Jump to content

User talk:Viriditas/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New images that are questionable

Hi again I have mulled over posting these pictures for a while now so I did it and can you reviews them, if there are any issues over the copyright.

Hawaii Samurai (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I'll take a look later tonight or Sunday. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii

I've done what I was able to do on the articles. Like all else in Wikipedia, anyone is welcome to add what they consider verifable content and resources. Excuse me??? "...before I bring this to the attention of the reliable source noticeboard" sounds a little harsh there. Honestly, I've done what I can do with resources available to me. There is no more juice to be squeezed out of that guava.

Let me be fair here about the question about my interest in music. It's more of historical interest, as I search for things that do not exist on Wikipedia. Not just music, but that's what you've seen. On the subject of music in Hawaii, I feel the historical foundation builders of Hawaiian music are being lost. If you click on the Musicians from Hawaii category, I have done a great deal on a number of individual listings to build them up. Some others, either it's somebody who possibly is promoting their own career, or someone who wanted to put up an article and did not have whatever was needed to convey the subject matter. Information has been scant. WikiProject Hawaii is in need, straight across the board. In the area of entertainment, it's like whole generations of entertainers, in particular the foundation musicians, are disappearing into the wind. So, that's it - I have been trying to catch what I could that I feel is disappearing with time.

I feel very sad that the cultural history of Hawaii is not being adequately represented in Wikipedia.

Sometimes, I find names of entertainers that have only one or two lines with no references. The Hilo Hattie one where you deleted the reference to the bankruptcy of the stores (I don't object to the deletion), you should go back and look at the history before I started working on it. The entire article was about the stores and the bankruptcy - an indication that perhaps the generation that watched Hilo Hattie perform has died off, and now nobody knows anything but the dress shops.

If you have not done so, you are welcome to look at my user page User:Maile66 where I have listed articles I have created, and those I have worked on. The music and entertainment issue in Hawaii just happened, as I was looking for anything on John Kameaaloha Almeida and found there was nothing about this artist to whom so many hula dancers in Hawaii owe so much. After that, it became one click lead to another, finding poorly constructed or non-existant subject matter.

Currently, I am trying to tweak the Frank Fasi site - another accidental find. It needs a lot of work. Like they used to say - you either love him, or you hate him. This article was put together by those who loved him, and there is another side to the Frank Fasi story. It's a matter of resources as I find them, and a way to tell it from the NPOV.

You classified John Kameaaloha Almeida as a living person - he's been dead for decades. I corrected that.

Also on Tau Moe, where you took the capitalization off "The Tau Moe Family", I put the caps back. It was the actual name of a touring group, but in taking a second look at how the article was worded, I can see how you thought otherwise. I've done some revamping on the wording, so maybe it's more clear. Another one of those sites I've tried to punch up.

P.S. - totally on a different subject, I have serious doubts about the purpose of tags. I've been through probably hundreds of sites where tags were put on by whoever, and the tagger went on. Why not stop and try to correct whatever they were tagging in the first place? The tags stay there for years and years. It's like Wikipedia has become this huge trash bin of tag littering. It doesn't look good on the articles, and it really doesn't seem to add anything in the long run.

Maile66 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu IZAK (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame again

I am trying to insert some NPOV into the Aspartame and Aspartame controversy pages. You seem to have had input in the archives, so perhaps you could put these pages back on your watchlist, and even contribute if you have the time and energy? Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Lord

If you have time, could you look at the assessment ratings on Jack Lord. It was downgraded from a B to a C over a year ago. Considerable improvements have happened since then - some by me. Also, would it be appropriate to archive the discussions on the Talk Page? They're all very old and probably not relevant to anything about the site now. And if there's anything I personally can do to further improve the page, please offer suggestions. In the references, I have some from Internet Broadway Database, because that's the only place I could find info on Broadway plays he'd done. On the Filmography, I did a collapsible, sortable table, because he had such a large body of work. Just when you have time, please. Maile66 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You yourself can look at the WP:1.0/B criteria. After glancing at the article, I think it is very close to B class, but doesn't quite meet the criteria. When I have time, I'll say more on the talk page, but you can look at the six criteria and work on the article as well. You might want to start with criterion 1, as that seems to be an obvious problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Looked at the Talk page for Jack Lord. Jack Lord has been dead for 12 years - it has him as a living person. I'm not sure why it says that, because when I look at Edit, it says "living=no". Can you change that? As for criterion 1, I believe you are referring to inline citations. Most what is on there now came from me in the last couple of months. You have a more experienced perspective, but it looks pretty well referenced to me. Maybe it's the specific type of references I've used????? I'll follow your guidelines when you have time to be more specific. Maile66 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I did it again! This time I added "blp=yes" in the wpbs header by accident. Sorry. Yes, I'll have more specific comments on the talk page later today/tonight, but for example, "Early years" has a lot of unsourced material, as does the career section. You might also want to make sure the little details are filled in. I looked for the name of his spouse in the infobox and found it empty, for example. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Update: [1] Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

More Lord

I posted a commentary on the article talk page. I'm mostly concerned with the non-standard filmography table and some of the content still needs referencing. You're right, it's close to a B-Class, but not quite yet. I left suggestions to improve it, hopefully it will be taken in the spirit it was given. Thanks for asking me. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a great review! Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the review has been very helpful. I've corrected most except the table,which will require some work. I've deleted some small things I could not reference (had already tried), such as the ebay reference and what other actors he worked with at the Actor's Studio. I'll spend some time on the table. Wowie-how I wish I'd had the table information before - it's great info to have for the next time around. Thanks for doing this. Maile66 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Honolulu Strangler

Sorry about the sources my main source was the book Honolulu Homicide. I have been busy, I need to finish it up and add the references. -Hawaii Samurai (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks against me

