Jump to content

User talk:Viriditas/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

AfD nomination of Naveed Afzal Haq

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Naveed Afzal Haq. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveed Afzal Haq. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Climategate

No, I have not followed the discussion in depth, but I have followed the discussion from afar... I agree that "Climategate" is non-neutral. So are names like Boston massacre. The point of the final paragraph of WP:NPOV#Article titles to say that this does not matter. Whether people like it or not, the name "Climategate" has become a proper name for the event. Proper names do not need to be neutral. Furthermore, once a proper name is used by the vast majority of sources, to not use it becomes POV on our part. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It has not become a proper name for the event, but rather a pet name invented by climate deniers. This is a fact that both the New York Times[1] and Time magazine have reported.[2] Many sources simply do not use the term at all, because they have actual journalists on their staff who understand how to write news stories about science. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you reviewed the "consensus of the sources?" Why do the following sources not get included in that consensus - [3], [4], [5], [6]? Why do sources that qualify "Climategate," but putting it in "scare quotes," or by calling it "so-called Climategate" count towards that "consensus?" Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the name was invented by deniers... most non-neutral names are invented by someone with a POV (Boston massacre was coined by anti-English radicals in Colonial Boston). When it comes to titling our articles, Wikipedia does not care who invented the name ... nor do we care why they invented it (we remain neutral on such issues)... what we care about is whether reliable sources use it, and if so is that usage common. "Climategate" is now routinely used by the mainstream media when discussing this event (and yes, I am talking about "actual" journalism... such as the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and all three US TV news networks). It is what the average person calls the event. Yes, there are some media outlets that choose not to use it... but the vast majority do use it, and that is why we should use it. Climategate is what our readers will expect us to call our article on the event.
I realize that this is an emotional issue for a lot of people... I realize that there is a strong consensus of editors don't want to use the name "Climategate"... that is very understandable. I think that consensus gives you a good rational for invoking WP:IAR. But please realize that that is what you are doing. Both the letter of our policies and the intent behind them tell us that we should title the article as "Climategate". It is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Many reliable sources don't use the term, and those that do refer to it as "so-called" or in scare quotes, and use other terms to refer to the incident. Sources like Time magazine and The New York Times point out the term is inherently biased and favors only one POV. We have no need for such a word in an article title, nor are we required to use it. I've followed this issue very closely and some of the sources you cite above, such as The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, deceptively ran op-ed's in such a way that when a reader viewed the article, it looked like it was a news piece when it was actually the opinion of a commentator who had a declared vested interest against climate change and used the term like a weapon. As for the TV news networks, the same is true; Opinions would be offered by the same talking heads, who in the minds of the viewer were simple journalists trying to report a news story, but when examined closer, they were actually reporting their own personal opinion and grinding the same axe. This was not a coincidence. This was a highly coordinated campaign to attack climate scientists in the days before the climate conference in Copenhagen. In summary, you are arguing that we should use propaganda on Wikipedia. I must disagree, and the day that Wikipedia becomes used for propaganda purposes is the day this project is over. I don't think this is an emotional issue for many people, and I don't think the average person cares. However, the term "climategate" is an emotional word designed to frame a topic in a certain way and elicit reactions from people who generally lack basic critical thinking skills. Most good journalists and news stories rarely use the term or refer to it in passing, while the opinion pieces lead with the term, pretending to be news stories. There is nothing in any of the policies or guidelines that force us to use a loaded, fringe term to describe an event, and those who argue that we must haven't looked at the facts. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the quotes, when I did my analysis I cross-referenced POV article titles with a history textbook and noticed that the textbook also used quotes and our articles still used the POV titles. I asked if anyone wanted to do another cross-reference with another history text book, but no one took me up on the offer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

An unanswered question...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These bits don't lie. No fighting, no fighting.. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Late last week, you posted something on my talk page about "going down a dark path". I asked you to clarify. I don't know if you even saw my response to your comment, but I was seriously asking for clarification. I've asked Lar for the same kind of clarification in the past, and received no response from him, either. I'm asking you again - please expand and/or clarify your statement. I have to wonder - what's the use of making statements such as you did if you're not gonna clarify when asked? IOW - I can't glean anything from any advice you try to give if I don't understand what you are saying. You may answer either here or on my talk page - either way, I will appreciate a reply. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I explained myself in a succinct manner the first time around, and that what I said, in the context that I said it, made perfect sense and was capable of being comprehended or understood by everyone on your talk page. If you are looking for a fight, you won't find it here. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
<sigh> No, I'm not "looking for a fight". I'm asking you in all honesty. While what you said may have been understood by everyone else reading my page (and how you would know what everyone reading my page comprehended or didn't is certainly an interesting conecept in and of itself), it wasn't clear to me - hence, the reason why I asked you to expand upon your statement. I came here looking for an answer, not a fight. And I'm puzzled as to why you would think otherwise - I mean, seriously...what I have ever done to you for you to talk to me like this and not take what I said at face value? Your seemingly nasty attitude, however, has reminded me why I should never trust anyone in Wikipedia nor should I ever allow my guard to drop. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I was right, you were looking for a fight. And, I'm not going to give it to you. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
No, you were not right. And you still aren't. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you finished? Do you feel better? Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't feel better. I feel frustrated. Extremely frustrated and confused. I mean, didn't you come to my page and leave the message out of concern? Or was it some other reason? I asked for specifics - there's nothing wrong with asking for specifics. Just because you think everyone else reading the page got what you were saying, if the person you directed the statement to didn't, why *wouldn't* you then provide the specifics when asked? I've been completely honest with you. I really don't understand why you are being like this. What have I ever done for you to act this way toward me? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please go back and read the discussion. I said that I liked your work here but was concerned that if you continued to engage in problematic edits, you would be blocked. Shortly after, you were indefinitely blocked as I predicted, but you agreed to some conditions and the block was lifted. What seems to be the problem here? Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) I was blocked because of something I said that I didn't realize would be taken the way it was (simply using the word "libel" without ever intending it to be taken as a legal threat was the cause) (2) You didn't say anything about "problematic edits" in your post to my page (3) The problem now is that you are still not answering the question. I asked for specifics - you have yet to give any. I asked for clarification because I honestly wanted the answer. You haven't done that, either (not that you are required to, of course). Instead, what you have done is make unfair accusations about me while offering only an unhelpful attitude and tone (which is weird, because on my talk page you sounded and seemed to want to be helpful). The mixed messages I've gotten here have pretty much overtaken anything good you could have given me that I would have wanted to implement. I wasn't looking for a fight, sure didn't think my question would become a fight, and I definitely never wanted one. But - for whatever reason - you successfully turned it into a fight (and I'm still confused as to why it all happened this way). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Climatic emails article

Sorry about that. I think what happened is that I opened an old view of the article to copy over the citations and somehow that erased your edits when I hit save. I didn't mean to do that and didn't notice that that's what had happened. I hope it didn't erase anyone else's edits. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why use 'Climategate'? Please don't abandon the discussion.

