make straightforward, uniform summary information available across the great range of articles, and that while there are exceptions, for the most part the sort of information contained in infoboxes is purely factual and won't typically be subject to dispute. (E.g., birth and death dates, term dates for politicians, coordinates, and so forth.)


Hi, Iri. Great to see you around again. It looks like I deleted ] just as you were declining the CSD, a ] based on when I loaded the page. As far as I know, it's common practice to apply G3's hoax subcriterion to sandboxes, if they're formatted like an encyclopedia article and obviously fictitious. ] says {{tqq|<nowiki>Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project. Pages that egregiously present false information may be tagged with {{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}.</nowiki>}} and makes no exception for sandboxes. As a result, I'm hesitant to self-revert here, but at the same time, I don't want to step on your feet. I'm about to go to bed, so if you want to restore the sandbox, I don't object, although I'd be inclined to blank and/or MfD it if it's restored. Either way, I leave this in your capable hands. All the best. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
One possible way of reconciling the competing interests, which would be a compromise and therefore would probably please no one, has been obvious to me for years: where the desirability of an infobox is disputed, ''put the infobox on the top of the talkpage.'' No one cares about the aesthetics of a talkpage, and any disputes about the content of the infobox could be addressed with a footnote saying that for more detail, one should consult the relevant section of the full article.


:I've no problem at all with the deletion. My general feeling is to allow pretty much anything in sandboxes regardless of whether it's true or not—it's certainly not unusual for someone who wants to write about (e.g.) a boxer to copy-paste the formatting of an existing boxing biography and play around to get the feel of editing, how templates work, etc. As such, I generally extend maximum AGF to sandboxes, even if what's going on in them would normally be considered vandalism. In this case, looking at ] it's fair to say that AGF is well past any reasonable limit.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 14:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
One counterargument to this modest proposal is that readers (as opposed to veteran editors) won't think to look at the talkpage, but that's the best solution I've been able to come up with so far. Regards, ] (]) 14:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, I always try to tackle sandboxes first when I look at CAT:CSD, because they have some of the worst mis-taggings. Entirely valid drafts tagged as U5, unfinished bits and bobs tagged as U5 or G3 (or G1 or G2, which don't even apply in userspace), you name it. Sometimes I wonder what some CSD taggers think sandboxes are supposed to be used for, because it's apparently neither testing nor drafting. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:(watching) there's an infobox on the ] - and a discussion (that brought us here and to my first ANI appearance) --] (]) 14:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
::Interesting&mdash;but there (as I read it), someone has posted the infobox there ''to start a discussion about whether to include it in the article.'' My tenative suggestion here is the different one of hosting the infobox on the talkpage permanently. Regards, ] (]) 15:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


== April Metro == == Welcome back! ==


I've been completely incommunicado myself (but lurked a bit), so I'm gingerly picking up the threads. Mainly cleaning up the junk that's got into some of my favourite articles and trying to avoid the politics because if anything, the place has simply got even more toxic and chaotic than when I left it almost exactly 2 years ago.
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject London Transport/The Metropolitan/Issue 49}}


Anyway, I'm so relieved to know you're alive and kicking. Happy New Year! ] (]) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
]]....] ''eating shoes for just 7 years'' 20:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:04, 2 January 2025