I am one of the creators of this article. Stop accusing me of wanting to disparage Mann.[2] I helped create the article because I thought the video was catchy/funny - nothing more and nothing less. And since the claims of the video have been discredited, if anything it makes climate skeptics look bad. If you think my only goal was to disparage Mann, then file a RfE against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you the person responsible for creating the video/acting in it? Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No, but your accusations are about the creators of the article, not the creators of the video. There's a huge difference between the video and an article about the video. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So, you didn't create the article to attack Michael Mann? Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I did not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So, you created the article because you found the tune catchy (I agree that it is, btw) and you found it funny. It had no relationship to any of your past contributions on the same related topic. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes to your first question. I'm not sure what you're asking me in your second question. Obviously, I stumbled upon the video because someone mentioned it in a talk page discussion or included it in an article. I'm not sure; the video is a half year old. But it's been in the back of my mind that if I can find enough reliable sources to justify notability, I would look into creating an article for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you aware that Mann has been the subject of several BLP discussions in the past, including two in May and June 2007 (Hockey stick controversy (1) and Hockey stick controversy (2)) and another in 21 November 2009 and two more in 28 November 2009? In many of these discussions, the same BLP concerns come up again and again. When you created the article about the video, you brought these same concerns to the table. Were you aware of this? Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No, not that I can recall. I created my account about a year ago and a half ago. I am, however familiar with our WP:BLP policy and I'm not aware of any BLP violations in Hide the decline article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Does the article adhere to NPOV, does it use high quality sources, does the topic take a tabloid or sensationalistic approach, and is there a possibility of harm to a living subject? "Material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections." Isn't the external link to "Minnesotans for Global Warming" a questionable source? And, isn't a video about a BLP released by "Minnesotans for Global Warming" a questionable source? Why don't we have an article about this group? Should we? If not, why do we have an article about their video? Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that it does adhere to NPOV. The external link to "Minnesotans for Global Warming" is appropriate because it's an official link. See WP:EL#Official_links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Except the subject of the article you wrote cannot be found on the website you linked, as the original author of the video has removed it due to copyright concerns and the concerns raised by Mann about the use of his image. So, the link does not support the article. What's weird, is that instead of the old video which is what the article and the sources refer to, we find a new video in its place, supposedly hosted by the "No Cap and Trade Coalition". But, further research shows that this group is simply the parent group of "Minnesotans for Global Warming". Attempts to find out more information about both groups has been very difficult. What does this tell you about the source? Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It's still an official link to the organization that created the video. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Who is the organization other than a web site? When you try to find out, all links lead to No Cap and Trade Coalition. Going there, reveals nothing. How can this be considered a reliable source for anything, let alone an encylcopedia article? And how can passing links to this organization in news sources amount to anything more than gossip or rumor? Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources and external links are two different concepts and are covered by two different guilelines. For external links, it's not required that the link pass the standards set forth in WP:RS. Honestly, I don't know much about the organization so I can't answer some of your questions. But everything I read so far is that this is the organization that created the video so it's appropriate to have a link to their official web site. It's no different then, for example, our articles on the (American) Republican Party and Democrat Party having external links to their official web sites. If you don't agree with my explanation, there's an External links noticeboard we can ask at. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You're free to do what you want, but please remember, the policies and guidelines all interact; They aren't meant to be separate, but rather to help guide editors into making good choices that improve articles. And keep in mind, things change. Before you joined Wikipedia, external links were reliable sources. You probably didn't even know that. Viriditas (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I did not know that. Have I been able to resolve your concerns about my intentions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I still have concerns, but I have more insight now on your experience. I had assumed you had been here for years. I wasn't aware that you only created your account 1.5 years ago. Viriditas (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


The CRU emails

I've attempted to give some information on what happened as I understand it. As far as I know, this timeline has not been published in a reliable source yet. Cla68 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Elling

Yo Viriditas, noticed the housekeeping and expansion you've been doing at Kurt Elling, nice job. If you're interested in making a proper go at beating it into shape (GA drive for instance) I'd be more than happy to help out. Cheers, Skomorokh 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Still a ways to go on that. If you are interested in helping, pick a section and expand it. The career section needs serious work, as does critical commentary. The article doesn't even mention his range as a baritone. So yeah, help out! :) Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Great, see you in the trenches! Skomorokh 20:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reconciliatory note

Hi there,

I know you may not want to talk to me, but I thought I would let you know that after our hullabazoo, I went and read your conversation with DF. I realized that what I was going on to understand your position on Snowball Earth was a small subset reproduced for me of what you had already written in a different forum, and that this is why I didn't fully understand (or parse) your arguments. So I'm chalking the whole thing up to a miscommunication, and have no hard feelings. Awickert (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I think my reaction was as bad or worse than yours, so I must apologize as well. You're the better man here, and I appreciate the work you do here. Have a good week, and stay cool. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad we can put this behind us, and don't really care where blame ends up so long as the future will be tension-free. You do fantastic work here, by the way, and I come across it often. Awickert (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Niihau incident article discussion page

On the Niihau incident discussion page I added a section on another 'downed pilot' incident, this one on Oahu at Aiea on 'Pearl Harbor day', as recounted by a classmate of mine in John Bowles' book The Day our World Changed (© 2004; Ice Cube Press).

K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

editing of maui information

Sorry If I had some conflicting information listed. I was reviewing and trying to add in relevant information. I had lost soem of the references I previsouly had which is part of the difficulty. Doing research in Hawaiian Antiquity is ver time consuming and not always readily available, and sometimes some of the sources used are not as reliable and end up spreading bad information.

My background in Hawaiian knowledge is very diverse, and I am formally educated as well. I have a B.A. in Hawaiian Language from the Univeristy of Hawai'i, as well as my M.A. in Hawaiian studies with my foci being in Hawaiian History along with Hawaiian Land Tenure and Resources managament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauiknows (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

here is one source for the name use of Maui Komohana, instead of Mauna Kahalawai. It is a often used site by Hawaiian Language researchers because the old newspapers are probably the best Primary resource for language available.

http://nupepa.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/nupepa?a=q&r=1&hs=1&e=q-0nupepa--00-0-0--010---4----text---0-1l--1haw-Zz-1---20-about---00031-0000utfZz-8-00&t=0&q=maui+komohana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauiknows (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

