User talk:Viriditas/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Anandabhadram/GA1

I believe the issues raised in the 2009 review were well met. If there's any issue left, I hope I can address that fine. Thanks for the concern. :-) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to start the review in the next two days. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Just an update. I guess I have managed to bring the dead links back from the other side. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I like your attitude! :) Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do I need to start using the ref-templates right away, or can I give it a little slack there? I know they aren't dressed properly for a bigger ball, but this Friday night probably they'll just pass. Lemme know, please. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, to let you know that I have put back the comparative picture for the Raja Ravi Varma scene. Will that be a problem? In the past there had been a fight over this image and there's a pretty long explanation on the image talk page. Please, lemme know. Sorry that I was mostly offline last three days. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It violates the minimal usage and free image equivalent criteria. See WP:FILMNFI. You've already got two non-free images on the page, one in the infobox and one in the development section, and we already have a free equivalent. Having three non-images of this type pertaining to the same content isn't going to work. The project has really come down hard against this in the last two years, so you're not going to be able to do it. Decide on one. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I request to have only the Raja Ravi Varma image then? It has more context, is less replaceable and has more critical commentary. Is that okay? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's the point. Maybe you didn't know, but Ravi Varma-Woman in thought is a free image. Unfortunately, I hate to have to tell you this, but I've failed the article. Please see the review page. You've made an excellent good faith effort to fix the lead and other aspects, but there are other issues that require a significant amount of work, such as the prose, the sourcing, and expansion of criticism. At this point, what I can do, is tell you not to give up and to keep working on it. You can also choose to appeal my review at WP:GAR. Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, dude. Lemme solve the problems first, and submit it again. Surely one failure doesn't make success impossible. ;-) See you around. And, thanks. I really hope I can buzz you up again when the article is ready for another go. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I just thought I'd drop by for a quick hello. I hope you are well, and I hope you are celebrating the Vermont winter by living in Hawaii instead. Ha ha. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, Anna! We all miss you. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

New reply

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Retro00064's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Viriditas, thanks for the welcome message. That was nice. I and some of my colleagues will be working on planetary science topics. We have begun by entering articles for the principal investigators of the missions. I'm open to suggestions or help of any kind. Thanks again. Dbigwood (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to NASA Astrobiology Institute, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of the burrito for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Timeline of the burrito, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the burrito until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1915 in jazz

You seen this? They want to nuke all of the years in jazz when each could be easily expanded..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. These chumps would delete the article on Earth if they could, because it's "mostly harmless", and not-notable in the galactic scheme of things. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph J. Romm

The article Joseph J. Romm you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Joseph J. Romm for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

Thanks so much for the Smile and for noticing the Inception clean-up. I watched the film just 3 nights ago. The plot summary was not bad as it stood, but I thought I could make it clearer and maybe a bit shorter too. Smiles back at you too Viriditas! Invertzoo (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied...

...on my talk page. C628 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

authoritarian Oz media vs anti-authoritarian Aussies paradox

Please explain how it is that the the Australian media has this authoritarian streak, when the Australians are known for being anti-authoritarian! Help! Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• authoritarian media: Rupert Murdoch
• anti-authoritarian people: "The dominant theme of the early volumes of Clark's history was the interplay between the harsh environment of the Australian continent and the European values of the people who discovered, explored and settled it in the 18th and 19th centuries. (In common with most Australians of his generation, he had little knowledge of, or interest in, the indigenous Australians, though this changed in his later life). He saw Catholicism, Protestantism and the Enlightenment as the three great contending influences in Australian history." (from Manning Clark, Wikipedia)

Boud (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In some sense, you could say that the two trends clashed in 1975, when a member (executive board member for some period since 1957) of the CIA front organisation Association for Cultural Freedom, John Kerr, who happened to be the de facto head of state (formally representing Queen Elizabeth), dismissed the elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who to some degree had implemented many anti-authoritarian aims in Australian society. Links between US foreign policy organisations and Australian ruling elites probably have not vanished during the following 35 years. Boud (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon

I am dismayed that you removed the notability tag from the Felisa Wolfe-Simon page. Had you looked at the talk page, you would have seen that several people are not convinced of this person's notability. Abductive (reasoning) 11:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You assume bad faith. I looked at the talk page and found the arguments supporting the tag, lacking. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not made by one person deciding all the other people are wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 20:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people claim that pigs can fly, if the quality of an argument is less than the quantity of people making it, then the argument gets discarded. In any case, your argument on the talk page ceased being relevant a long time ago. Time for you to find something else to complain about. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

I'm not going to slap the template as you are a seasoned editor, but I do believe you are on the verge of breaking this rule, so hence this note. __meco (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Head-up

I made some additions to my nominating post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak after you gave your opinion. I figured I had better inform you specifically about it. __meco (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfstorm000 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cucas

Hello there. I could use a bit of advice. A user has been adding a whole bunch of external links to Chinese universities for online applications. Although the links seem useful, and from a site purporting to be "authorized by China’s Ministry of Education", there are ads on the site, it is not a .edu, but a .edu.cn, requires registration, and a fee for filling out the online application to the university. It is possible that the site is bojang.