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

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

To any talk page stalkers that are around, I (as a long-absent talk page stalker) only just noticed this non-free image deletion(of a stamp depicting the subject of the article), and am wondering whether it is worth contesting it? As far as I can tell from viewing the deleted version, the rationale was sound (not quite sure why it was nominated). Where is the best place to start here? The image was used in the Hope (Watts) featured article where it was commented out here. Maybe someone can also explain the removal of this image from the same article? As far as I can tell, what would be needed there is a separate non-free use rationale added to File:Old guitarist chicago.jpg? But whether that would be accepted is another matter (the differing viewpoints are whether a reader should be expected to click through to the article to see the image, or whether it is better for the reader to see the Picasso image within the article they are reading). Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't have admin goggles, so I can't see the image or fair-use rationale in question, but from looking at the article WP:NFCCP#8 looks like the obvious issue – Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Given the very brief mention of the stamp, it's difficult to argue that illustrating it "significantly" increases readers' understanding of the topic. (The same argument would also apply to including an image of The Old Guitarist, if WP:NFC#UUI#6 didn't explicitly forbid this kind of use anyway.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I can copy out the rationales for the stamp (image here) ("Author: original author unknown and not easily identified, copyright on textual elements will be held by Jordan Post. The central image is Hope by G. F. Watts (died 1904) and already in the public domain"; "Purpose of use: To illustrate that the image was still in popular circulation 70 years after the author's death; its use on Jordanian stamps is specifically discussed in the article" and "Replaceability: No, as it likely to be a copyrighted image and the purpose is to illustrate the image's use in the 1970s. As the graphic elements are already in the public domain, it is possible that the textual elements are below the threshold of originality."), but you are right that for the Picasso one, UUUI #6 does apply - for the record, I have always disagreed with that as articles should be self-contained (e.g. for readers who are reading an article off-line or a printed version). But I do get that some elements of NFC apply to the encyclopedia as a whole, and thus being able to refer to another part of the encyclopedia that contains the image is the line in the sand. Thank you for the advice. What do you think of the stamp rationale? Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Like you, I'm not entirely sure that I agree that our policy needs to be as strict as it currently is. That being said, on the question of what policy is and how it's currently applied, I think that the deletion is reasonable. Possibly a case could have been made for keeping the image, but suspect if would have been deleted regardless.
The two main points I would expect to be made against any such case are: (1) "its use on Jordanian stamps is specifically discussed in the article" is overstating the situation rather. Its use on Jordanian stamps is briefly mentioned in the article; the hardline free content purist would ask what the illustration actually adds to a reader's understanding here. (2) "To illustrate that the image was still in popular circulation 70 years after the author's death": is it definitely the case that there are no possible free images which could illustrate the long-term influence of the painting? The majority of the section on §Later influence discusses its influence on Barack Obama, via Jeremiah Wright: there is certainly a free image of Obama delivering his 2004 speech on "The Audacity of Hope". Sure, it's a rubbish image, but a rubbish free image is by policy preferred to a good non-free one.
The remaining alternatives are, for my money: (1) add more sourced commentary about this stamp and write a Fair Use Rationale why makes a clearer case for the importance of illustrating that stamp specifically, (2) know enough about Jordanian copyright law to determine whether or not the stamp design is likely to still be in copyright, and if it's not upload it to commons (3) choose a different image for that section. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Impeccable logic. :-) May do number 3 at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll concur in not contesting the deletion. I think it was a legitimate fair use, in that it demonstrates that "Hope" remains a part of popular culture even in cultures with minimal relationship to 19th-century England. However, since it's so marginal—and since Obama provides a much more obvious and better-known example of the work continuing to be relevant—it's not worth contesting (and I will happily put my hands up to having no idea what the copyright status of a Jordainan stamp is). ‑ Iridescent 03:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for After the Deluge (painting), introduced (in 2016): ""Bright rising sun illuminating the clouds over a featureless horizon" has become such a staple image since the advent of modern photography, it's easy to forget that it had to begin somewhere. Likewise, if George Frederic Watts is remembered at all nowadays it's as the painter of formal portraits of dignitaries and of earnestly portentious paintings with titles like Love and Death and The Slumber of the Ages, not as the painter of dramatic landscapes. After the Deluge is an explicitly religious painting, yet contains no religious imagery of any kind, and is an interesting snapshot of the transition between 19th-century symbolism and 20th-century abstraction. Because this has spent the last century in the backwater of Compton rather than in a high-profile institution like the Tate Gallery or the Yale Center for British Art, there hasn't been all that much written about this particular piece so the article is shorter than usual, but I believe this collates together everything significant that there is to say about it. And yes, I know it looks like I've accidentally cut-and-pasted a chunk of body text into the wikilink but Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory)—The Morning after the Deluge—Moses Writing the Book of Genesis genuinely is the name of Turner's painting of the same subject." - We miss you. Best wishes for whatever you do! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I know After The Deluge isn't the most interesting topic—and this style of painting it totally out of fashion—but I do like it, and I'm glad to have seen it have its moment in the sun. ‑ Iridescent 03:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ham II (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

pictured

story · music · places

Today I had reason to look at 10 years ago, and saw a great pictured comment by you. Thank you for clarification in that matter and many others. We'd need more of it, but best wishes for what you do instead! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