CC Exaggeration

[3] What the heck, man? Are you going to check editor userspaces to complain about articles that haven't even been approved for posting yet? Don't you have my talk page on your watchlist? If you don't, please put it there, because you should have seen that Mark asked me to review the article before he posts it. I won't let him post an article that violates Wikipedia policies. I reviewed The Gore Effect, and I stand by my review as the current article is fairly close to the one I approved. By the way, I was in your state for a couple of weeks which is why I was late with my evidence in the current case. I ate too much loco moco and am now trying to lose the weight as fast as my tan is disappearing. Cla68 (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed. I hope you had a nice time in Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
[4] You seem to have rather strong personal feelings on the topic. There are a lot of facets to climate change research and theory. In my opinion, one of the areas where global warming theory is strongest is on the acidification of the oceans. Warming deniers have yet, as far as I have seen, been able to come up with a plausible reason why, if warming is a natural, cyclical pattern, why the oceans are acidifying like they are. On the other hand, paleoclimatology, such as produced the hockey stick, has a lot of issues, which I think explains the unquestionably defensive nature of the Climategate emails. In short, it's not black and white. There are some grey in some areas. Some scientists are doing really good work and their research is compelling and robust. Some, on the other hand, might need to rethink their approach. I think this is a natural and inevitable situation for something as complex as climate science. If one group of scientists have issues with their research, it does not mean that the entire concept of human-caused warming is nonsense. Not at all. In the meantime, we just need to write the articles without any view towards taking any side. We just report what the sources, all of them that are reliable, are saying. For what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
First thing we do, is stop using opinion pieces to write encyclopedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that editorials have limited usefulness and that's why I think it's silly to argue over which editorial comments to use and which ones not to use and how. As I said before, I expect that several books will be published on the Climategate incident in a few months time. I predict there will be five books published. Two will take the CRU/RealClimate side, one will try to take a middle ground, and two will take Climate Audit's side. If we're all willing compromise and cooperate, I think we can work through it and produce a great article on what happened in the incident and why or why not it is important and how. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is that simple. Have you had a chance to analyze the sources used in the current article? Do they fit your 2-1-2 model? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Are any books being used at all in the article? I think that news reporting on the third investigation report has fit the 2-1-2 model. To use a personal example, the day the report was released I watched CNN and Fox. CNN stated simply that the scientists had been "completely cleared" and made no mention of any of the negative findings. Fox stated that the scientists were mostly cleared, but noted that there were some negative findings. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. There is a book I want to add to the article.[5] I want to show in a background section, that CRU was initially sponsored by Shell and BP, among others. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your rational defense of my position

Viriditas - thanks for your support of my position in the History of wolves in Yellowstone article and subsequent contributions to the article -- its better for it. Regards. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Viriditas, Mono has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—mono 00:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

EWW

Did you inform the wig of the rfc comment? •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did.[6] But, thanks for the reminder. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no prob... •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Complex and simple organisms"

Comment on my talk. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your merge tags point to two different talk pages. Merge discussions should be unified at one talk page - in this case the higher and lower organisms one. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll fix it right now. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: I'd like you to respond to my comments on the talk page. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I did, and it's an interesting subject I would encourage you to research. However, I'm out the door at the moment but shall return shortly. I have your pages on my watchlist, so no need to keep tripping the orange bar. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Top Secret America

Hello again. How is my friend with the large cranial volume? I could use a bit of advice. I need a DYK hook for the article. The tricky thing is, I would like it to be about the impact or nature of the report, and not the content. What do you think? Regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Unless you have some new material to add, I'm not seeing anything DYK-worthy about the impact of the report. I do see potential hooks regarding the nature of the report. Can you be more specific as to what you are looking for? Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the impact was that everyone from the White House on down responded. Not much there. The nature? Heck, I don't know. I just thought it strange that a DYK hook would end up being about a fact about the govt. mentioned in the report, and not about the report somehow. Does that make sense or am I subjecting myself to a Jedi mind trick? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Only thing I would change right now is the placement of "report". I would put it after the article like this:
... that the "Top Secret America" report revealed that over 800,000 people work for the US intelligence community?
Of course, that's my preference. Otherwise, I like it! Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sold! I knew you'd come through. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Another editor suggested this. 3 abstract points vs 1 concrete -- tough choice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Long hooks like the kind Mark proposes, while interesting, only work in specific circumstances. Shorter, "punchier" hooks are almost always preferred. If Mark can figure out a way to shorten it (tighter synonyms might do it), then it would be neat to see what he could come up with as a replacement. Also, I'm curious if Mark's hook is worded in a way that might present additional problems. For example, is it supported as fact? That's why it is easier to work with hard data when it comes to DYK. My opinion, of course. YMMV. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Good points. I like short. Visitors like short. Short with teeth. I'll work on it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this hold true for languages other than English? I know you are conversant in something like six or more, so you seem like the right person to ask. In other words, is the preference for a short hook a function of the language? Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's universal. Many people are lazy. Plus, innately, when we glance at a beach, our eyes are drawn to the sea star. Newspaper headlines here are the same length as anywhere else.
As for languages, I only have some French and Mandarin in my répertoire. Although, it is said that I can talk "gibberish" and "utter bunk", languages that predate Aramaic by 100,000 years. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure? :-) I seem to recall you using the Dutch language, and possibly even Spanish. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Never Spanish. I lived in Amsterdam for 4 years, but my Dutch is awful. They have a small vocabulary, but they make up for it with ridiculously long and complex sentences. My favourite word in the whole world is gezellig. I'm sure you too have a nice Hawaiian word that really hits the spot. 07:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Anna Frodesiak (talk)
Gezellig, that's great. That also explains your choice of user page image perfectly!! A Hawaiian word that might be somewhat similar is hoʻokipa. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dog_meat#Main_image and Talk:Dog_meat#Removal_of_categories

