User talk:Iridescent

The community engaging in constructive discussions with the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

"If only there were some place you could look unfamiliar words up...)"

Re your recent comment on a Tottenham Hale edit- I use this place.http://afterliff.com/ --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You'll generally get more sense there than at the official right answer of "Wiktionary", which generally seems to have stolen the Guide's "we are infallible, reality is frequently inaccurate" motto. We're currently up to 7 years 4 months of them claiming that targetting is a word, despite this being one of the rare instances where British, US, Canadian, Indian and Aussie dictionaries are unanimous in agreeing that it isn't, and them not even having the old "but it's an misspelling in common usage so needs to be listed as a variant" excuse to fall back on. (I do struggle to understand how anyone, even if they've never heard the word before, could possibly not figure out that "gateline" means "line of gates".) ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Those same people would likely think that "clothesline" meant a line of clothes, rather than the obvious answers of a piece of rope or a fake wrestling move. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but given that the context in this case was "The national rail gateline now has automatic barriers installed" I'd hope that even the densest reader would be able to figure out that we're talking about "the line of gates where your ticket gets checked as you go in or out of the station". ‑ Iridescent 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Funcrunch/Protect userspace RfC draft

Hi. I tripped across User:Funcrunch/Protect userspace RfC draft earlier today. In addition to the points I made on the talk page, there's also the matter of IP addresses being a lot more informative, revealing, and useful than user names in most cases, for better or worse.

Sigh. It's not as though this will affect me (I choose to log in, after all) and it's not as though user pages are particularly important, but it's still sad to see misdirected attacks on free and open editing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Logging in does make it easier to track a given user; for instance, it would make it harder for me to calculate that this person who's presuming to tell Wikipedia how we've been doing everything wrong all these years, averages eight article edits a month.

I very much doubt that this proposal will succeed—it reeks of "solution to a non-existent problem". It looks like a couple of IPs (one registered to Oxford University, no less) dared to make a rude comment on Funcrunch's userpage, and this is now an exaggerated backlash. I can't imagine it will go anywhere; even if one disregards the ethical arguments about how protection conflicts with open editing and should only be imposed when there's a demonstrable case for it, there are glaringly obvious practical issues if we create a mechanism by which we make it harder for people to remove libel, spam, attacks and copyright violations. (I wouldn't be surprised if, even in the unlikely event that "support" somehow manages to get a majority, the devs refused to implement it; they all by-and-large are steeped in a culture where both meanings of "the free encyclopedia" still actually mean something.) ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

At least they aren't proposing a "only admins and the userspace owner can edit it" protection - I remember a year ago that whenever I randomly sampled newly created userspace pages for copyvio, a few of them did indeed contain content copied from other non-free websites. Extrapolating from these limited samples userspace may well be full of such issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and quite a few others contain outright spam. I really don't get the point of this proposal; by the nature of my history here I have literally hundreds of userpages on my watchlist, including most of the people who've been the targets of genuine on-wiki harassment rather than juvenile "your photo looks dumb" stuff, and I've never noticed "people editing userpages without permission" to be a particular issue. In those cases where it is an issue, protecting on a case-by-case basis works fine. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(adding) BTW, Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes, is a formal Wikipedia policy, not a vague guideline. (I note that Funcrunch is removing any opposing comment from the talkpage of the RFC, let alone the RFC itself. I do not foresee this ending well.) ‑ Iridescent 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask for some indication that harassment via userspace edits was an issue and was unceremoniously reverted. Given User:Khaleej Contact/sandbox I also wonder how many (for non-admin stalkers, promotional page tagged for G11 by an IP) good faith edits would be disallowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't lose sleep over this; even in the vanishingly-unlikely event that the RFC isn't snow-closed ten minutes after going live, the WMF would surely veto it. User:Jimbo Wales#You can edit this page! is just as much Wikipedia's symbolic face to the outside world as the jigsaw-death-star and the stubbornly retro main page. ‑ Iridescent 21:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually be surprised if this ended up passing. I see it very much as demonization of IP users as a class. It reminds me of a few points from Observations on Wikipedia behavior, of course. Nothing new, exactly. In poking at this Funcrunch subpage, I came across pages such as m:Grants:IdeaLab/Severe punishments for harassers and m:Grants:IdeaLab/Force people to log in when they edit and m:Grants:IdeaLab/Protect user space by default. I think the values and principles of the Wikimedia movement might be irreconcilably incompatible with those of some of these editors. From skimming these pages, you can see the outlines of a vocal contingent convinced that kicking out certain people will save the wikis. Build a wall, eh. However, in my experience, a vocal enough contingent, particularly if dedicated to a single cause, can influence policies and practices in any community.

I'm bemused by the dark irony of a group of people dedicated to social justice and LGBT rights and whatnot engaging in, perhaps even emulating, the same kinds of behavior and rhetoric toward "foreigners" (read: IP users) that we see outside of Wikipedia in the news. Bleh.

The people developing MediaWiki do so for both Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia installations. There are an ungodly number of configuration variables these days, so even if a feature is anti-wiki or antithetical to Wikimedia's values, it can make its way into the core code base behind a feature flag. For better or worse, the large number of disputes over software development and configuration in years past (MediaViewer, superprotection, FlaggedRevs, LiquidThreads, Flow, Gather, etc.) have likely given an edge to the local communities in deciding matters like this. The old available means of combating proposals like this—pointing to pages such as m:Founding principles and wmf:Values and letting the Bugzilla bug rot without response—may be gone. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you discovered the Systemic Bias Kit yet?

I'll be very surprised if it passes. The only way it could realistically do so would be if the hardline Friendly Spacers managed to canvass enough support to railroad it through over the wishes of the community, and that's not realistically going to happen; since even SV's userpage (the ground zero of userpage harassment) isn't even semiprotected, nobody other than the usual Bay Area suspects is going to believe that userspace harassment is anything more than a vague nuisance at most. Anyone wanting to run a genuine harassment campaign is doing it on ED or Twitter, not adding "I am ugly lol" to people's autobiographies on Wikipedia.