End of an era? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I hope not. Hope you are well and that we will see you back soon, Iri. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clayoquot Same! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, bollocks. SerialNumber54129 13:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Still hoping they may emerge in time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Admin tools or not, I hope Iri will be back around. Much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Fun though an Iridescent re-RfA would be, it would be a massive hassle for Iri, so I don't want us getting any closer to that. Also concerned; hope they don't have you in a sealed bunker somewhere or something. Please return soon, if only to tell us how we're all messing up :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not dead, just busy. If they do want to desysop me I won't argue. I think we dinosaurs still have benefit as "admins of last resort"—our history means we can close contentious RFCs, take action against pages/editors with large fan-clubs, etc, without being bullied/intimidated by one side or the other, and I have enough of a history that "do you know who I am" is unlikely to work on me. ‑ Iridescent 03:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's good to hear from you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
(probably very brief) Welcome back, Admino-suarus Rex. Glad you're just busy, yay!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You came back!! Yay! Yngvadottir (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to be back in any very active sense for a while yet. While I'll try to check my talkpage every so often, any activity is likely to be at the "looking at things if people ask me to" rather than the "going looking for trouble" level. ‑ Iridescent 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
P.S., good to see you back Martinevans123—last I saw, you'd been kicked off for reasons that look way to complicated to investigate. ‑ Iridescent 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Welcome back, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Iri is, at best, on a long-term Wikibreak. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Because of my recent inactivity it's probably not appropriate for me to comment on anyone else's recent activity. (I will say that I think this kind of feedback process is a good idea. Because 99% of the routine 'feedback' one gets as an admin—or even as a general editor—is cranks and weirdos complaining, we've all been guilty of ignoring or dismissing legitimate complaints, praise, and good advice.) ‑ Iridescent 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

And delighted to see you back again after such a long break! - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Commented up there. If they want to desysop me I won't contest it, but I'm not actively supporting it either since I think I'm still of more use as an admin. (I'll nip on over to the backlog now and do some adminny stuff, so I have logged admin actions in 2024 and the bean-counters can be happy.) ‑ Iridescent 03:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Race condition

Hi, Iri. Great to see you around again. It looks like I deleted User:Arielvilla07/sandbox just as you were declining the CSD, a race condition based on when I loaded the page. As far as I know, it's common practice to apply G3's hoax subcriterion to sandboxes, if they're formatted like an encyclopedia article and obviously fictitious. WP:FAKEARTICLE says Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project. Pages that egregiously present false information may be tagged with {{db-hoax}}. and makes no exception for sandboxes. As a result, I'm hesitant to self-revert here, but at the same time, I don't want to step on your feet. I'm about to go to bed, so if you want to restore the sandbox, I don't object, although I'd be inclined to blank and/or MfD it if it's restored. Either way, I leave this in your capable hands. All the best. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I've no problem at all with the deletion. My general feeling is to allow pretty much anything in sandboxes regardless of whether it's true or not—it's certainly not unusual for someone who wants to write about (e.g.) a boxer to copy-paste the formatting of an existing boxing biography and play around to get the feel of editing, how templates work, etc. As such, I generally extend maximum AGF to sandboxes, even if what's going on in them would normally be considered vandalism. In this case, looking at Special:Contributions/Arielvilla07 it's fair to say that AGF is well past any reasonable limit. ‑ Iridescent 14:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I always try to tackle sandboxes first when I look at CAT:CSD, because they have some of the worst mis-taggings. Entirely valid drafts tagged as U5, unfinished bits and bobs tagged as U5 or G3 (or G1 or G2, which don't even apply in userspace), you name it. Sometimes I wonder what some CSD taggers think sandboxes are supposed to be used for, because it's apparently neither testing nor drafting. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I've been completely incommunicado myself (but lurked a bit), so I'm gingerly picking up the threads. Mainly cleaning up the junk that's got into some of my favourite articles and trying to avoid the politics because if anything, the place has simply got even more toxic and chaotic than when I left it almost exactly 2 years ago.

Anyway, I'm so relieved to know you're alive and kicking. Happy New Year! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)