These will go down in the annuls as "most absurd debates". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's got you on aesthetic quality, but you're right when it comes to the base depiction of the image. In a way, you both have good arguments. So this boils down to (excuse the horrible pun) what the "house style" is for lead images in food articles. Have you taken this to the food and drink project talk page? I would, if you think it matters. BTW, do you have any interest in collaborating on pea soup in the future? If you don't, that's ok. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Good advice once again. But, every time I go to a project page for advice, they rarely reply. I'll give it a try.
Pea soup? It's been done, right? What do you have in mind? Funny you mention it, I just looked up snert the other day to see if it needed creating. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I just love pea soup, that's all. There's a folky place in California called "Andersen's Pea Soup" that's notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to create Tofu production if you want to collaborate. I have all the junk ready for assembly. All I need to do is hit a factory with a camera. Interested? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but I need to finish working on the Mau Piailug article in my user space. It's going to take me until at least Monday. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a handicam, so maybe even a few ogg video clips would make it a great article. I worked in a friend's tofu factory in Malaysia for a day just for fun. It's pretty neat. They actually pour plaster of paris into the soft tofu and nobody ever washes their hands. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Which reminds me, we've got the Tamashiro Tofu Factory here. Might be nice to get some pics. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we have another one called "Teruya Tofu Factory". Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I'll google that. Tofu production would be a shoe-in for a DYK. Hook: Did you know that in tofu production nobody washes their hands? (Or the plaster of paris thing. Either or.)
By the way, this whole time I have been writing there has been raging winds and rain. I am now right in the eye of [7][8][9]. Any minute the winds will start going the other way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, stay safe! Do you have powerbars, water, and a flashlight? The weather was just bizarre today in Hawaii. I've never seen a drought like this before here, and it was warm in a part of the island where it was supposed to be cold, and cold where it was usually warm. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No worries. It's not a bad one. The worst thing is 85 motorcycle alarms all going off for 15 hours non-stop. I don't know what a powerbar is, but I have a big thing of water and candles. Hawaii sounds upside down. Don't worry, if the poles shift, you'll be right side up again. Then, Australia will be renamed to Canada and National Geographic will have to flip all the words on the maps. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
PowerBar was invented by a Canadian who was smart enough to sell it to hippies on the go and athletes needing energy in California. It's now more of a household generic term for any energy bar, and comes in handy when a storm hits and the lights go out. Go Canada! Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha. Right. What Rainier Wolfcastle eats: apple cores and old Chinese newspapers. Well, here we have those big natural gas bottles in our homes for cooking, so no problem.
Andersen's Pea Soup seems notable, and is making me hungry. You should make the edit. We (I'm a Montrealer) have Habitant pea soup in Quebec. The article doesn't mention that only Habitant brand is acceptable. It is superb and all Quebecers live on it.
Speaking of Canadian inventions, Crocs come to mind. Huge, huge, huge over here. Knock-offs. I'll make a note to take some pics. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The English quote (translated) from French writer Louis Hémon in the pea soup article is amazing. I wonder if the French is even better? Is there any English writer who can use words like that, as if the letters were flecks of paint and the quill a paintbrush? The man paints with words! Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And now I find that Rajka Kupesic actually painted scenes from his book! How cool is that? Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. That's it. I'm making pea soup tomorrow. You must really love the stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please

[10] Can you please stop it with uncivil comments? You're constantly questioning your fellow editors' motive and this needs to end. Please assume good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"We don't need POV pushers picking and choosing opinion pieces and editorials that criticize climate science. That's a transparent attempt at attempting to evade our sourcing policies." I stand by that comment. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you keep attacking your fellow editors, I'll file an RfE against you. You have been warned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course. I automatically assumed that was the reason you contacted me in the first place. If you really cared about civility, and all of its polite accoutrements, you wouldn't have given us such a wonderful example of glossy lip service on the CRU talk page, asking everyone not to edit the article except for yourself. That was a lot of fun. Bravo, two thumbs up, a delightful command performance. You've taken the profession of beliefs and opinions that you don't hold to a new level. File away, my good fellow, I say, file away! Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I said at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Drama drama drama! And I wonder how I've mostly managed to avoid it so far... ResMar 03:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis on "mostly". Hehehe... Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Only once my friend :) ResMar 18:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, only once, but we had to screw your head back on after it popped off and rolled across the floor! :)Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Ooooh, touche. ResMar 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii volcanism noms

The Hawaii list is back on FLC again, and doing well, and I've gone ahead and nominated Hualalai as well. Once (voodoo?) it passes, only Kea and Kilauea will remain, but I'm a bit queesy about taking them on myself. (not for a short while though) ResMar 03:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I still need your help with Niihau. I would like to add a geology section but I'm concerned about the currency of the information that I have, specifically page 7 in this pdf. Any idea where I can get the latest geological data on Niihau so that I can add it to the article? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too concerned, 1988 is not that bad in currency terms; I had to write part of Hualalai from a 1912 paper. Cuz THERE WERE NO SOURCES. Gargh! So.. yeah ResMar 18:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, in the span of two days my message was pushed waaay up here. ResMar 19:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea

Reopening the page name issue yet again after all the previous discussions is a thoroughly bad idea. You shouldn't give hostage-takers what they demand - it only encourages them to escalate their demands. It's too late to undo now but I really wish you had not done that. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's precisely the attitude that led to the CRU conflict in the first place. Sunshine is best. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RfE

[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What took so long? I thought you were going to file it yesterday. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Classy move

Classy move. I'm surprised how invested I was in the AQFK incident - maybe Sayre's Law in action. It sure would be nice to get the Arcom decision posted - I think the waiting is contributing to the testiness.--SPhilbrickT 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 00:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please be advised the source stated it was "disturbing" - please self-revert. GregJackP Boomer! 00:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Government and warming

[12] I think I predicted to you before here on your talk page that the government probably wouldn't take significant action on AGW remedial measure, because it is just too expensive, at least to them. They may be dooming humans to years of misery, but that appears to be the situation. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Geoengineering is far more expensive. Extinction is fairly cheap, however. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Communication

Viriditas, May I send you by email an email thread I've had with Gail Evenari, I think you might enjoy it? If agreeable, you can send me your email address by emailing me. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage use

Viriditas, talk page posts like this are unhelpful and clearly against the rules of WP:TALK. In the heated atmosphere of those pages, it is a particularly bad idea to let discussion threads wander into a general exchange of your personal opinions about the non-Wikipedia disputes. Please don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests

Sort of noticed this message post today. The Toronto summit protests article isn't a POV fork, and I'm well aware of NPOV editing, FYI. But you've added extra detail to the lead of the Toronto summit article. The fact that a sweeping powers law never existed does not have anything to do with the summit. The pupose of the Toronto summit article is to develop information on what happened at the actual meeting, not entirely about what happened outside. Such info are already described in appropriate articles/sections. Thus the fact that sweeping powers laws did not exist should stay in the controversies section where it originally was. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. It was obvious that you were trying to run damage control and remove anything that could possibly make the summit look bad. Further discussion should take place on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sincere thanks