At some point, someone should probably go through the list of indefinitely protected userpages, send every one of them an "if you still want this to remain protected, please explain why" note, and do a bulk unprotect. I find it deeply unlikely that keeping User:71.156.44.57 full-protected for ten years is serving any useful purpose. ‑ Iridescent 22:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(adding) Just followed some of those links. Good grief; how can someone miss the point of Wikipedia that badly and not already be blocked as WP:NOTHERE?

Yeah, I cringed quite a bit reading some of those comments.

Regarding the friendly spacers, the battleground behavior is tiring for me. It's not as though there's a faction of people wanting to make the place unfriendly. It's silly. That said, when Wikipedians try to be welcoming and friendly, we end up with this: Template:Welcome to Wikipedia.

It's funny that you mention old page protections. Meta-Wiki has an inane activity policy to keep adminship there, so for the current six-month period, my ten actions were unprotecting pages: m:Special:Log/protect/MZMcBride. :-) My small spree included unprotecting m:Don't be a jerk, retitled since it's no longer acceptable to say dick. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

since it's no longer acceptable to say dick. Funny that. TV Tropes (the website I hail from) is OK with saying "don't be a dick" and we have a much more draconian civility policy than Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason for that change is a long, boring journey into wiki-archaeology. One editor made himself a bunch of enemies in high places who were looking for an excuse to ban him; when he described someone as "a dishonest cunt", they thought they had their pretext. It was pointed out that it was inconsistent to treat the use of slang for female genitalia as a blockable offence, while the use of slang for male genitalia was written into Wikipedia's basic statement of principles; thus, the whole thing was retitled. As an interesting exercise, count just how many of the "good faith editors" who took part in that RFC have subsequently been banned from Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 09:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Many of them in the same ArbCom case. Coincidentally, partly for fighting with that one editor seems like in a number of instances. My sense is that systemic bias and incivility are a problem here but that most proposed solutions and approaches have ... issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TWA Terminator Horse

To be fair, much as I occasionally mock it I don't actually have any problem with Template:Welcome to Wikipedia. It bundles together a bunch of links to useful things, without overwhelming the reader with WP:QKP/WP:KUL/WP:ZHFG gibberish. When I first started, I'd have found it useful. Likewise, much as I may (rightly) mock The Wikipedia Adventure's coffee-stain logo and their outright disturbing "welcoming" Horse Terminator avatar, I don't actually object to the principle of a teach-them-the-basics game rather than throwing well-intentioned newcomers into Wikipedia's weird markup and weirder social structure to sink or swim. If "play this mini-game to learn the basics before you start fighting" is good enough for Tomb Raider, it's good enough for us. ‑ Iridescent 23:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

VvG II

The forces at work re popularity are endless fascinating, and obviously I don't have an answer, or Kaney west and whats her name would be bringing me tea. I think with Van Gogh the situation is the opposite to say, Talk talk and A Ha; which indicates, as we already know, that A&R is basically the business of gathering stones to throw at a wall, hoping for luck. The current "romanticised life" sect is my attempt to tease this out, but I'm not happy for various reason. Would appreciate thoughts. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I gave some thoughts at the PR, but putting them into place would mean some substantial rewriting and FAC isn't the place for that. The trouble is, you're effectively writing the biography of both a fictional character and a fairly well-documented individual, and it's not particularly easy to take a side-by-side approach to explaining where reality and myth diverge. If I were writing this from scratch I'd take the same line we take with Richard Whittington/Dick Whittington and His Cat (or come to that, the course we eventually took following much wailing and gnashing of teeth at Historicity of King Arthur, Christ myth theory, Cultural depictions of Richard III of England and so on); one article on what we know about van Gogh the man who was squarely a man of his time and who rather than being a unique visionary, fits neatly into the Delacroix–Monticelli–Cezanne–van Gogh–Gauguin–Matisse continuum (essentially the first three sections of the existing article), and a completely separate standalone article on Vincent the mythological folk hero who plays the role of John the Baptist in Matisse and Warhol's personality cults, and who was posthumously whipped up into the World's Greatest Artist by dealers and critics who saw the potential in a very prolific painter whose work was largely out of the big European state and royal collections and thus available for the American, British and Japanese nouveau riche of the postwar boom to buy as status symbols (c.f. Picasso, Monet, Dali, Renoir). ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you realise how much effort it takes to type "Matisse" as often as this and to only spell it with one "t" each time?

It's quite an achievement that she's still able to inconvenience you even in her extended absence. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If history is any guide, she's not as absent as she's supposed to be; she was still editing merrily away as of October last year. ‑ Iridescent 16:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I already know all this. But thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I know you know - you were there - this is more thinking out loud about the practicalities (plus a starting point for any talk page watchers who might want to chip in). ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was, and agree exactly.I dont want such an important point to be lost; hence the pestering. You have clear; absorbing. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Sidetrack about horrible paintings