The user has a bit of a history of this sort of thing. I thought I'd check with you before reverting only because he has added the links to many articles, and some of the links have cool aerial shots. Also, I haven't edited in a while, and don't want to look stooopid if I am wrong. What recommendeth thee? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Anna! It looks like typical external link spam to me. If you want, you could file a report at the spam noticeboard or get further advice from the external links noticeboard if you aren't comfortable with that. Good to hear from you as always. :) Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I trust your opinion. I will zap the links. Although likely authorized by the govt, the fact that registration is needed, and the fee is not mentioned until they have your email address and have applied, plus the advets, I think results in more of a disservice to visitors than otherwise. Many thanks for your input. Stay well. Nice to hear back from you. I have been following a few of your wikileaks battles. Quite the hornets' nest. You are braver than I, and a vital part of the project. Best wishes and many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

About that forged cables section

I've already added something similar here. Do you think it's not a reaction? Remove it? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Forged cables are clearly an element of information warfare. It is possible, however, to mention the same subject in two sections. For example, we currently have the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative in the reactions section, however, when the contents section is properly expanded, it may be possible to briefly link/describe it there as well. In other words, there can be section duplication. Content in one section could possibly be a reaction in another. As for the forged documents themselves, we probably need to determine if this is even notable, but I think it is fine to have overlap between sections/reactions for the short term. If you want to remove it completely from the parent article (such as the information warfare section), I would have no objection. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty notable. It's gotten front pages in most Indian newspapers and plenty of airtime on TV channels. However don't you think the text in the reactions page is a little more npov than that parent page paragraph? There's also a little more info in that new para ("The Urdu language papers such as the Jang declined to retract the story"). Would it be okay if I copied over that text? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do what you like, but the publishing of fake leaks is a form of information warfare. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I was asking if you thought it was a type of reaction also - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 10:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not, but I see the reactions page is probably losing its scope due to the efforts of many editors adding material, so nobody is to blame. That's just what happens until an effort is made to clean it up. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Primary versus secondary

Hi. Suppose a reliable primary source publishes a document that includes Portion A and Portion B. A bunch of secondary sources mention the document, and describe the contents of Portion A, including direct quotes. But the secondary sources (or at least most of the secondary sources) say it would be improper to describe or republish Portion B.