Thank you for your condolences. I think we all get a bit carried away on occasion (hopefully to the positive but things sometimes go awry) in our enthusiasm to share what we know about subjects and interests close to our hearts and lose sight that all WP-ians are also a family. Best, Pēters PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your words contain a deeper meaning that points to the concept of mutual interdependence, an old idea that more and more people are embracing around the world, as if consciousness, however it could be defined, was becoming aware of itself in relation to others for the first time, emerging to find itself connected to everything and everyone. Have you ever read anything by Thich Nhat Hanh, or heard him speak? He explains this wonderfully. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have some familiarity with Buddhism from studying comparative religion years ago including attending services and visiting practitioners, but no, I have not read Thich Nhat Hanh. On the other hand, being a devotee of English literature, I offer up:
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
and observe that Thich Nhat Hanh seeing the universe in something as simple as a piece of paper is not far removed—if at all—from Blake. The word "interbeing" comes to mind. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Next time I'm in the city in the neighborhood I'll stop by the East-West bookstore, been going there on and off since my college days. I'm sure they are well stocked with his writings. Never seem to make it to the library. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm always interested in how one translates a philosophy or way of thinking to daily living. (Not the self-help cottage industry.) I picked up Hanh's "Keeping the Peace - Mindfulness and Public Service" written for all those whose roles include creating and sustaining peace (beyond the obvious one of just police officers). Frankly, I'm hoping to get a fresh perspective on Wikipedia arbitrations (!). Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. I should also get a copy. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The nature of articles

Sorry to bug you again. I put together Conical hat for "one-stop-shopping". It will probably be merged into Pointed hat. I'm happy about that. But, what's the story with articles that bring a number of similar things together, or that "umbrella" subjects that end in a lot of sections with { { main } }. I understand dab policy, and they're not right for grouping dissimilarly-named things. So what's the story with this kind of article? Is this bad or good or what? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna, you never bug me. Always a pleasure. The only thing is, I'm working on getting this DYK out before the deadline, so I need to focus on it for now. In any case, I always thought conical hat was a list article, so the structure wasn't quite right. Viriditas (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Get back to work. We can pick this up later. Good luck with the DYK. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, as I will need it! I'm really behind because Hawaii had an underwater cable break earlier and I missed out on hours of needed work. I was also supposed to be asleep two hours ago. Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Scandal"

Hi, I'm wondering if we now agree about the word "scandal" being applied to the CRUec. Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw this and offered some thoughts. Scandalous perhaps, but it was recently concluded that the science was not impacted. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mau Piailug queued for DYK

The Mau Piailug DYK has been queued for the Main page; you can see it in the queue if you like. It should appear on the Main page on August 4 at about noon Hawaii time (5PM Chicago time)  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
According to Henrik's stats tool, the page received about 6,400 views yesterday, therefore the hook is eligible to be posted on the DYKSTATS page. So I posted it there. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Not bad. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Action International Martial Arts Association

Can I nominate my own article for deletion? I made that article when I was really new at Wiki. I am now questioning the notability. I really only made it because Dev Patel (the Slumdog Millionaire star) is a member, and I really liked him at the time. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but if there's no hurry, leave a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts explaining your concerns. Also, take a look at Category:Martial arts organizations and see if it's a candidate for a merge and redirect into a parent article or list. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of food allergies

Hello again. Last time I wrote to you, it was about articles that end up with sections like a list. Examples are dog meat, conical hat, etc. (FYI: We are trying to fix dog meat, and conical will get merged into pointed hat).

I want to start an article called List of food allergies. I have this strange urge to "round-up" articles, but even I don't see the point. I guess that's what categories are for, right? Would such an article be useful? Thanks. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be an interesting, informative, and useful list, provided it was in table format. Should also be easy for you to find the data. As an aside, don't forget to check out The Infinity of Lists (2009). Heh. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, thank you, and I will check out the list book. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's a new one that just came out from Liza Kirwin: Lists: To-dos, Illustrated Inventories, Collected Thoughts, and Other Artists' Enumerations from the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art (2010), published by Princeton Architectural Press. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Funny book! I've bookmarked it. Say, how are you with making columns all the same width? I am close to breaking my computer. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Help:Table? Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Very funny. Ever tried to program a VCR? Same thing. I'll have a large glass of wine and try again. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Please to make blinking stop!? Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Wine almost came out of my nose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
name task while reaction
Anna make columns even in all three tables slightly drunk yipee!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just delighted when it finally worked after 85 tries. I couldn't contain myself. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If you had the urge to sing for joy, which song would you choose? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's easy. Anything by Michael Bolton or Air Supply. Kidding, kidding. Those are just still the "favourites of developing nations". Seriously, it would have to be "Old Man River". Again, I kid. Seriously though, Peter Gabriel/Kate Bush "Don't give up". "Everybody Hurts", REM? Again, I can't stop myself. Have to give it some thought. And you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, even though I follow popular culture and listen to all kinds of music, I was born in a retro state of mind. Right now, I'm making my way through the Great American Songbook, and in many ways, YouTube and iTunes have given new life to these songs. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mau Piailug

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fetter (Buddhism)

I am sincerely grateful for your offer, your kindness, erudition and deep commitment to communal prosperity :-) If I may, I think the other editor is sincere and knowledgeable about the general topic (if not the existing literature); honestly, I was (over?-)reacting more to the talk-page innuendo and hyperbole than to the relatively innocuous article change; in the end, at least thus far, I think the "disputation" resulted in better end-note text, if nothing else. Truly, thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (Ret.)

And now I have to laugh at myself: I missed the latest talk-page reply. I'll try to respond in the next couple of days, as time allows. Hopefully, focusing on facts, we'll be able to reach accord :-) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Israel matter

Thanks for sticking up for me. But, please be frank. I must always question my actions. Was I out of line? You have been around here for a long, long time. You are Wikiyoda. When editors patrol, is it okay to evaluate, remove inappropriate edits prima facie, and and move on? I always saw that as a vital thing, as such an edit is neutral. Please tell me how I could have done things better. I am always, as you know, humbly open to learn. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those things where there's not one or two factors at work but many. When I make an edit like you did on a controversial page, if I have the time, I try to make a note on the talk page and add the unsourced material to the talk page, so that if someone wants to add it back, they don't have to comb through the page history. Other than that, you were right when you argued that it is the burden of those adding content to source it, and since the text had been tagged as unsourced before you even arrived, anyone could remove it. And frankly, it doesn't matter if you were wrong or right, the reaction of Hearfourmewesique was way, way over the top. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Next time I will try to take into account the controversiality of the text and article, and drop the text and a note to talk. That sounds like, not only a considerate thing to do, but also a way to prevent an edit war, and slide the matter over to discussion.
In this particular case, I am glad I didn't hunt for the ref. Who knows if, in such a hot article, it would have been contested on POV grounds. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point. IMO, users should search for a ref before removing text, but this is rarely done, if ever. Still, I didn't like the way Hearfourmewesique treated you. Why is it so hard to be polite to our fellow human beings? I don't know the answer, and I struggle with the same bad behavior. BTW, your comment about the wheelchair on fire had me literally ROFL. You have a wonderful sense of humor. Today, I saw a window display at Crazy Shirts that displayed their current catalog of t-shirts as a food "menu". Have you thought about doing something like that on your user page for Cafe Anna? I guess it's cliche if Crazy Shirts is doing it, but it did seem to fit your theme. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, Crazy Shirts eh? I guess the 'ol cafe is due for a reno. It's been almost 2 yrs. Food for thought.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"Food for thought." Heh. May I see the menu, please? Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Great American Songbook