Hi, Viriditas,

I'm wondering why you dropped this discussion.

  • Reply to Yopienso: The New Scientist link you provide above goes to a very short news item on the subject written by Fred Pearce. The term "climategate" is not used at all in the news article, but only in the headline, presumably for attention. The link to the Nature news brief, although only in abstract view, appears to use the term "climategate" in scare quotes, only in the headline. Could you provide a good source that uses the term consistently, in an actual article about the subject, and not in a headline designed to get the attention of readers? As editors have shown in the above threads, there are many articles on the subject that do not use the term "climategate" at all. Why should we use it? Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • We should use it because it is the most widely used and recognized name for it and is far less awkward "The Climate Research Unit hacking incident." The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web....As the repercussions of ClimateGate reverberate around the virtual community of global citizens... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8388485.stm Yopienso (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I took your "Could you provide a good source that uses the term consistently, in an actual article about the subject, and not in a headline designed to get the attention of readers?" and "Why should we use it?" as honest inquiry. When I provided a good, reliable response, you ignored it. Your refusal, along with a few other editors, to realize that "Climategate' is the best-known and therefore best title for the "row"--although not for an article that avoids the row to focus on the breach--doesn't align with reality. It casts you as deniers. I'm hoping that is not true, but that you have been preoccupied or confused rather than denying.

I am pasting in for your perusal some cogent comments perhaps buried in the talk page.

The more circumspect among us are satisfied to report the perspectives of reliable sources some of which, not surprisingly, characterize the events quite differently than do you. It is also true that those with vested interest in an outcome will try and use events as they unfold to their advantage. So what? That's just another part of the story that should be told. But no, we have chosen instead the least honest approach, a sleight of hand to distract the reader with the illusion that its about computer hacks and death threats. JPatterson (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When we were opposing it, the term was still used by a relatively small number of RS, but over time, it has gained currency. When some incident occurs, someone, somewhere tries to attach -gate to it. Almost always, it fades into obscurity. Not this time. Of equal importance, I'm not suggesting that the article about the release of documents be called climategate. Let that article have this name or something similar. The Climategate article should be a separate article, noting its roots in this incident, but covering the myriad of subsequent activities that have flowed as a consequence of people digging into the emails, and taking a new, hard look at AR4.--SPhilbrickT 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found Jimbo's recent intervention judicious, timely and appropriate. I also notice how the coordinated pack who fervently defend the scientism-religion of climate change immediately rose to strike him down. What a formidable show. What tremendous resources have not been allocated to hold the fort by attempting to spin this scandal to the tune of "this is no big thing - climate change science is as solid as ever". I notice how ChrisD still pretends to sobriety and judicious rationality whilst at the same time projects the image of the scientific community on the one hand being attacked by anti-scientific groups on the other. I just did a "ctrl-shift j" (What links here) for the article post-normal science, and I was surprised to see that none of the climate change articles link to this pivotally important subject. It's time that the integrity of the the science being conducted in this arena should be better exposed in related Wikipedia articles. __meco (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Best, Yopienso (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In another thread, you complained that I was ignoring you, Yopienso. I'm not. I just don't see anything requiring a response. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally, courtesy requires a response when a request is met. No prob if you don't see that; bottom line--this means you agree that the incident is properly referred to as Climategate? Yopienso (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not agree, and I have given my reasons on the talk page. Those wishing to change the current title have to explain why it does not work. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Viriditas

Hi Viriditas, I am sorry to bother you again. But was this edit comment necessary? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


Please try to stay cool when editing, Viriditas. That edit summary wasn't necessary. It would have been better just to not use an edit summary at all and avoid offending someone. Regards, Swarm(Talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CSVLoader for AWB

Hi again. Thanks for the hot tip on the loader. I am looking into it. It may save me oceans of time. Here is a little humour for you that I encountered somewhere in the bowels of Wikipedia:

"date Apr 10, 2007 2:08 PM subject [Unblock-en-l] Please unblock my account, I must get out soon! Dear sirs, I am a deposed prince from the West African nation of Niger. I use my wikipedia account to help me find foreigners who may help me get my numerous and millions of funds out of country before the government controlled mob in my country can get me. My wikipedia account was unblocked as spamful. If any of you may unblock and help me, I will transfer 200 thousand of american dollars to your bank account, after the completion of a small, 200 dollar account transfer from you to me to prove the account exists. I thank you rapidly for your attention in this manner, Mr. Wikipedia. -Mgumbe"

Thanks again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you, Anna. Always good to hear from you, and the humor is much appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Claude AnShin Thomas

Updated DYK query On February 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claude AnShin Thomas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Vermeer's Hat

Many thanks for your kind compliment about Vermeer's Hat, Viriditas. I still feel a bit of a "hack" when it comes to writing articles, but I'm slowly learning :) Esowteric+Talk 10:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Master and His Emissary

Hi Viriditas, thanks again for your help in assessing The Master and His Emissary.

You write: "Links in quotes are generally disapproved for various reasons, so if there's a way to quote the topics/authors outside the quotes in some way that would be great." Just to be sure: do you mean don't include wikilinks in sections of text that are in quotation marks? Esowteric+Talk 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, just found Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks which I should have read. Esowteric+Talk 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Entheogen

Hello Viriditas, thanks for your assistance and the links.

I'm totally new to this and don't really have much experience in writing, so am not sure of how to approach the changes. The information that I wanted to include was presented by a speaker at last year's Australian entheogen conference and he wrote a summary for the conference journal, of which as an attendee, I have a copy. Given that it was a major conference of the community and attended by over 500 people and the details are available in priing, I am assuming that it is a valid source of information for the Wikipedia entry. Am I correct in this?

Also, is it possible to get you, or someone else to look over the changes that I wanted to make before I made them? I can photocopy the relevant section in the journal and send it to you, if you like.

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by the ban on "raw data" and what counts as analysed. The speaker that I am refering to mentioned it at the confrence and in his article, in order to support his conclusions. Does this count as analysed? Also Dr David Caldicott, the original researcher presented the data at the 2007 conference, but I don't think he ever wrote anything about them beyond this. I just thought that it would be great to include it in the Wikipedia, as it is a cool snapshot of over 100 entheogen users and contains a wealth of information, about what they are using and in what ways.