• Somewhere there's a photo of a side-by-side comparison of a van Gogh and an Otto Wacker fake in slanting light (think the subject was one of those big bright yellow balls that turns up in the sky sometimes). The difference is akin to one of those experiments where they give spiders LSD- the Wacker was well out of wack. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Although, would you get consistent results from multiple Van Gogh paintings? One of the reasons for VVGs "fifty years ahead of his time" reputation is that he painted in radically different styles over a short time, and Picasso and the assorted Modernist movements set the idea in the public mind that this was how "real" artists were supposed to work. (Traditionally, an artist was supposed to become very good in one style and then stick to that style; if you compare various works from the careers of Titian, Gainsborough, Rembrandt, even then-cutting-edge artists like Turner and Monet, the style barely changes once they get into their groove.) I'd be willing to bet that running the same test on Farmhouses Among Trees and Houses at Auvers would show them as completely unrelated, despite being almost identical compositions. ‑ Iridescent 21:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• That farmhouse painting is horrible- reminds me of 1970s kitsch, so he could be not just fifty but ninety years ahead. Still, I'd prefer it to any Thomas Kinkade. I wonder if there are any early Kinkades which demonstrate that he underwent a similar change in style? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Actually yes; early Kincade works owe a lot more to Frederic Edwin Church and a lot less to Walt Disney, before he stumbled on a moneymaking formula and stuck to it. (FWIW, compared to Vladimir Tretchikoff Kincade is up there with Raphael.) ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a comparison of Kinkade and Millais. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• They have 2000 years to choose from, and they select John Everett Millais to represent "good art"? Could they not get hold of something more tasteful like Dogs Playing Poker? ‑ Iridescent 20:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• or anything by Boris O'Klein. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Having looked at Kincade more in the last hour than in the preceding decades, some of the criticism is possibly unfair. Comparing him to more traditional artists is missing the point, since he's effectively a mass-market high-throughput artist; complaining that his landscapes are more crappily painted than those of William Dyce is like complaining that Stan Lee pays less careful attention to colour balance than Caravaggio, or that Joey Ramone paid less careful attention to timing and pitch than did Jacqueline du Pre. ‑ Iridescent 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I got side-tracked into the Pre-Raphaelites for some reason and have spent a bit of time recently looking at Dante Rossetti's women - did the man think all women were part camel? Or was he a reincarnation of Parmigianino but couldn't afford enough canvas to make the necks really long? I think I prefer Kinkade to Rossetti .. but only just. And that's probably because I haven't looked at much Kinkade recently...Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Pegwell Bay, Kent

• Some of Rossetti's early works are remarkable in the context of their era—Ecce Ancilla Domini was genuinely revolutionary, in that it was the first time anyone had ever approached Biblical topics from the "what would this have actually looked like?" angle. The reason he's dated so badly compared to most of his contemporaries is that in around 1865 he convinced himself that he was on a mission to convince the masses that religion was obsolete and love would replace it, and that it was his duty to inspire love and an appreciation of (his peculiar opinion of) beauty in the masses, and thus spent the rest of his life churning out variations of "morose woman holding piece of fruit". (Plus, by this time he had a serious drug habit, and was churning out anything he thought would sell to supply his next fix.) There's a very brief synopsis of the change here; I have a vague aspiration to write something more substantial on the matter one day. (When they weren't painting endless portraits of Lizzie Siddall and Jane Morris looking pensive, some Pre-Raphaelite works are actually very good; Pegwell Bay, Kent is stunning when you see it in the flesh.) ‑ Iridescent 00:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I actually like a good bit of the PRB and associated artists - I just don't like the "Rossetti-pensive-woman-with-glanders" look. I like Our English Coasts quite well, actually. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Donkeys in Trousers

On a sidetrack but on the subject of questionable pictures, my new winner for "apparently serious example of Wikipedia's ludicrously overblown 'all must have prizes' barnstars-and-bling internal reward culture" goes to Image:Jielbeaumadier baudets du poitou culotte st-martin-de-re 2013.jpeg, "considered the most valued image on Commons within the scope of donkeys wearing trousers". ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Can you deny that is a particularly fine picture of a donkey in trousers though? At least 3 donkeys and 4 clearly visible pairs of trousers... Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's even our best picture of a donkey in trousers (only on Wikipedia would we have more than one). This one has more donkeys and more trousers. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes but a less attractive donkey as the focus. It looks tired and overweight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

..... it's those "sans-culottes" you've really got to watch out for. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• By showcasing a realistic variety of donkeys rather than placing a disproportionate emphasis on those donkeys who conform to traditional ideas of donkey attractiveness, we promote a more realistic view of donkeys among the broad readership, as well as reducing body-anxiety issues among our donkey readers. It fits squarely in Wikipedia's remit. (Ealdgyth, Montanabw, why is Donkeys in trousers still red?) ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Because I don't write about donkeys? After an unfortunate summer where I was riding director for a summer camp and my boss figured that meant I knew all about donkeys too... I avoid them. (Donkey-skiiing is a sport, I swear...) @Justlettersandnumbers: is our donkey sorta-expert (at least he's written a little bit about them...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't a donkey just a horse with bigger ears and a worse temper? (One of the more surreal half-days I ever spent involved coaxing a particularly surly donkey to walk in a parade, without either wandering down every side-street or running over to the crowd to steal candy-apples from children.) ‑ Iridescent 23:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This may explain the personality issues...

• My Arabians are totally insulted. Expect the wrath of the "smarter-than-they-really-should-be-horse-breed" to come at get you sometime. The gray gelding is actually smart enough to open truck doors and has figured out that the wheel has something to do with making the truck go... it's a good thing he can't fit in the cab because he might just figure out the foot pedals. No. Donkeys are not just surly horses. From your story, you've probably been donkey-skiing also - it's a fun sport ...for the donkey. They actually have enough differences that they can't really be approached in the same way as horses. And ... I do not like those differences. I'll have goats to keep the horses company rather than donkeys.... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• On a meandering piece of wiki-surfing from that photo, I have now discovered that Donkey basketball is a thing. Truly Wikipedia is a wondrous thing. ‑ Iridescent 00:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've got probably a couple of hundred photos of this place- The Donkey Sanctuary- but unfortunately none of donkeys in trousers. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"put a bangin' donkey on it". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I can top this. We do have an article on the Tijuana Zebra. Yes. Now we know why donkeys can be ... wait for it ... such jackasses! Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's probably unfit for mention on a family talkpage, but being passed off as a zebra is definitely not the worst indignity inflicted on a donkey in Tijuana. ‑ Iridescent 20:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. But let's not forget those poor lonely bulls. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Donkeys in trousers