As a visitor to the article, the lede is not very clear if it is audio or score. I love the selections though. I can play some of the songs on the piano -- some Cole Porter, Rodgers and Hart, Gershwin, Carmichael, and Berlin. I think you would like Standing in the Shadows of Motown. You should rent it. 9.5/10 Fantastic!!! Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and find it on Tuesday, thanks for the tip. Viriditas (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agora

On the film Agora, if you look at the movie poster on the right is specifically states the date in A.D. not CE. I know there is a certain time to use CE and BCE but if the movie poster shows A.D. shouldn't the article as well. Unless you can find a poster or in the film where they use CE. (User:sullivan9211) 13:02, 9 August 2010 (CST)

Resolved on talk. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea

I'm starting work on Mauna Kea. Just keeping you posted :) ResMar 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of trying for FA with this one...ResMar 15:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Marshmallow Challenge

Am I losing my mind? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Sounds like fun. Years ago, there was a vegetarian/vegan marshmallow substitute that for some reason or another disappeared. I would love to get my hands on some! I used to order these vegan "steaks" by the case; It was a seitan like concoction dipped in spices and marinated in red wine. For some reason that nobody knows, they went out of business overnight and shut their doors. The fact is, there are great meat substitutes in the world, that look and taste just like it, but nobody ever hears about them. Funny how that works, isn't it? Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception (film)

I was trying to add a reference from the costume designer that confirms what I was trying to modify. Just be patient, please. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop and take it to the talk page. Your edit is not only disputed, it doesn't belong in the plot section. This is no different than someone writing "Deckard was revealed to be a replicant" in the plot of the Blade Runner article. It doesn't belong in the plot, it goes in an "Interpretations" section, properly sourced. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC for Maharishi Sthapatya Veda(MSV) architecture

Hi and thanks for your comment on the MSV talk page. [13] At your suggestion I created a summary and tried to repost the RfC request and it ended up on the general RfC noticeboard and not on the architecture board. In any case, not a single person has responded and the issue remains open. Any suggestions? This article could really use some outside input from a few editors who have an interest in architecture because at present it is headed in a odd direction. Thanks for you help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas

Let me express directly my main concern. What Thomas is doing is worthy and admirable. I support his effort. But much, if not all, of the Vietnam War material is unsubstantiated. It is self reported. There are certain people who assume a mantle of bravado by exaggerating and falsifying their exploits. I do NOT suggest that Thomas is giving us bravado in that sense. In one sense he is doing the reverse -- rejecting bravado. But I would like to see documentation from a third party as to his Vietnam record. With this in mind, I'll be happy to remove the banners and simply tag the unverified Vietnam stuff. E.g., I will revert your reversion, and then revert it myself. (A sort of counter WP:OWN effort.) Then I'll tag the Vietnam "exploits". Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly a legitimate concern for, let's say, a military historian, but for a Wikipedia editor it is somewhat beyond our scope. Secondary sources have reported much of what Thomas has said, which is good enough for a biography. As for whether we can personally verify the veracity of his claims, that borders on original research. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii

I have never once seen anyone make a convincing argument that there's an actual, measurable and quantifiable benefit to a reader in having some articles sitting in both Category:Hawaii and Category:Geography of Hawaii simultaneously, while others aren't; it's always been right out of the "it's true because I say it is" school of logic. And I am looking at it as a reader; the idea that I'm being helped because I have to perform one less mouse click than I would if the article were just in the subcategory is somewhere between moderately confusing and utterly laughable. One click? Big whooping whee. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And incidentally, the rule about talk page discussion has always been and continues to be that I may respond wherever I damn please, whether that's on my talk page or on yours. There is no rule that I'm required to respond only on my own talk page, nor is there any rule that permits you to move a post I made to your talk page over to mine, while erasing it from yours, just because you think talk page discussion should be restricted to one spot. That's not how talk page discussion works. And by the way, there's not much point in just using "See user talk" as your edit summary rather than an actual explanation, because I have the right to remove the discussion from my talk page if I choose — which means there won't be anything for any other user to see anyway. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea

^ hostile as hell. Anyway, I've completed the stage 1 rough write of Mauna Kea. It's thus time for stage 2: both WP:HAWAII people for completeness :) ResMar 14:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Sixth anniversary on Wikipedia :) I noticed you created Man in the Air in 2004. That's a long time ago. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth. I look forward to working with you on the Elling article. Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll take that as an "unqualified" (zoing). ResMar 01:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, ResMar. How are things going with Mauna Kea? I'll drop in later. You have to understand, Kurt Elling takes precedence over all things. :-) Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to make sure there aren't any gaping holes in coverage, thats what ;0 ResMar 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Understood, and you are wise to keep an eye on it. However, that type of concern decreases when you are dealing with a popular and widely published topic and increases when you are writing about a niche subject. So, you should be ok. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Gosh!

Thanks! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Date of settlement

There's a noted date definceny in Mauna Kea:

  • Ancient Hawaiian: After being first settled by Polynesian long-distance navigators sometime between AD.300-800...
  • Mauna Kea: Ancient Hawaiians arrived on the island in between 25 BC and 125 CE...