Thanks greatly for your assistanceMysticNorth2010 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've created User:MysticNorth2010/Entheogen where you can test out your new additions. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Help!

If you have a minute could you take a look at recent disputes in Queen Emma of Hawaii and Kuamo'o Burials? Thanks, Aloha. Also Keaoua Kekuaokalani has been attacked I think. The latter should also be moved to just Kekuaokalani - not sure where that first name came from? W Nowicki (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look. I've been following the problem from the sidelines. I think the project would benefit from having you as an admin; With those tools, you would be able to set protection, delete pages, and block vandals. Have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Admin coaching? Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no, I was unaware of yet more facets of Wikipedia. Moving over redirects might be a useful ability to have, but have only needed it once or twice so far. Have not even been active a year yet, and who knows, might be able to go back to work one of these days. I see KAVEBEAR at least seems to have noticed and is trying to help. Right now I am hoping the smoke clears and will see if the Troll goes away or attacks again. Plenty of other projects in the meanwhile. Mahalo. W Nowicki (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed with the way you've handled the situation so far. You were the victim of a very childish attack, and you barely responded to it. Instead, you sought help from other editors and asked for more opinions. This is the kind of character that is needed in an administrator, and if you look at the number of active administrators on WP:HAWAII, you'll see that we desperately need more. Please think about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Terri Schiavo case

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of edits to this page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the review, but I don't know if I'm up to the challenge. The problems seem easy to fix, but the article has been plagued by POV pushers in the past, leading to the sorry state it is in now. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Endemic moths of Hawaii stubs

Yes they can, but I don't have access to the proper sources. Anyway, I'm not working on Hawaii moths per se. I'm just working on moths from all over the world. I just happened to have images on these. Please do not lump them together on a list though. Every species deserves it's own article. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CRU etc.

Please take another glance at my comments on the talk page. We are agreeing, but it is perhaps the most confusing exchange I've been apart of here. Arkon (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Response

here. Thank you for the advice. Moogwrench (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Species articles for shell leis

Hello Viriditas,

I noticed your note on Anna's page asking about articles for the three species of shell used in leis, two dove shells, Euplica varians (Sowerby, 1832); and Mitrella margarita (Reeve, 1859); and one top shell Leptothyra verruca (Gould, 1845).

If you don't mind my butting in, unless you are very intimidated by the idea of tackling a biology species stub (perhaps because you have never done one before), I would suggest that you go ahead and try to do a very simple stub or stubs yourself, and then, please let me know and I will clean them up for you as much as they need. Just drop me a line when one or more of them is done.

The dove shell Mitrella margarita article should be very easy to make, because we already have the genus article: Mitrella, so you could copy that and just tweak it a bit to make it into the species article.

Euplica varians is another dove shell, like Mitrella margarita but in another genus, so you can copy the Mitrella margarita article and just change the genus to Euplica in the taxobox.

The Leptothyra verruca is a trochid, a top shell, in the family Trochidae. We don't have that genus listed yet in the article Trochidae, so that would be a little harder for you to make. I can do that one for you if you like.

If you would prefer to do the stubs on a subpage of your user page, I can clean them up before they go into article space. Are you going to have images by the way?

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've worked with biology articles before, so that's not a problem. A subpage is a good idea. I'll let you know when I've got something; I will look for images. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, great, sounds good. It may be hard to find free use images of the individual shells of those species but perhaps you can maybe take some photographs of the leis that use those shells (?) that might be really interesting too. Also if you felt like making a section about shell leis within the article Lei (Hawaii), that would be cool. Invertzoo (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason these requested articles cannot be appended to Ganeshk's proposed bot run? Wouldn't that make sense? Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked. I cannot find them on WoRMS. My bot uses WoRMS as the only reference. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there a reason WoRMS does not have entries for them? Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a question for the WoRMS database management team to answer. I guess they are building their database up just like we are. It's probably not complete. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Odd that WorMS doesn't any of the three, but I've found lots of other refs, and they don't appear to be synonyms of anything. As I don't see them on your subpage list, I will start them. But do tell me if you have started them on your PC. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I made them. They aren't pretty, but I will add more later, and do the corresponding genus articles. I really had to scrounge for info. Regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons has no images, so, if you have some laying around.... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work, Anna. I'll look around for images and attempt some kind of expansion when I have time. If we can significantly expand it in the next four days, you can receive credit for a triple DYK. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging the weak citations in The Water-Babies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby. I've cleaned it up, added references to the original text and to the relevant page of The Encyclopedia of Evolution. Uucp (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what may be considered a blatant mischaracterization of the facts.

You have audaciously claimed that the fictional character 'Joe Friday' had never uttered the phrase 'Just the facts, ma'am'.

I invite you to reconsider this view due to the nature of your statement. You had referred to the character, and not the series. Referencing the character would then include the 1987 movie which did, in fact, include Joe Friday saying 'Just the Facts, ma'am' in homage to the popular assumption regarding the characters use of the phrase. This, however, is not meant to make a statement in regards to your ultimate point for your example. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

72.192.46.9 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

man holding his son

File:Man and son.jpg
A man holding his son.

This is actually a pretty good choice of image ! (even if I'm not sure the baby is necessary)

Thanks. --Grondilu (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Republican Party

Hi again I have been working of the Hawaii Republican Party article, I have added White nationalism to their ideology but I am not sure if this used correctly, I derived this from the National Party of South Africa (although the Republicans were not as bad) and their not very good record of treating non-whites nicely (including my family during the plantation years) so I need a second opinion can you help?
-Hawaii Samurai (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oi!

It took me and my mate Eric "Windowcleaner" Gates many weeks to rite The Brittanica Encyclopedia of Really Truthfull Things, and you have now gone and removed the only Googled reference to it. I am now not even going to correct the speling mistakes! LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC) ps. Do you know how I can put the book online? It has been sitting on the modem for a week now, but I still can't find it on the hinderwebs...