The practice of putting trousers on donkeys originated in the early 19th century. In the wake of casualties during the Napoleonic wars, and of surviving able-bodied males increasingly migrating to cities in search of work as the industrial revolution took hold, many rural communities were left with no adult males. As laws of the time prevented women from holding public office, the functions of civic governance were formally vested in male livestock as a legal fiction to allow their female owners to take part in public administration. To preserve the dignity of these offices, many of which dated back to the Roman Empire and were the source of great local pride, the animals selected were required to dress in formal clothing. Donkeys were generally preferred, as horses were in short supply following wartime requisitions, cattle were expensive to dress, and pigs had a tendency to soil their clothing. As Christian revivalism became influential in the later 19th century, it was felt inappropriate to return the donkeys to their previous unclothed state, and thus as of 2016 donkeys continue to be dressed in trousers in some regions. The practice is widely considered to be the origin of the phrase "you need to cover your ass". (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): American Pharoah, May 7 really, 4 months without a horsey TFA?
• Reasons for nomination: Wikipedia is infallible; reality is frequently inaccurate. Just cite the things which are made up to books which you know nobody's in a position to check, and cite those things which are true to friendly-looking sources which are available on Google Books, to ensure those are the bits that get spot-checked. Besides, this is probably more interesting than whatever the truth is, and people are always complaining that TFA is never interesting enough.
• Support as nominator. ‑ Iridescent 15:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support ass covering. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• SCOMN! (snorted coffee out my nose!)

[1] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

How bizarre

I was just wandering through my watchlist, and I seemed to have edited your talkpage. I have absolutely no idea how it happened! Profuse apologies. I of course have reverted. Twilight zone. Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries—it's very easy to slip on the rollback buttons, particularly if you have it set to show them in your watchlist. ‑ Iridescent 21:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case you might be interested in

I just filed an arbitration request against The Rambling Man, citing as evidence something that happened on your talk page. Hence, I'm notifying you. Link is here: [2]. Thanks, Banedon (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Matthew White Ridley

Would you have any views on the notability of artist Matthew White Ridley (1837–1888)? I recently added him to the disambiguation page at Matthew Ridley and got reverted with a pointer at MOS:DABRL (please, no MoS rant!). Related discussion (potentially) here. Do I really have to go and create a redlink somewhere else before adding someone like that to a disambiguation page? Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Much as I may denigrate the MOS, the "No article, no link" rule for dab pages and lists is one piece of Wikipedia bureaucracy with which I do agree; enforcing it as a bright-line rule is what stops the lists degenerating into directories of streets, local councillors, non-league football players, asteroids, soap-opera characters etc. Sure, you can say "I think topic is notable enough that one day we'll have an article on him/her/it" or "I think it's important that readers know this topic exists, even though we don't have an article on it", but in that case so can everyone else.

On the specific topic of Ridley, I think you might struggle to write something which will survive AFD. (With a neat circularity, probably his best claim to notability nowadays isn't that he gets any critical attention, but that it can be demonstrated from van Gogh's letters that VVG was a fan of his.) I can knock up a microstub based on his University of Glasgow biography and fluffed out from van Gogh's letters, but I'm not sure it can be expanded beyond that. Yes, he has a few works in major collections, but I suspect that's an artefact of some of the donors who established the big galleries being close to his friends. He doesn't have an entry in the ODNB, which isn't the be-all-and-end-all but is generally a fairly good warning beacon when it comes to anyone who lived in 19th-century England (particularly if they're male and lived in London), and it looks like the only significant biographical material ever published on him is a single 1981 article. He seems to have been an etcher who dabbled as a painter rather than a painter with a sideline in etching, so Johnbod may know more about him; he tends to be more interested in that kind of thing than me. ‑ Iridescent 20:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I just think Wikipedia should at least try and help people (like me) who are looking at a reference to an artist called 'Matthew White Ridley' and wondering what who all these other Matthew Ridleys are and whether he is one of them? I had to go look elsewhere, and it feels, even without an article, that Wikipedia should say something somewhere about this artist.

On the specific case of people who get mentioned in Wikipedia articles but who don't have articles themselves but are borderline notable and have a common enough name that a disambiguation page exists, is there anything that stops the endless cycle of "Person A links the article [most people stop here], finds there is a disambiguation page, tries to disambiguate, fails, and delinks it"? Is there a way to flag up an unlinked piece of text to say "many people before you have tried to link this and please don't try again, unless maybe things have changed since the last time someone tried"? It is the old story of silent actions not getting logged and the silent actions happening over and over again. When someone looks at a Wikipedia article, they don't see all the silent (and endlessly repeated) checks that result in no action. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree in principle that it's useful to readers to disambiguate even when the articles don't exist, but it really would open a floodgate if we started allowing it. We have a shedload of name disambiguation pages and it would be impossible to monitor all of them, so they'd end up going the same way as the days-of-the-year pages, which have become an endless unwinnable war between the people wanting to include all the members of their favourite band, and the people trying to keep the articles down to a manageable size. (The most extreme example I've ever seen of the "if there's not enough for an article, shove a line into the next-level-up page" phenomenon is this page, with separate entries for every single house in a street.)