Source. Could it be a mistake in official source papers, or subtle vandalism on the Wikipedia page itself? My source is part of the 2000 managment plans so I'd be highly suprised if there was a mistake in them oO ResMar 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Kanahele (1997) source is from a larger draft EIS.[14] I'm not at home and I tried to open it up in iBooks on my iPhone and it was so large it crashed. I'll keep working on it, but I don't see an immediate problem with the dates. Kanahele is relying on older data, so we need to see where it is coming from, since this wasn't published in a journal. No problem just yet, but remain skeptical as you go. I'll have more to add later when I have access to an actual computer. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated. ResMar 04:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm back. It looks like my suspicions were correct, so it pays to be skeptical. As far as I can tell, as of 2010, nobody in any authority uses the date range of between "25 BC and 125 CE", so I would just go ahead and ignore it at this time. For a 2005 overview of the current state of the research that uses Kanahele but does not quote those figures, see the NASA EIS as only one of many examples.[15] Personally, I've never seen the 25 BC date before. I tried to find the original, which is supposed to be held by the International Archaeological Research Institute,[16] but if you look at their publications page[17] you'll find lots of archaeological reports about the Saddle, but nothing by Kanahele, which tells me it has been either removed or superseded for some reason. Kanahele is still a valid source for Hawaiian cultural topics, but we've got good scientific data indicating much later dates of settlement. (See page C-9 of the NASA EIS for details) So, to answer your question, I don't think this is a mistake, rather this is how science works, in that data can change with newer research. Even though many of these documents say that Kanahele's report came out in 1997, I've seen at least one site list it as 1992, so it's possible they were using much older research for their date range, or dates that are no longer accepted as authoritative. Still, I would really like to see the original Kanahele source so we can find out where they were getting their data. In conclusion, don't forget to look at the main page for the 2000 management plan a little closer. It says, "The Master Plan is an update and extension of the 1983 Mauna Kea Science Reserve Complex Development Plan."[18] So, even though it was updated in 2000 (ten years ago), it is still based on older data. I would go ahead and ignore the dates used by Kanahele and rely on newer date ranges from archaeologists, preferring peer reviewed journal articles whenever possible. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that the date of settlement has been pushed back 300 years, That's a very long time! ResMar 13:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are looking at the universe from a human POV, sure, it's a long time. But, if you step outside yourself, and see the world through the eyes of deep time, you'll change your POV considerably. Even a tortoise can live more than 200 years. When you really wrap your mind around all of this, you begin to see how much of human time is wasted by sheer nonsense, with the whole of human history best described as "a whole lot of nonsense". Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps, that can be described as philosophical nonsense :) ResMar 13:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
One could argue that ideas, the fuel for philosophy, stand outside of history in form and substance, perhaps as a reflection of nature, and best represented by what we call art. Language, however it developed, gave voice to the word and made it real, and aside from losing some hair and growing a bigger brain, all we have to show for it is culture. See you at Starbucks. Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Guess what, I've gotten into my second major conflict, ironically enough with Sandy again. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-23/Dispatches. Should give you an intersing read while you're sipping your coffee :) ResMar 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Well done!

Hey Viriditas, I just wanted to say how impressed I was with your clear, level-headed focus in response to the issues raised on the Claude AnShin Thoams article. A model of patience, professionalism and clear thinking. Well done! Boxter1977 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. If only it were true! :-) Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It is true. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonviolence

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

You know...

When you finally convert over to my side and realize there never was some vast right-wing conspiracy you my friend are going to owe me a very expensive bottle of wine. :) And you can be sure I'll be back to collect! TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By then, I'm sure you'll be able to get a nice, full-bodied red from Yakutsk vineyards. :P MastCell Talk 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll add you to the list of those who will owe me significant amounts of booze. :) You can all even consolidate your order to save on shipping! TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
See David H. Koch (plus family and friends) in recent The New Yorker ... Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama for example funding Tea Party movement, Anarcho-capitalism Libertarianism, and Climate change denial. 99.155.150.21 (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

apology

Hi Viriditas. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression over at the FNC article. I actually support your position, and if you browse all the way back to around 2005 you'll see that I argued the same position you have. After many years of fighting the POV trolls, advocates, and True Believers I've grown accustomed to setting for the statu quo and have undoubtedly fallen victim to groupthink. Thanks for the reminder, and you can consider this an indication that I believe you are correct and you have my support in your quest. I would have posted this on the FNC talk page, but things are moving too quickly (3 EC's and I gave up). Keep up the good fight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I recognized your name. No worries, and sorry for the confusion. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
My fault completely. Please let me know how I can be of assistance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No one is at fault. The best thing you can do is enjoy your day and make other people happy. That's all I ask. :-) Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sources

Kīlauea

The last frontier, I suppose. Mauna Kea is more or less written (I need good copyeditors; you have any?), and everything else is done. I'm not even entirely sure where I want to go with this one, but throwing it at Good article candidates first is a must. If I managed to FA this and if I rewrote and FA'd Hawaii hotspot, then we would have a Featured topic; but that's an unfortunate long shot. I'm starting the skelaton in my Sandbox. Hopefully it will all work out ;) ResMar 17:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GJP

I've just read the stuff on his talk page, inc the bit he deleted. Very intersting. He also appears to be incredibly touchy about it, having now contacted an absurd number of admins / arbs. The account creation date is indeed very odd. Just to let you know that his account of how he came into CC isn't credible either, in case you don't know the history and might be tempted to believe it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The "touchiness" was a bit strange. After all, if I was in left field, he should be laughing at me instead of rising to anger. But, I suppose emotional reactions aren't really reliable. I know people who smile when they are sad, go figure. But, I don't want to harass anyone, so let's just leave him be for now. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