Lennon is getting a lot of press coverage right now. What's the to do about? BTW, I thought Passion Pictures did a fantastic job on the animation for The Beatles: Rock Band. Hopefully, you've seen it, right? Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The only playing of Beatles related stuff I do involves me plodding out a few chords on a guitar. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
If you haven't already seen this, please do. Watch it at 720p, but be warned. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for incivility

You were warned in the discussion that your comments were unacceptable, but you persisted. I have therefore blocked you for two hours. In future please support your argument with logic, not insults. --Chris 10:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a single personal attack in those diffs. Commenting on content is acceptable. I'm afraid you are mistaken. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Commenting on content is perfectly acceptable, but there is a line. You were told repeatedly that you were pushing the line yet you still persisted. For example, you made a valid argument about unnecessary noticeboard use, bureaucracy etc, and how it hinders the development of the encyclopedia. However you took it too far - you had been told before the dictator analogy was offensive and unacceptable, yet you persisted in using it. Personally I think you provide a interesting and useful input to the discussion, however as I said before the insults do not help and detract from your argument. Remember, we are not politicians, argue with logic, and remain civil at all times. --Chris 13:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I took the discussion off the noticeboard after the first reply to my comment,[7] yet the editor who shall not be named persisted in bringing the discussion back to the noticeboard. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assessment of the situation. It might not be a good idea for you to continue to respond, because we are simply not going to agree on this. But, thanks for your time. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Ganeshk

The man is a powerhouse. A great referral indeed. I am working on your gastropods. Sorry to take so long. My ISP problems have really put me off of editing. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy it worked out. I hope the two of you can work together on the project; Ganeshk appears eager to help, and the gastropod project is very lucky to have him. No hurry on any of those tasks, Anna. Seriously, take care of whatever business you have to do. I'm sure you're already way behind as it is, but let's keep in touch. BTW, what's the story with the cute chihuahua peeking out from behind the potted coral? Heh, something tells me that's not coral but a plant, and it's not a dog, but a kitten! Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Lucky is right. Ganeshk is awesome. I wish there were some way to advertise his loader. I, personally, would love to see a bare-bones stub for every species, town, etc., currently without representation. It gives people a place to add info.
Kitten? Actually just a creature part tree kangaroo, part social worker. Now, if you can ID the little man sitting by the talk page door, you will win a pie. Regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were going to advertise the loader in the edit summary. I guess you could use a banner ad like the projects use to recruit new members. So, thanks to your tip, I'm going to guess that the puppy/kitten is a Tipton kangaroo rat (that can't be right, it looks like a tree-kangaroo, which I've never seen in RL) but I'm still having trouble with the plant; I probably need to look at your contribs. As for the "little man" sitting to the right of the supermodel portrait and near the talk page door, I think he's listening to In the Hall of the Mountain King on his iPod. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ganeshk made the stubs, and he did advertise the loader in the summary. I think he should drop the word at the Village Pump. The plant is just made-up. Only the paintings represent articles. The supermodel is my best friend. The little guy is listening only to voices in his head, probably his Dadd. (hint hint). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Perhaps we can convince Ganeshk to clone himself? I'm convinced the plant is a faux coral, and it adds a nice marine touch to the cafe; You can't convince me otherwise. Your supermodel friend looks a lot like Miranda Kerr. Tell her I said hi. And the little guy? I found him! You're too clever. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It is you who are clever. Here is your pie. The sugar pie is best served with vanilla ice cream and a side of insulin.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hawaii Republican Party

From what I suspect is that the ideology section is for the party at the present so I won’t put it back in that section, but put some stuff back in, in the history section (from the book Cane Fire) and I toned it down. Sorry about that I got worked up by those Christian Phalangists at the capital (if you see my humor). Hawaii Samurai (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that you editing logged out again? I don't mind, but please, get in the habit of using sources as you edit. You and I have talked about this before. Let me know if I can help add or format them for you. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowball Earth infobox

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Talk:Snowball Earth.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Glad to see at least one editor has eyes and ears...and uses them. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Message for Dayewalker

I'm not talking about policy, I'm talking about people, and treating them as we would want to be treated ourselves, not as robotic, unemotional logic machines. People write the encyclopedia and that's our target demographic. This unhealthy obsession with policy wonkery is leading us off a cliff. If people want to play noticeboard war games or information warfare, then great, do It somewhere else. But most people are sick and tired of this childish behavior. Even the guy who created the noticeboards is sick of it. It's reinforcing all of the wrong behavior and ignoring the fundamental goal. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Pueblo People

Hi! Thanks for chiming in on the name discussion. Appreciate your input and it was nice to see your name again. WBardwin (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Sorry to see you treated so poorly in that discussion. Nobody deserves that, but we see a lot of that here, don't we? Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Wallis Article Bias

The Jim Wallis article is clearly biased. On the Glenn Beck section, it is evident that Beck is portrayed as a poor people hating extremist. If the quote had included more of what he had said, that article would be balanced. I watched that entire show when he talked about Jim Wallace and I can clearly remember that Glenn said something to the effect that there are two types of Social Justice: voluntary and forced. The latter is the one that Glenn is referring to in this article. If you would like to watch the show for a specific quotation as relates to this subject, please visit watchglennbeck.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.139.18 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Liquidluck's talk page.
Message added 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

liquidluck✽talk 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Methane problems

Hello again. I didn't see a way for the 3 gastro DYKs. The data was scarce. Now, I've bitten of more than I can chew. I started Methane chimney, then I found Arctic methane release, so I made Methane release, and redirected it to Methane chimney. I am guessing it will wind up as Methane release as a main article, with the chimney article ending up copyedited as the content for that article. Yes. I know what you're thinking. I'm a bubble-head. I searched for methane stuff and didn't encounter the Arctic article. I also have a sneaking suspicion that these releases don't occur outside the Arctic. So, if you like Rubik's Cubes, you will love this. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Anna! No worries about the DYK's. I just thought it would be nice for you to get some additional credit for your work. So let's take a look at what we're dealing with in regard to the current problem. First thing I usually do in a situation like this is perform a site search and check the primary category, in this case Category:Methane. Right away, I notice that the category does not include the clathrate gun hypothesis, nor does the article on Arctic methane release link to it. That's strange: CGH links to AMR, but AMR doesn't link to CGH. That's a problem that needs to be resolved, probably by expanding AMR first. But back to the main problem: Methane chimney could either 1) stand alone, or 2) merge into methane clathrate. Since it apparently occurs in Costa Rica, a merge to AMR doesn't seem right. One thing that bothers me: I couldn't find any good sources for that exact term. Also, why isn't it used in clathrate gun hypothesis or the many good sources listed there? Is there another term in use? Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Searching categories, yes. I haven't been doing that, but will start. I have a kind of odd system. I search for something like "methane a", which brings up all occurences because the letter "a" is always somewhere, avoids bringing me to the article "methane", and finds things cat searching doesn't.
"The article name of Methane chimney may be "yet-to-be-coined". I think "methane release" may be too general though, in that it also occurs over huge areas in small amounts, as in giant pastures, Tokyo after lunchtime, etc.
Should I add Category:Methane to clathrate gun hypothesis and Arctic methane release?
AMR not linking to CGH: I will check that out. Maybe a see also link will inspire somebody to expand the article.
Costa Rica, right. I forgot about that.
I too do not see good academic publications using the "methane chimney". It may be a pop term. I will continue to look for another term in use. So far, zippo. One reason I made the article is that the phenomena is either relatively new (in recent times), or is just being noticed, and that the specific phenomena might warrant representation.
I will continue digging. I appreciate you input. I posted at a few project pages to see what others have to say. Much obliged. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
For your invaluable assistance and guidance during the past year and a half, on many matters, I present to you this spiffy, boyscoutesque barnstar. You're aces in my book! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee

Hi Viriditas,

I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice invite, Jprw. I admit that I'm interested, but I do have a few concerns. Either way, I'm sure you'll find someone to review it if I don't. First, the lead will need to be rewritten. Second, if you could expand the background section that would be great. Right now, the background section is mostly a long quote, and I know you can expand it. The Synopsis section needs major MOS formatting (create three subsections, one for each part) and could also be expanded a bit. The reception section will need to be completely rewritten, and there are several ways to do this. Overall, you've got a decent start on what could easily become a good article. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and excellent analysis. I agree that the intro needs reworking (perhaps not rewritten), and the background section was complied in haste yesterday, so could clearly do with further development, so you were spot on there. I'd be intrigued to know how to rework the reception section. As for the synopsis, it was originally much bigger and had to be scaled down in order to be more in line with this, but your comments on its structuring have been duly noted. I'm sure that you could post what you wrote above on the good articles nomination notice board (see the link at the top of the Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster page) and that that would be a great contribution to the debate/nomination process. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Don Francisco de Paula Marín

Someone recently moved this article to a name that includes a diacritic (evidently allowed because it is Spanish?). I took the liberty of expanding it to the point where a DYK makes sense, and therefore nominated it. Looks like you started it a few years ago, so thought I would mention. Still have a little work to do on it. Aloha. W Nowicki (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've been watching your work on the project watchlist. Although I may have created the article, I believe it was Makana Chai who made the original suggestion. She may even be interested in your recent work. Good job. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's looking good to me, but I don't think I've done anything on this article! Makana Chai (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You were responsible for the creation of the article, as I recall. You first discussed it on Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii if my memory serves me. In any case, I haven't heard from you in a while so please send me an email. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate

Ready to go ahead with this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I dropped the ball on this. I'm less than impressed with the turnout we usually get on AfD, so why don't we take a different approach and notify the film and science fiction projects with a neutral notice, and centralize the discussion on the article talk page instead? My guess is we will have a better result. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent approach. Really, I think that our only problem here is the low participation from neutral parties; with a few more voices the position of the few (well, one) opposed to a merge right now would be very weak indeed. That said, it appears that the party in question is getting into trouble for edit warring elsewhere right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to put a discussion and neutral notification together. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Don Francisco de Paula Marín

Updated DYK query On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Don Francisco de Paula Marín, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty ...

... of blocking Bogonvermillion indef. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Taken this to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bogonvermillion_-_indef_block_review. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of vegans

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of vegans. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegans. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Heritage Institute

In my opinion, I think it's evident that a binding, global accord on carbon reduction is not going to happen. India, China, Brazil, the African nations, and a few others have basically said that they're not going to sign one unless the G8 nations foot the bill. Because of the global recession, the economies of the US, UK, Japan, etc just can't afford to pay the hundreds of billions of dollars it's going to take to invest in programs to reduce the CO2, such as windfarms, solar farms, bio-fuels, etc, plus the reductions in GDP that result because of the increased price of manufacturing that will result as industries try to reduce their emissions by either scaling back production, installing new technologies, passing the increased costs to consumers. This means we are going to find out if the dire predictions by the IPCC, the Met, and few others are accurate or not, because CO2 emissions will not be reduced even slightly as much as these people are saying is necessary. Anyway, to label groups of people like this Heritage group who are justifiably concerned about the economic costs of trying to meet these CO2 emissions restrictions calls as "clowns" shows that at least one side isn't attempting to face the cultural, economic, and societal impact of what they want to see happening with the world. That is very unfortunate for everyone.

The contempt that AGW believers (sometimes called "warmists") show towards those with reservations is very disappointing to me. I don't think they realize how big a disservice they are doing to their cause and the cause of environmentalism. I am an environmentalist and am scared of the long-term damage that may be done to the credibility of environmentalism by all this. Cla68 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if serious... Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If I could tell a story, hopefully in a brief manner. When I lived in DC a few years ago I was a daily subscriber to the Washington Post. One day there was a guest column by someone (I won't mention any names) advocating the building of a giant windfarm off the coast of Maryland to provide electricity to the DC-Baltimore area. The author stated that the reason for doing so was to mitigate global warming. I believe in renewable energy. I emailed the author and commended him for his advocacy for renewable energy. I told him, however, that since the jury was still out on whether global warming was really human caused or not (I guess I was taking at face value the IPCC's stance that it was most likely caused by humans, therefore indicating some uncertainty) that I thought that it would be better to justify the building of wind farms as just to reduce the US' dependence on petroleum and coal for electrical generation, no more. The response I received from the columnist floored me. I was astounded by the vitriol and animosity he directed at me for not accepting the "consensus on global warming." In my opinion, if something is true, then those that believe in it don't need to feel threatened by those who are reserving judgement. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we should all be reserving judgement. Cla68 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you were dealing with an uncouth author who wasn't accustomed to taking criticism or how to handle it. A common human reaction to criticism is to lash out and attack. The author would have been better off acknowledging your point and bringing up the consensus without insulting you. I think you raise a good point about the lack of civility on both sides. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Various matters

Hello again. A few things:

Just wondering if you ever found images of those 3 gastropods.

I'm trying to ID this strange underground, crystallized honey and thought you might have such a thing in Hawaii. The stuff is rock hard, obviously dug up from under the ground, and smells a bit like honeysuckle. I can't find it anywhere on the net. Any suggestions of what keywords to search for?

As you say it took you months to figure out my username, I am wondering if you spotted my crown? It is in the snail painting above my head. Sneaky, huh?

Finally does this seem strange to you? [8] [9] [10] I am not suggesting anything untoward. I just thought it to be so bizarre.

Regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm still thinking about this... Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I archive my talk page?