On how we treat "decision: no action", that's a long-term issue which has affected Wikipedia since its foundation, and AFAIK nobody's come up with a better solution than "hidden text comments". (Technically Editnotices are supposed to serve this function, but nobody actually reads those.) It's the same issue which makes ANI and AE such bearpits—a hundred editors who decide no action is necessary can be overruled by one admin with an itchy protect/delete/block finger. ‑ Iridescent 10:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The approach used on Wikisource does allow the logging of a check, even if no corrections were needed. A checklist for each article showing the last time an action was taken such as "check all outgoing links are pointing to the right place" or "check images are OK", or "check to see if new images are available" or "do a survey of the literature to see if new sources are available" or... well, the list would be endless, wouldn't it? But there are some basic periodic checks that would be useful. Though on second thoughts, you might get the same people that tag articles for improvement marking some of these tasks as done and not doing them properly! The task of "check all incoming links are correct" (which no-one really does anyway) is not always possible when most of the incoming links are from navboxes. For articles that have been through a review process, it would be a case of "do a basic check and note that this has been done". It is more to get a sense of how 'untouched' articles are. Some just get bot edits and hardly anything else, but might still be OK. I guess it is really up to the reader to do all these basic checks themselves if they want to be satisfied with a Wikipedia article. It would be nice to have a reliable flagged revision that was last checked by a human, but different people have different concepts of what "checked" means. A quick read-through? A careful check of the sources? Vandalism-free? That is probably why flagged revisions never really took off here. You need a small community that agrees on what 'checked' means. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is why for anything that's been through GAN or FAC, we always link at the top of the talkpage both the version that was reviewed, and the review itself; these are the only points in the life-cycle of a typical Wikipedia article where checks are actually logged, so they serve as a de facto Last Clean Version. "Last edited by a human" wouldn't really work; as I alluded to here, if human editors are focused on a particular task (fixing incoming links to another article, tinkering with a template, categorisation…) they can have remarkable tunnel-vision and fail to notice even the most glaring stupidity. Likewise, lack of activity isn't really an indicator of anything, other than that nobody cares. 7 & 9 Bounds Green Road will probably never have an edit until someone gets around to AFD-ing it, since there isn't and never will be anything to say about it, but unless it's actively vandalised that doesn't mean it will become any less accurate over time. ‑ Iridescent 11:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PS. In case you or anyone is interested, the reason I was looking into Matthew White Ridley was because I was working on this image of Queen Victoria and her family (from 1877) and have just transcribed the identification key here. That list of 39 names is both interesting and repetitive and makes me wonder if they all remembered their own names or not... (in some cases, finding the relevant Wikipedia article is not easy). Anyway, the artist is the aforementioned Matthew White Ridley, and the etching even has its own Worldcat catalogue entry for some reason. The need to distinguish between the different Matthew White Ridleys is what prompted me to edit the disambiguation page, as the Worldcat entry incorrectly credits the Viscount Ridley (this bloke). It looks like it was published in at least The Illustrated London News as a four-page supplement (see here, yours for only £375), and in Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper (with a copy available from the Library of Congress). I did find a 'printed s. steel engraving' held at some point in the private collections of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and sold at Sotheby's, New York, on 19 February 1998 (Sale No.7000-WE, lot #1342). Not sure what that means (reading here gives a bit more about that sale in 1998). I wonder who bought it and for how much? I suppose Ridley would have pieced together the artwork from various sources, rather than sketching a gathering from life? A lot of sources refer to him as "M. W. Ridley" and it is difficult to see the details in amongst the references to the Viscount. Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• M W Ridley appears to have inspired the creation of the Ridley Art Society (or Club), which may have been in existence as late as the 1990s (link to National Archives record). Also note this one, page 2 (lol). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• sorry, I don't think I'd heard of him & it's not a period I know. I'm away at the moment. If he's not in the Getty Union Artist's Names database (online), or Benezit or the big directory of British artists, then notability is doubtful. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. He is in the Getty Union Artist's Names database here. That is useful. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • And apparently in "Bénézit Dictionary of Artists: English Edition (2006)" - that is probably enough. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Available online since 2011 for £56 for 3 months or £215 for 12 months. From the sample biography, probably a short bio and a list of exhibitions, gallery holdings and auction records. Still, nice to have an official record of those. Over 170,000 entries. Wonder if they would all be notable in Wikipedia terms? Bénézit Dictionary of Artists is available from Westminster Libraries, so I can access that (will take a look later on). Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Oh, how annoying. The Westminster Libraries institutional service appears to be limited to Grove Art Online only and excludes Bénézit Dictionary of Artists, despite what it claims on the Westminster Libraries Services page. Back to the drawing boards (though I will hopefully remember to use Grove a bit more now). Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Richmond libraries (allegedly) give Benezit access to members, although I haven't checked. There's a handy list of which (London) library memberships give you access to which services here. Westminster is still the gold standard, although City is very useful for Wikipedia purposes as that gives you remote access to the newspaper archive. ‑ Iridescent 23:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 4, 2016

Hi, here's another one of yours at TFA, I'm working on the TFA text now. Sorry, no donkeys in this one (yet). - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't have a position on this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

On the dates (30 November and 2 April), you make the call ... I'm generally getting rid of dates (but keeping the years) unless I want to draw the reader's attention to them (on anniversaries, for instance) or historians regard the dates as important. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've no issue with the blurb, other than a couple of minor tweaks (although I fully expect it to get minimal page views; some topics just can't be made interesting). There's some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#10th anniversary approaching about running a London Transport article on 7 Sep to mark the project's 10th anniversary, so you may want to consider moving it forward by a couple of days. I personally see no point to this—no readers will be aware that WikiProject London Transport even exists, so nobody will realise the significance except the half-dozen people still involved in the near-moribund WP:LONDON and WP:LT. Plus I'm not sure Wotton is really representative of "London Transport"—it's nowhere near London, and only falls into the London Transport remit because it was briefly operated by London Underground for two years. (FWIW, it was a horse-drawn railway line, so I could probably work a donkey into it if I looked hard enough.)

I have no position on including the "featured topic" link if someone actually thinks it's useful. I personally see no point to including it—people who find this interesting will read the other articles regardless of whether it's a featured topic or not, and people who don't find it interesting won't care that there are more articles on the topic.