re your edits to User talk:GregJackP#Your account

I refer to your post here, which I became aware of following a post to User talk:Lar. GregJackP obviously feels uncomfortable with the intensity of your persistent questioning of him in regard to this issue, and from a review of that section I think he has answered the main point sufficiently. If you do have further concerns in regard of the editing behaviours then I suggest that you re-open the SPI. In the meanwhile, please stop commenting on this issue on the editors talkpage. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC) ps. I would be interested in reviewing your findings about my editing behaviours in relation to others, since I am obviously also involved in the ArbCom case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, their "story" doesn't add up. Upon closer examination of the two accounts, there are major discrepancies. User:Minor4th created his account at 17:35, 16 April 2010.[19] Twelve minutes later, he posts for the first time at 17:47, 16 April 2010 on Talk:Indian Child Welfare Act.[20] Minor4th's first edit is subsequent to User:GregJackPs last edit earlier that day at 02:42, 16 April 2010.[21] There are two reasons this doesn't add up. One, according to the SPI, Minor4th claims they know each other in RL. (see edit for 17:16, 27 June 2010) However, as one can see from Minor4th's first edit[22] he pretends not to know GregJackP. The second reason this does not add up is that I asked GregJackP directly, why he created his account in November 2006, but only started editing in January 2010.[23] However, his response[24] contradicts what he said about his account on the SPI. (see edit for 16:36, 27 June 2010) When I see the year 2006 listed as the account creation date, and the words "Sprint" and "AT&T" on the SPI, my eyes start bulging out of my head. Perhaps I'm just crazy, like Minor4th says. After all, I use Sprint and AT&T too, just like Scibaby. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I know you of old, and I do not believe that you would comment unless you considered the issue to be one of concern - but there are better venues to raise this other than a possibly involved editor, especially after they had already given a response. You will need to raise this to the next level (SPI) or withdraw. I think SPI is fine, because there is not only the technical abilities but also individuals nuanced in determining if there are concerns after reviewing evidence. I am not saying "Stop making your claims", just please do not continue to do so at GregJackP's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Certain ArbCom members have identity information about Minor4th, which I am aware of. That has already been explained to you. Similar information can be made available if necessary about GregJackP, I am aware of it already. But it is not necessary, actually. These are two different people. I am as sure of it as I have been of just about anything since I started CUing. Since these users have already been through several checks now, this is a fruitless line of inquiry. You should drop this completely. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries, my friend. May I ask one favor? Will you remind me when their RfA goes live? Judging by the look of their consistent anti-vandalism efforts, strategic use of noticeboards, and article writing efforts, perhaps they will shoot for Christmas or Easter break? Let's hope it's not on the same day. Anyway, we can all agree that more administrator accounts are beneficial, no? Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That was sarcasm, right? I doubt either of them would ever stand for RfA, but I could be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If similar information can be made available about GregJackP, I would hope that it's made available. There does seem to be a high degree of coordination between these accounts. That said, this is a very sensitive case due to real-world implications, and further public discussion is probably undesirable—even at SPI. Please go through Arbcom-l. Cool Hand Luke 04:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's a need, I will share it with the same three arbs (the three "Rs") I shared info about Minor4th. It was specifically requested not to be propagated further. Or you could just take my word for it. ++Lar: t/c 10:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You're even more sure of it than Poetlister, eh?
One or both of these users appears to have maintained several previous socks, which overlapped. They also each sought IPBE and edited together aggressively in several topics (including topics where they probably shouldn't be editing at all given their apparent identities). I currently believe that there are more likely than not different real-world identities behind these accounts, but Viriditas' suspicious were more than reasonable, and such suspicions will continue and intensify if this sort of editing continues. If these users want to avoid repeated scrutiny, it would probably be best if they slip away from this dispute and these accounts and never tag-team again—but that's my opinion. Not their mother. Cool Hand Luke 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I am now completely convinced they are two people. The apparent tag-teaming should still stop though. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on PRT

All excellent feedback. As I said on my talk, I may not have too much time to work on it in the next week or so, but your feedback already has me thinking about improvements. Thanks. ATren (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with your new job! Is this a sign the economy is improving? :-) Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I was kind of surprised to find another opportunity in this brutal employment climate... I think I just got lucky. :-) ATren (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Rafi

Hello. Mohammed Rafi cites IMDB verbatim in some parts. But, for some reason, I think it is the other way around. I don't know why I think that. Also, I know IMDB is not a good source anyhow. (I don't have the desire to rewrite it, but I am going to zap a few peacock words, so this diff shows the verbatim stuff.) What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFK has composed this link for reference. Since I'm out the door at the moment, I'll revisit it later. How is the "Hawaii of China" treating you?  :-) Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, the issue is whether IMDB cut and pasted from Wiki or did Wiki cut and paste from IMDB.
As for the Hawaii of China, here are some highlights: Baking lovely bread. Will go up to the mountains for a few days. Dwarf hamsters had babies (cutest animals on Earth because they sleep on their backs and are very clumsy). Incredible inflation. Continuing fear of ankle-grabbing-under-the-bed-monsters. Hot spring, cool summer, hot autumn: very strange. Walter the turtle ate some houseplant, and now looks rather ill. And a bit of China trivia for you: When you were a kid and your friend made you laugh, milk came out of your nose, right? Ok. In China, many people remember when they were kids, they laughed rice or noodles out of their nose. Cool eh? Different culture. That's all I can think of saying. And how are you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I looked into it. The content was copied directly from IMDb to Wikipedia on September 1, 2010.[25] As you can see from this link, the content has been on IMDb since at least 2006. Considering that the editor who added the material is a minor, this case is open and shut. I'm going to contact an admin about getting his personal information removed. More later... Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This admin deleted the page, no other action necessary at the moment (see my talkpage). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks to both of you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Silentium universi/the Great Silence

You might be interested in some edits I've recently made to Fermi paradox (also see the talk page) and comments I've posted on Talk:Silencium universi. I think it's time to merge silencium universi with Fermi paradox. False vacuum (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all that. User:Viriditas/Great Silence (astronomy) is as far as I got. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I did it. Thanks. False vacuum (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No, thank you for following up with this. Do you have any interest in expanding User:Viriditas/Searching for Interstellar Communications, or do you think it is unimportant? From the perspective of a series documenting the history of SETI, I think it could be turned into an interesting article. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for trying to put a stop to this petty squabble. I'm an emotional sort of chap - easily baited. I'm not handling this attack from JWB very well and TGL's comments are just getting me more wound up. I feel let down by the system. It makes me angry that I need to learn how to be a wikilawyering, diff-diving scumbag just to defend myself from this sort of crap, when all I want to do is contribute productively to the project. Anyway, having just a little bit of support from a neutral observer helps. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mission Dolores mural

Replied at my talk page. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, Ben did not add his own name to the article; I did, from the sources. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

History2007

Hello, I've answered on my talk page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on AN/I that he should be blocked. [26]. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Viriditas, I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. It looks like you are excellent at mediation and there will probably be a need for some level-headed discussion when the Assessment Team is finally assembled. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Blofeld's Assistant

An evil henchman? Dunno, its not me. Perhaps somebody likes me and my organization... Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_17&oldid=1190136484"