I notice you have extensive archives. I need to make an archive of my talk page. Could you please show me how to do that? I would appreciate it very much. Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you're interested, check out Wikipedia:Archiving. Otherwise, I can archive your talk page for you and you can learn that way. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm probably not going to be online that much tomorrow, so I went ahead and archived your page. You can look at my edit history (peruse the diffs) to see how I did it. Feel free to modify it to your chosen preference. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

o/ ResMar 15:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how are things? Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Good. Trolling a few friends for dissapearing for so long. So uh has anything changed...? ResMar 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Impermanence, mi amigo. Nothing lasts, everything changes. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Mhm. I've changed too. Not going to stress about the stupid FA crap anymore. It's chilly cool, as my Music teacher likes to say. ResMar 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Humanism

Viriditas, I think 173 is just pulling my chain. See his rejection of my opening for the humanism article on Humanism (talk). What do you think? If his bogus reaction leads to a suppression of a broad intro to Humanism, I think a POV tag is quite in order for the article, no matter how long it has to say there. In fact he seems to imply a POV: he thinks that secular humanism must be the substantial center of the term, no other levels of meaning need appear. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, starting with a Wikipedia:Third opinion, asking for input from multiple WikiProjects, and filing an article RFC. I don't think we should be focusing on the tag, but rather on resolving the dispute. Remember, that's my goal. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could/can help with editing the Gilad Atzmon article.

If you think any of the sources are being used incorrectly or are invalid, perhaps it can be tightened up. On the flip side, we've been waiting for an admin to clear up the tags that were put on the Allegations of antisemitism section, the tags seem to be improperly used, as to my understanding a section can't be original research if everything is from a notable source, please clarify. Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look in another hour or two. Thanks for contacting me. FYI...I'm not an admin, but if one is needed, I can file reports or help find one. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bastard Honey

As you know, the Honey article used to have a subsection called "Bastard Honey". I stripped down the content which used to read:

"Bastard honey is honey whose floral origins are unknown. Compared to monofloral honey, honey from one type of plant, or polyfloral honey, honey that has been mixed, bastard honey's origins are either unknown, undisclosed, or something else of the sort. The idea of bastard honey comes from the idea of illegitimate honey, whose ancestry is unknown."

...and left only the first sentence and added a { {main} }. I just noticed that somebody removed the entire subsection as vandalism. I can't find a single thing on the term "Bastard honey". Is the term even legit? What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Go with your gut. I couldn't find any references for it. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Interview request: The newbie experience, revert communication

As I'm concluding the study related to the NICE user script, I'd like to ask you some questions over the phone about your experiences with and ideas about Wikipedia. The questions will be related to how you interact with new editors and the way you communicate when reverting. This chat should take about 45 minutes to an hour. If you are interested or need more details, please let me know. --EpochFail(talk|work) 19:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds nice, but due to the time difference (you're currently five hours ahead of me) it might be difficult to schedule. Is there an alternative? Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to take on the time difference to do the interview at a time that is convenient for you. If phone is inconvenient, I'd be happy to work through skype as well. I'd very much prefer to have the conversation be synchronous if it is possible and I'm willing to wake up early/stay up late to make that happen. --EpochFail(talk|work) 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If it would be more comfortable for you, we could do the interview over an instant messenger. My only worry is that chat is lower bandwidth than voice so the interview may take significantly longer. --EpochFail(talk|work) 15:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a debriefing that takes place after a psychology experiment. I was under the impression that I was only testing software. By what date do you have to have the interviews finished? (Don't answer yesterday!) Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of the questions I'd like to ask have little to do with the software. What I'm really interested in are your experiences and ideas about interacting with other editors (Wikipedians and newcomers) in Wikipedia. If we can find a time in the next week (or two I guess) to chat, I'll be very happy. --EpochFail(talk|work) 23:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Send me an e-mail and briefly outline what you plan to talk about, what you are going to do with the information, privacy policy, etc. I'm surprised you didn't just post an anonymous, multiple choice survey online; You would be done by now. My experience and ideas about interacting with other editors are no different than meatspace or RL, except that the demographic on Wikipedia is vastly different than a random sample of people you interact with in the workspace or in any social situation. As you know, it's highly skewed and not representative of any kind of sample you would get off the street or in a non-tech oriented workplace. I'm still not clear on what you are going for, but perhaps you can clear this up in e-mail and we can move on to the interview. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Email sent via Special:EmailUser. --EpochFail(talk|work) 17:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Atzmon

I don't know if anything needs removal per see aside from general trimming. Right now the allegations of antisemitism section contains only notable commentators with everything properly sourced, compared with the way the article looked previously. It was also a bit of a whitewash before. I also agree that the section should be trimmed. Drsmoo (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Although to be honest, it's not my place to mediate on behalf of the topic, Malik Shabazz and RTLamp are editing the article more than I am, so I shouldn't be making decisions for them and the other editors, and neither should Carolmooredc. Drsmoo (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats fine, but I'm just trying to get a handle on your position. It sounds like we are agreement about the length. As for Carol, I did not find your comments on the noticeboard very helpful. She claims you are hounding her from article to article. Is there any truth to this? Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. You can see the posting histories for yourself, I only respond to her when she attacks me, as she has done on about 10 other noticeboards as well. I posted my defense because she has attacked me with the same baseless allegations over and over, so when she posts that shes going to go from noticeboard to noticeboard to noticeboard, regardless of relevancy, until she finds someone to agree with her, why shouldn't I point that out? No other editors have any problem with me. I never initiate anything with her and have no desire to or with any other editor Had I defended myself on this one she would have claimed I was hounding her again. I also cite everything, so if she says I'm speaking untruths I can always back everything up (unfortunately) For the past year and a half or so she has been harassing me relentlessly, one you can look through our posting histories and confirm for yourself. She even posts snide comments related to my username (calling me prof smoo etc) It's not as bad as it used to be though, a few months ago almost the whole Gilad Atzmon talk page was her attacking me, it was pretty mind boggling, and as I said the diffs speak for themselves. This is a typical example of the back and forth.[11] This was about the 9th or tenth one she started on me. Drsmoo (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your patience. Will you help me put a stop to this by not responding to any more attacks? That way, if she does attack you again, it will be explicit and clear. Without the back and forth, there is only going to be one person sanctioned. BTW, in the interest of fairness, I've pretty much made the same request of Carol, and I've said the same thing about you (indirectly). Let's get back to improving the article and arguing about the content. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Viriditas for taking the content issues seriously. As I said elsewhere last fall only Drsmoo and I were editing and others rarely commented on the talk page so I had to take issues with Drsmoo's edits to noticeboards which he evidently considers a personal attack. But if we can focus on content, I will be very happy. Most of my issues remain with edits done Aug to Dec of last year. Lately, more editors have been editing, just adding to the highly biased representation of Atzmon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Animal rights

Please don't revert edits without first discussing them on talk. Bilby, Tryptofish and I have been discussing every detail there. You, among others have not appeared there for weeks and thus have no cause to pretend defence of the article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 08:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The talk page history says that my last edit was 19:56, 7 May 2010. Today is May 17th, UTC. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Simon Metcalfe

Aloha. Not sure I understand your comment. Certainly adding a quick context for people not familiar with King Kam might make sense, if someone hits this article from outside of Hawaii. I can do that. The main thing with my edit was to remove "remembered for the Olowalu masacre" from the lead since I do not think he nor the event are that famous. Maybe both article and lead can mention unification, and probably have the campaign navbox in there? Do you have any opinion on moving the Fair American box in here, or Isaac Davis?