On dates, I'd be inclined to at least keep the months. Most readers will be aware that closed railways tend to have a very long half-life (Europe and North America are littered with disused railway lines), and to go from "end of service" to "fully asset-stripped and sold off" in five months is actually quite unusual. ‑ Iridescent 09:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Enlightening as always, and I see your point about the months. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(adding) If there's space, it might make sense to say Richard Plantagenet Campbell Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos in full, rather than just piping it to Duke of Buckingham. His name is so impressively goofy that it's quite eyecatching, and might draw in readers who normally wouldn't dream of reading an article on 19th-century milk transportation in the Aylesbury Vale. (In the absence of a free-use picture of the station—which wasn't much to look at, anyway—it might make more sense to use a picture of the Duke rather than the locomotive; unless you're a real hardcore enthusiast, all steam trains look pretty much alike.) ‑ Iridescent 12:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't have space, this one is already running a little long. Pinging Chris on the choice of image. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@TFA coordinators I've reworded the blurb slightly to remove "services north of Aylesbury", on the grounds that most readers have no idea where Aylesbury, Brill and Wotton are in relation to each other so this won't mean anything to them. This has the side-effect of bringing it down to 1078 characters; would you consider changing the opening sentence to Wotton railway station in Buckinghamshire, England, was part of a private horse-drawn tramway for freight built by Richard Plantagenet Campbell Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos in 1871.? This would bring the blurb to 1154 characters, which is only just over the 1150 target, and I do feel that it would add a spot of colour to an inherently deeply boring topic, particularly for US readers who aren't used to the "Brigadier Sir Marmaduke Arbuthbott-Bumley-Smythe" naming conventions of the English hunting-shooting-fishing classes. ‑ Iridescent 09:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not TFA style, but I have no objection, as long as you make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks—done. It does occur to me that there's a lot of repetition of "the line", but I can't see a way to avoid it. Fixed that ‑ Iridescent 11:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed FAC mentoring scheme

Following discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage and with the agreement of the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have finalized a "page of instructions" relating to the proposed voluntary mentoring scheme for new FAC nominators. The final draft can be viewed here.

We hope to begin the scheme shortly, on a trial basis. However, I think it would be unwise to go live until we have around a dozen or so potential mentors signed up – I hope many more than that will sign eventually. As your contribution to the discusssion indicated that you generally favoured the idea of a voluntary mentoring scheme, I am now inviting you to add your name to the list of possible mentors on the instruction page. I emphasize that the extent to which you commit yourself to this scheme is entirely a matter for you; you incur no specific obligation by adding your name. If anything about the scheme is not clear to you, please drop me a note and I'll try to explain. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Added myself. Once it goes live, you might want to randomise the list in some way so whoever's at the top (either because they start with A, or because they added themselves first) don't constantly get pestered. ‑ Iridescent 23:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks: Yes, I'd feel uneasy to have my name permanently at the top! I'll give tis thought. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(sort of offtopic) Wonder if one could use Template:Random number or something for that. Also, taking notice of this as I do plan to take Laguna del Maule (volcano) there at some point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a method of putting a list of usernames in random order, as they used on on the {{ACE2015}} template to make the list of names appear in a different order each time. I'll admit to not being able to make head nor tail of the coding—Lua may as well be written in Japanese to me—but Mike V who wrote it can presumably adapt it to do the same with any other list of names. ‑ Iridescent 12:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Favour

I need to admit a lack of knowledge of one of Wikipedia's basic features - archiving. I have added to archives before, but never set one up from scratch. I need to archive a talkpage for a BLP (Peter Wyngarde) I have been tidying up and not sure how to start. WP:Archive implies that cut and paste moving to an archive subpage is the main methord? Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Only in death Easiest way is probably to add {{User:MiszaBot/config}} with appropriate parameters to the page in accordance with the instructions on User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. It takes longer as the bot has to pass through, but it takes less work for the human and you don't need to do it repeatedly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Does that work ok with never-before archived pages? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Depends how you want to go about it. If you're not expecting it to be archived very often, you can just cut-and-paste the comments into an archive page and add a link to the top of the existing page. To have the bot do it, add

{{User:MiszaBot/config
 |maxarchivesize = 200K
 |counter = 1
 |minthreadsleft = 5
 |algo = old(30d)
 |archive = Talk:Peter Wyngarde/Archive %(counter)d
 }}

to the top of the talkpage, where "maxarchivesize" is how big you want to archive to get before it opens up a fresh archive, "minthreadsleft" is how much you want it to leave behind (to prevent it archiving everything and leaving the page blank), and "algo" is how old something has to be before it gets archived. (30 days is usually good for high traffic pages, but sometimes it makes sense to make it 365 days so only genuinely stale threads are archived, to prevent people raising points which have already been raised). If you also put {{archive box | auto=yes }} at the top of the talkpage, it will put an auto-updating list of links to the archives. ‑ Iridescent 10:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(add) Yes, the bot can handle never-before-archived pages. Be aware that it will sort the posts by date-of-most-recent-comment, rather than date-thread-created, so things will end up out of order. ‑ Iridescent 10:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, all done. We shall see if I can follow basic instructions without screwing up at some point ;) Mainly needed to be done because of a few discussions over (sourced) issues that should not be left public forever. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at that talkpage, you might want to consider either bouncing it up to Legal, or asking one of the oversighters to have a look at it, if you haven't already. It looks like there's some rather questionable stuff there, and while archiving a talkpage does stop Google indexing it, it doesn't stop other search engines or Wikipedia mirrors picking it up; it might be better for the discussions to disappear altogether. ‑ Iridescent 10:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It has a number of issues yes. There was (prior to me removing it) a completely undue section regarding a conviction for a non-crime (a crime then, not now). Can be reliably sourced to the print media of the time. There is a category associated with this (which I just removed) and the reason for the crime has been disputed on the talkpage. So I expect someone at some point to take issue, but while the crime itself can be reliably sourced, the actor's sexuality cannot. Which causes an interesting and annoying problem. So when in doubt, remove everything. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Convicted of something which was then a crime but is not now" can be notable enough, for people as diverse as Margery Jourdemayne and Alan Turing, but it needs to be impeccably sourced, particularly if the person is still alive. My inclination in all these cases is that if a conviction has no bearing on the person's career (e.g. a five-year break when they were in prison, or people refusing to hire them owing to a conviction), the fact of the conviction isn't something for which the person is noteworthy (if it weren't for their convictions, nobody except a few enthusiasts would have ever heard of Wilde or Turing nowadays), and the subject themselves doesn't want it mentioned, the burden should be on anyone who wants to add it to demonstrate the public interest in mentioning it. This is not a view which is universally shared. ‑ Iridescent 11:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sadly 40 year old newspapers are reliable then as they are now... For the most part. Which was I nuked it under Undue rather than BLP. Since no one has complained since, its not been an issue. I hate dealing with categories in these situations however because it tends to rile people up who want to 'tag' famous people with their religion/sexuality/country etc in the name of 'organisation' rather than as I suspect 'promoting my team'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• On a related rabbit-hole note, is there a way/tool to see how and when a particular reference was changed/altered in the page history? -edit- Nevermind, it was added that way from the beginning for some reason. (Julien Green) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  Go to the history tab for the article, select the "Revision history search" button (immediately above "(newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)" at the top of the list of diffs), check the "force searching for Wikitext" box, and add the piece of code in question. If the article is long, it sometimes takes a while, but eventually you'll get a "added between (times)" message and a link to the diff. ‑ Iridescent 12:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  Ah great, been wondering about that for ages too. I shall stop bothering you now! Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear...

...you are a 'rogue admin' now... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been called worse; my personal favourite is "a blustering burnout who tries to blame the community for my own lack of interest". When I simultaneously have the lunatic fringe accusing me of being too inclusionist and too deletionist, I suspect I'm getting the balance right. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

p (redux)

Best section header ever. I followed this with some interest. I realised that this was an edit that didn't change how an article actually looks (well, maybe it does). But I get confused. Is it only bot editing that is considered 'bad'? I was pondering this, and realised that two edits I made recently didn't actually change the way the page was rendered, but were effectively moving the information around into a more machine-readable format. Namely these edits. The idea being that you could do that for all the approx 3000 links into the CWGC database (see discussion here). If I did that slowly, manually, that would be OK, but any bot work would need approval? Also, I am still a bit queasy over the idea that the end result would be to import all the data to Wikidata and call it from there. Should I be worried about that or not? Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The supposed reason for WP:COSMETICBOT is that inconsequential edits swamp watchlists when they are done at high speed. My suspicion is that the policy generates far more complaints and bickering than inconsequential edits would ever do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you were on Arbcom when Betacommand hit the fan; you must know the reason Wikipedia has these seemingly-draconian policies on automation in place.

Aside from bots, in practice the no-cosmetic-edits rule only really applies to WP:AWB (the rule in question is here). It's there for good reason; some editors used to make a habit of making huge swathes of minor edits to try to rack up their edit count. Because AWB users tend to work by category, this meant that if you'd watchlisted (for instance) every US Congressional biography, you could easily check your watchlist to find a couple of thousand minor edits cluttering it up. (If you like wikilawyering, Users of automation tools have a heightened responsibility to the community, and are expected to comply with applicable policies and restrictions; to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about their use of such tools; and to respect the community's wishes regarding the use of automation. An editor who misuses automation tools—whether deliberately or in good faith—or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted. is a formal Arbcom ruling.) Personally I could make a case for deprecating the General Fixes altogether; most of them at best serve little or no useful purpose, and at worst are actively disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 22:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. And I am going far too slowly for that. I am sure it could be automated in some way, but checking each one throws up little mysteries such as this. I am quailing slightly, though, in the face of List of cricketers who were killed during military service. Am I really going to convert all those bare URLs to tagged references? At some point, it will be possible to get a list of all CWGC casualties mentioned on Wikipedia, and work out which ones are sportspeople (most of them), which ones were awarded the Victoria Cross (these are not mutually exclusive categories), which ones are dead poets, which ones are dead MPs, which ones are dead generals, which ones are 'other' (this throws up some interesting cases, such as George Llewelyn Davies - only on Wikipedia would it be possible to find a picture of that person's gravestone kindly provided by a prolific Belgian photographer), and which ones are simply mentioned in passing in other articles (usually the scions of the aristocracy who formed the mostly doomed officer class). Probably some other categories I forgot (e.g. WWII fighter pilots and WWI flying aces). Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A software script could probably be knocked up without too much trouble which could go through any given list of people (particularly from somewhere like the CWGC which by definition will have death dates listed) and flag all those which have Wikipedia articles, using the birth and/or death dates as a cross-check to avoid false positives; likewise, it could compare two lists and generate a list of all those people who appear on both. Something along these lines must go on behind the curtain at Google every time searches on an ambiguous term. ‑ Iridescent 23:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

These are quite large lists to cross-check. I know it can be done in theory, but 1.7 million names on one list (CWGC) and 1.4 million on the other list (tagged by WikiProject Biography), though actually you would limit it to the death ranges as defined by the CWGC (1914-1921 and 1939-1947, IIRC) and use the handy Wikipedia 'XXXX deaths' categories for death years. Also, the CWGC have the same problem over disambiguation, except they don't as they disambiguate properly (unique ID for each person). But there are inordinate numbers of people with the same surname who died on the same date. I suspect the actual number with Wikipedia articles is quite small. Most will be on the lists in Category:Lists of people killed in World War I. And with that, that's enough for one day. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're looking at this as a serious project, rather than faffing about with CWGC lists I'd just go straight to the regiments. In my experience every regimental or unit museum in the UK and US (and I assume every other western nation other than Germany) without exception proudly displays a list of the notable people who served with them, and I imagine they'll be delighted to help anyone offering to help promote their memory. ‑ Iridescent 23:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of "massive timesinks" - Wikipedia very kindly bought me this doorstop, which has me fighting the urge to turn the redlinks in List of illuminated later Anglo-Saxon manuscripts and List of Hiberno-Saxon illuminated manuscripts blue.. I think that's an insane idea but... wow... what a collection of important but so specialized material! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

On the Article "The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control"

Are you claiming that I am the originator of the idea that there is a relationship between tyranny and arms control?