I do have the Cahill book on Young, and hope to get the time to work on his article. Cahill makes a case that Young's biggest contribution was because Young was experienced as liason between upper-class commanders and common soldiers, with general knowledge of both sailing and weapons. W Nowicki (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining. Basically, it said something like "Metcalfe and his son Thomas unwittingly provided Western military weapons and advisors for Kamehameha I" not explaining the significance of this technological advantage. I added, "helping him win strategic battles and unify the Hawaiian Islands", but I'm sure you can improve it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a misuse of the "ref" tag

Sorry about that and thanks for the education. I actually agree with the point you are making, but it just looked very odd to me. Is there any other way you can add that point WITH a link to the Christianity and abortion article? HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No big deal, I'll leave it alone for now. Do you know the topic fairly well? Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Four Seasons Resort Hualalai

Please see the talk page before reverting. About a year ago it was nominated for deletion, since the article was basically just an ad. I promised that I would develop instead an article on the area, with a mention of the Hotel. I totally disagree with your assertion about the Four Seasons being the "only one notable thing at this location". It is not even the most notable hotel for that matter. The Kona Village was built there in 1961 (I am in the middle of adding that), so is much more historic for example. Then two more resorts have gone in. So the Four Seasons is just one non-remarkable one (although very expensive, so gets highly rated in various magazines that cater to that crowd, thus deserves a mention). The capture of the Fair American is in my opinion much more important, since it led to Isaac Davis and John Young being on the side of Kamehameha etc. This became urgent when someone claimed the Fair American was taken in Olowalu, because the battle box was on the wrong page. W Nowicki (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about reverting, and I didn't say anything about the hotel being the one notable thing at this location. I'm afraid you didn't read anything I said at all. I'll repeat, you moved a page about a hotel into a new page about the geography and history of the location where the hotel is located. This is not correct. The page history of the hotel is separate from a new article on the location. You have mixed two separate topics together. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you didn't read anything I said at all.

I did too try to read it, evidently too fast; sorry if I misquoted.

This is not correct.

That might be your opinion, and as demonstrated you can over-rule my work. I certainly thought it was what we discussed back in August 2009 on the talk page. If you were going to insist on doing it your way, saying so back in that discussion would have saved me from being so frustrated. In my opinion your insistence on doing it your way seems like micromanagement. I just like to do things incrementally, and have articles that talk about places along with the things located at those places - in my mind they are the same topic. Otherwise Wikipedia gets cluttered with zillions of stubs covered in complaint templates. I suppose I can merge in what was in my edit box and then work on other projects. Aloha W Nowicki (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are on the same page. A page move is not the same thing as a page merge. Instead of moving the page, you should have created a new page and redirected the old article. Is this still a problem? Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well we are talking about "same page" :-) just different approaches. I thought a "merge" was when two pages were combined into one. I did not start with two pages, but one, and widened the scope a few hundrend yards in either direction. I still claim that the location of the hotel is more important than how expensive it is. Certainly a matter of opinion on notability. I do not play golf nor can afford to stay there. But if the Metcalfes had gone to another place, we might be editing articles on the "US State of Oahu" or the "Former Soviet Republic of Kauai". Anyway thanks for keeping all the info on the page intact; that is what should be of primary concern. W Nowicki (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Are you no longer interested in looking at the content? Should I bring issues back to Editors assistance? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still interested. What's the latest development? Is there a particular issue you want me to address? Please inform me. I won't be able to get to it until tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The latest development is to make it even more of an attack piece in contrast to Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise:Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Specifically: several editors who repeatedly have expressed highly derogatory opinions of Atzmon have created an attack lead with redundant material copied from politics section; redundant politics section where neutral WP:RS comments consistently have been gutted; attack "allegations of antisemitism" section where criticisms are described in detail while defenses and clarifications consistently are deleted, often with snide comments inferring one is an antisemite. Compare to User_talk:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_1 where there are two relatively NPOV examples a) a consensus version from last spring after article was locked and b) an example of an even more NPOV version. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but it's easier for me to handle and more importantly, resolve one thing at a time. So please, highlight one particular issue I can focus on, first, and tell me how you would like to see it resolved. Not two or three things, just one specific thing first. If we take baby steps, we can have this thing solved, and move on to bigger and better things. From the above, it sounds like I should focus on the lead first. Is that correct? From where I stand, the lead does need to be cleaned up and I'm seeing a bit of spoonfeeding. How about making some edits to the lead? I would like to see how you would fix it first. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll think about what to do. The problem is a) the lead reflects the rest of it and b) dealing the redundancy with the gutted politics section. But if at least I feel a neutral party is watching I'll be more likely to edit without fearing instant revert and refusal to discuss the issue. Probably tomorrow. Did just put up this heads up you might look at: Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Article_lead_and_.22Allegations.22_section_remain_WP:CoatrackCarolMooreDC (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Samurai Hermit

Hi coming from the retard, recluse, I am not certain about the copyright on book covers, so I am not sure about the licensing. Oh and I gave politics a rest and made two more articles:

Hawaii Samurai (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll fix the copyright notice for you right now. However, you can't use the image on talk pages, so I've removed it. Good to see you as always. Maybe you could join me in a discussion about some project things in the next few days. I'll contact you when I know more. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
University of Hawaii claims a copyright on the book cover. As far as I can tell, the original Hawaiian version of the book is in the public domain, but the English translation is not. I don't know about the photograph, but isn't that in the public domain? Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering

Although he is ignoring it and has twice announced he was leaving since it started, your comments would be welcome. This RFC is basically a final attempt to reach some sort of voluntary agreement with B9 before resorting to more formal, binding measures so the more users that comment and provide diffs of problematic editing the easier this will go if it needs to move on to the next step. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