Wikipedia defines original research as:

"...material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

Here are three excerpts from reliable , published sources that clearly show that there is abundant pre-existing research on the relationship between tyranny and arms control. These sources disprove the claim that the article was in any way original research:

1. "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton

2. "In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not 'politically reliable.' " - Stephen Halbrook

3. "First he led a colony to a place called Rhaicelus, in the region of the Thermaic gulf; and thence he passed to the country in the neighbourhood of Mt. Pangaeus. Here he acquired wealth and hired mercenaries; and not till ten years had elapsed did he return to Eretria and make an attempt to recover the government by force. In this he had the assistance of many allies, notably the Thebans and Lygdamis of Naxos, and also the Knights who held the supreme power in the constitution of Eretria. After his victory in the battle at Pallene he captured Athens, and when he had disarmed the people he at last had his tyranny securely established, and was able to take Naxos and set up Lygdamis as ruler there. He effected the disarmament of the people in the following manner. He ordered a parade in full armour in the Theseum, and began to make a speech to the people. He spoke for a short time, until the people called out that they could not hear him, whereupon he bade them come up to the entrance of the Acropolis, in order that his voice might be better heard. Then, while he continued to speak to them at great length, men whom he had appointed for the purpose collected the arms and locked them up in the chambers of the Theseum hard by, and came and made a signal to him that it was done. Pisistratus accordingly, when he had finished the rest of what he had to say, told the people also what had happened to their arms; adding that they were not to be surprised or alarmed, but go home and attend to their private affairs, while he would himself for the future manage all the business of the state." - Aristotle

You have wrongfully deleted the article, which makes it difficult to even discuss whether or not it is neutral or original. Please, at a minimum, take my contributions from the deleted article and transfer them to the bottom of the draft page hereso I may continue to improve them until the page can be published, and so that I may reference them in the deletion review process.

"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted... If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." See: Wikipedia Deletion Guidelines for Administrator The arguments in favor of deletion were made in bad faith, as they were contrary to Wikipedia policies. New information has come to light in the form of references, but only if those who were arguing in favor of deletion willfully ignored those references while making their arguments in favor of deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

References

(talk page stalker) I have some doubts about the reliability of your first two sources. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control indicates there were NPOV problems as well, and reading the deleted articles I can see why.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, the first source is one of the founding fathers of the United States and was taken directly from the website of the U.S. Congress. The second source is Stephen Halbrook, who is " is an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.[1][2] He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).[3] He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: Printz v. United States, United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, and Castillo v. United States." I see no way that you could possibly claim that my point of view was not neutral, since I merely stated the fact that hundreds of scholars, politicians, philosophers and human rights activists have debated and written about the relationship between tyranny and arms control over thousands of years. That is not my opinion or my point of view, that is a fact, as is apparent according to the references cited above. However, if you would like to be the first person to actually explain why you think the article is not neutral, and what parts of it are not neutral, and how you think it could be improved (other than deleting the whole article), then please do, but again, you would be the first to do so, in spite of my repeated attempts to inquire as to what is so un-neutral about the article while we were debating whether or not it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Have I at any point claimed that you are the originator of the idea that there is a relationship between tyranny and arms control? No, thought not. If you really feel the need to rant at me like a crazy person, at least make allegations that can't be refuted in five seconds by anyone who reads the actual AFD discussion.

Wikipedia is not a free web host or a venue for political discussion, and this type of synthesis is very rarely going to be appropriate in a Wikipedia context. (To put this in perspective, of Wikipedia's 6,929,838 articles, there are only twelve "Relationship between…" articles, one of which is about to be deleted and a couple of the rest of which will probably be deleted shortly.*) This kind of "term paper" approach is very rarely appropriate to Wikipedia, as in almost all cases the relationship is better discussed in the parent articles.

*Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner, Relationship between Gaelic football and Australian rules football, Relationship between Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, Relationship between avant-garde art and American pop culture, Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse, Relationship between education and HIV/AIDS, Relationship between mathematics and physics, Relationship between religion and science, Relationship between rugby league and rugby union, Relationship between string theory and quantum field theory, Relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights and Relationship between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Iron Guard, should you care.

Per your request I've restored it to User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control for you to work on it, but as per my comments on the AFD as it stands this is in no way appropriate for Wikipedia, and unless and until you can get it into a state which complies with Wikipedia policies expect it to be deleted again if you try to move it back into article space. Be aware that hyperbole like The survival of freedom and democracy may depend on the careful consideration and discussion of the relationship between tyranny and arms control, and on the public's education regarding this topic is unlikely to do your case any favours; quite aside from the questionable nature of the statement, "the survival of freedom and democracy" is not a part of Wikipedia's remit; except in a very few cases where politics explicitly infringes on Wikipedia's ability to operate, Wikipedia is politically neutral. Bear in mind that this is a global project, not a US project, and most of the countries in which we operate have very different notions of "freedom and democracy" to your own. ‑ Iridescent 23:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Bear in mind that millions of Wikipedia users have very different notions on what it appropriate for encyclopedic article and what is not,Iridescent, and you are not the ultimate judge of that, you are only one administrator with one opinion, while there are hundreds of millions of people who think this topic is very notable and needs to be openly discussed in Wikipedia. If the deletion of the article is controversial, which obviously it is because we are having this conversation, and the article does not violate Wikipedia's polices, which it does not, then you can't delete it just because you think it is not "encyclopedic", whatever your definition of encyclopedic may be. The reasons given for deleting the article were that it was original research and that it was not neutral, which were both obviously false. Since you admit that this was not your reason for deleting the article, then what was your reason for deleting the article, other that the snowball clause, which is ridiculous, since you may not delete an article if the deletion is controversial. Please notice that many of my references on this topic are written by Greeks, South Africans, Romans, Indians, et.al. This is a global topic, and this topic more so than almost any other will determine the survival of freedom of democracy, with the possible exception of the free flow of ideas and information, which is also threatened by your attempts to delete this article. Wikipedia is not allowed to operate openly in tyrannies such as China and Egypt, so yes, this political issue does pertain directly to Wikipedia, but even if it didn't, Wikipedia is meant to be a venue for the collection and dissemination of all human knowledge on all topics, including the relationship between arms control and tyranny. And replying to my explanation of why the article should not be deleted by saying that I am ranting "like a crazy person" is a personal insult against me, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, so I insist that you retract that comment and respond to my claims in a respectful manner that conforms to Wikipedia policies.