B9 has fallen into the trap of omphaloskepsis. It isn't enough to simply have knowledge. He has a responsibility to explain, relate, and communicate with those who read and hear it. Navel gazers usually end up indefinitely blocked. B9 is smart enough to know this which is why he's gone silent. I'm not a fan of Wikipedia process and I don't like to get involved unless I think it's important. B9 has been down this road before, but while his edits and comments can be annoying, he's not usually malicious. It would be helpful if he could find one article and focus on improving it, rather than upsetting so many people across the site. Unfortunately, he's so wrapped up in his own ego under the illusion of being ego-less (a common pitfall) that it is very unlikely anything we say or do will change the situation. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that his actions are not malicious, he simply ignores the most basic concepts behind Wikipedia, namely that it is supposed to be written for a general audience in a way that can be easily understood. He's certainly shown that he is either unwilling or unable to accept any criticism of his actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ALF (psychology)

The article ALF (psychology) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As far as I can see, this therapy model is a local invention that never spread at all. A google search (ALF group therapy "acceptance love family") gives either wikipedia/wikipedia copy pages, or a dead link. It seems to have died - but it was never notable in the first place.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lova Falk talk 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Conical straw hat

Sorry to bother you. Could you please give your advice on this? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! You already have a dab page at conical hat. Have you tried to contact Dbachmann (talk · contribs)? He's the one who moved the article from conical hat in the first place.[12] You might want to consider what other editors have to say on the subject first. A typical, listed page move discussion lasting a week might help. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Good plan. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits to Gilad Atzmon

Per your request just made these four specific edits, most of which probably will be reverted. Please feel free to comment. Also, I assume WP:BLP best place to complain about WP:Coatrack when I have built evidence of neutral WP:RS that are reverted when put into article? Thanks.

I'm out the door at the moment, but shall return to this shortly. Thanks for keeping me updated on the subject. I see that many of your recent edits were not reverted, so do you think you've had a partial success? Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw the sectioning change was reverted but read elsewhere it is agreed it might be a subsection of writing, which does seem like natural way to do things. The real problem will be that most of the Atzmon's comments are taken so out of context that of course they sound very antisemitic and probably would be from a white guy from the middle west, but from an ex-Israeli who is really ticked off, I think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt and at least make sure that we don't have POV WP:UNDUE Coatrack in his article. And then there is the issue of ignored neutral WP:RS which I think I'll just list (Yet again) in talk to start. The problem is that other editors consider Opinion Piece rants published in major (mostly British) publications to be more WP:RS than neutral news and interview pieces from major and minor edited news outlets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have access to any good sources about his war experience? I think this deserves an expansion in the article. I think we should try to embed the criticism about his views directly in a section about it, rather than a subsection. To me, this appears to be good encyclopedic style. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I did just add this bio info on Lebanon. That the experience changed him is mentioned in many articles but that's about the most new detail I've seen. (I also made some other substantial edits as discussed in talk to make more NPOV and fixing refs and punctuation.) See today's history. We'll see what the response is.
Past versions did somewhat better on integrating his comments, the political fallout, and his responses in a chronological and biographical fashion, but they were gutted. It is a fairly typical story I've seen played out more than once of someone criticizing Israel or its most vehement supporters in a relatively low key manner, being attacked (or physically protested repeatedly in Atzmon's case) and getting more and more ticked off and making even more obnoxious comments, in an ongoing cycle. (And interesting note is he even has talked about the Mossad possibly killing him in Martin Gibson, No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’). However, he has defenders - whose comments repeatedly have been deleted. And just a year ago the Oxford Literary Festival had him debate two of his detractors (Anti-Semitism to be debated in Oxford,What did we learn about anti-Semitism?, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/14/james-von-brunn-far-right Nick Cohen rant admits that fact). However, that factoid was repeatedly deleted last fall. Gives him too much an aura of respectability, I guess. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm away from my desk for the next few hours, but I'll address what you said when I get back. It might also help to see this from another perspective: Supporters of Israel often point out how criticism of Israel is out of proportion to criticism of other countries and has a tendency to promote antisemitic, anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish arguments. This POV sees Atzmon merely as a useful idiot, however, I believe he can offer some insight from his war experience, and since this is a biography, we should pursue that angle. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Israel tends to be singled out because its supporters so often say that the whole world has to learn the lessons of the Holocaust from the Jews - and then look what Israel has done and still does to the Palestinians. It is this kind of hypocrisy Atzmon particularly analyzes and criticizes. Though his overboard rhetoric tends to undercut his goal; but he's a flaming entertainer, so that's what he does. I could look more through various WP:RS I've got for that angle; usually details are buried in more rhetoric than other editors want to hear. However, I just noted the one new detail that Atzmon shared about things he discovered that upset him in Lebanon has just been deleted by RTLamp as Diff: WP:coatrack!
Also note another editor reminded of us Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion and that "facts" alleged in them can't be used in BLP. As I responded here. at this diff. Specifically related to Aaronovitch accusations in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Atzmon does not appear qualified to "anaylyze and criticize" anything more than his war experience, which is why I've encouraged adding more of it. I don't know why your addition was removed, but I suspect the wording wasn't ideal. I think we really need to hunker down and stop encouraging POV pushing from both sides and write a good biography on the subject. Anyone with strong opinions on this subject should take a step back and confine themselves to the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


peppermintschnapps

yes!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Eliottp216

Wow. I honestly don't know how that happened. Using Huggle, I undid the IP's edit at the article, and Huggle warned them for me. I guess our edits got tangled up. I'm sorry. :) --MithrandirAgain (Talk!) 04:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to: Leper war book cover

Sorry did not get back to you; I will not protest the Leper war book cover you deleted. -Hawaii Samurai (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't delete anything — I'm not an admin. Your file was deleted by User:ABF on commons at 13:02, 23 May 2010.[13] Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Raj2004

Hi, I was wondering if you would be willing to give your opinion on a matter. User:Raj2004 keeps adding text to the lede of Lingam which fails verification. That is, he is using a source to say what the source does not say. [14] I've removed the text twice now within 24 hours, and it's back up. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 13:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see there is already a discussion on the talk page. I will begin by inviting the user to participate. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That talk page conversation is about the imbalance on the page generally. I am requesting help more specifically with edits made in the last day or two; I haven't initiated a talk page thread about it yet. I'll do so. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It will be easier to work towards resolution with the problem out in the open for everyone to see and comment on there. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Goethean in presenting both sides of the debate, from phallic to religious and even cited the infamous Wendy Doniger, of whom I am no fan of, for his defense. Raj2004 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Could the two of you work together without the edit warring? Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Question.

What does "walled garden voting" mean? Please answer here, since I'll be temporarily watching your page, although it would probably be better if you answered on the CMT talk page. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_16&oldid=1190097226"