Is there any Wikipedia policy against using Portion B? Should there be? If the latter, where should it be located? The reason I ask you this is because I noticed your interest in the subject at ANI (with respect to WikiLeaks), and you have a lot more knowledge and experience at Wikipedia than I do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside whether it is improper to describe Portion B for a moment, the problem at hand falls under the proper use of primary sources and the policy on WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources". In response to this problem, we have editors saying that they have the right to directly quote the primary sources. There is a secondary issue that has not yet been adequately addressed, and this centers around the topic. In other words, what are we writing about? This question is important, because if we are writing about science, we need to be aware that science-related topics, such as medicine, have specific guidelines governing the use of sources. Now, what if we are writing about international relations, diplomacy, law, or political science? So, there are questions here that do not have good answers as of yet, but we generally do not rely on primary sources to build articles. Now, back to your question about Portion B. There is precedent in the WP:BLP policy, namely WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DOB, and these two aspects of BLP address the problem indirectly. In other words, you could use WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DOB to answer your question. Read them both, and you'll see what I mean. If, however, we are not dealing with living people, we would want to focus more on PRIMARY and NOR. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, which I'll study further tomorrow. I did not limit my question to living people, partly because many articles may affect living people even though they are not about living people (e.g. a hypothetical article about how to poison a human being is not a BLP).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"How to do X" falls under WP:NOTMANUAL. For more on the above, see: User_talk:Cyclopia#We_do_censor_information_and_we_show_self-restraint_every_day. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll check out that Cyclopia link. Consider a hypothetical diagram of the security mechanisms at Fort Knox. This could be used in an article about Fort Knox describing how very secure all the gold is there, but it could also be used by thieves. I don't think it would fall within "notmanual". If a reliable source leaks such a diagram, and secondary sources explicitly say that describing or republishing the diagram would be inappropriate, then it seems like Wikipedia shouldn't republish it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to consider a hypothetical example. That's precisely the criticism of WikiLeaks given by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, for reasons we don't need to go into here, the specifics of which you can easily find if you do the research. Let's just say, it isn't good. The fact remains, we have little to no reliable sources leaking such info, but we have a number of editors who see nothing wrong with it. The closest analogy I can give you is that of a typical Wikipedia editor who embarks upon writing a biographical article. If you have ever done this, and you do good research, you will inevitably find things about your subject that are negative and cast a bad light on the person. This is just a fact, and there is no human subject who can avoid it; it's part of who we are. In any case, it is the job of the researcher to sift and weight this information, but to only rely on secondary sources for major or controversial points; we should not rely on primary sources for BLP articles or for any article on Wikipedia because we are a tertiary source that compiles summaries of already accepted facts. Now, let me tell you about my recent experience. I was doing research on a biographical subject for an article. During the course of my research, I found a website hosted by a reliable historical society that contained old recordings and interviews with the subject and interviews with their friends. These are, of course, considered primary source documents. Upon listening to them, I discovered very, very negative material about the subject relayed by several of their friends. None of this information had ever been published in a secondary source. Instead of adding it to the article, I made mention of it on the talk page, in the event that in the future, a secondary source might cover it. But, as a Wikipedia editor, I have no business adding such material to an encyclopedia, as this information is not only negative, but has never been published by a reliable source. My ethical duty is to faithfully report the facts as we know them, not to contribute original research about the subject. Some might argue with this, claiming that we are allowed to use primary sources. But, we are not allowed to use primary sources that could otherwise be misinterpreted or present facts that have not already been published. Nor can we present controversial information as if it was accepted and published in secondary sources. To me, this also means that confidential data, including classified leaked documents that have been stolen, cannot be reported by Wikipedia, and that we must wait for secondary sources to report on the historical record before we do. This involves self-responsibility, self-restraint, and ultimately, self-censorship, editorial qualities that are probably non-existent in the typical Wikipedian, a demographic that prides itself on the hacker ethic, libertarian values, and a personal ethic that does not concern itself with the social ramifications and unintended consequences of "freeing" sensitive information. Truth be told, the Wikipedian in its natural habitat has always been a touch sociopathic, as it utterly fails to recognize the requirement and cost of wielding such power: with great freedom comes great responsibility. By promoting freedom but avoiding responsibility, we truly have neither. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are interesting comments, thanks. I agree with much of what you say, except that WP:OR (as currently written) doesn't seem to entirely back you up. And I'm not optimistic that it will, due to ideologies of many Wikipedians. Wikipedia needs to give more thought to how and when primary sources can be used. If they can be used in defiance of the consensus among secondary sources, then Wikipedia's purported deference to secondary sources is just a smokescreen.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN

For reference, [1]. --JN466 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

Please check email, thanks. --Elonka 22:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Hello Viriditas, I moved the discussion to the talk page to get more exposure to this discussion, especially since several knowledgeable people are likely watching the talk page, while no inication was present the that a discussion was going on at the noticeboard. A clear link was left in place at the noticeboard. More people, including yourself have now commented in the at the thread on the talk page. To avoid fragmenting this discussion could please either properly merge the two discussion, leaving a link from the talk page or vice verse. Cheers, —Ruud 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The exact location of where the discussion takes place is not very relevant, as long as it is noted that a discussion ongoing at the appropriate places. In this case no indication of the discussion was left at the talk page, the first place a discussion should have been started. I was afraid the discussion would get archived before enough people had even noticed this disucssion, so moved it to the talk page. Again, the exact place of where the discussion takes place is irrelevant, so if you insist it taking place at the noticeboard I have no problem with this, but please properly merge the discussion as the have currently diverged. —Ruud 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus freak

Resolved

Hi. I'm having a bit of trouble. A user keeps adding a list of people. Of course, sources are needed for such claims. I am nearing 3RR and have brought it up on talk. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to involve another editor, but considering this involves calling several people Jesus freaks, I thought it serious enough to do so. Many thanks for any advice you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor finally complied, and removed the list. Thanks anyway.

By the way, is there a list of admins who are on duty at any given time? I didn't want to post at ANI and seem like a big tattletale. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Meco#Re: Watchlist problem's talk page.

RE: spell check

I don't really mind, but I would prefer to get asked in advance next time. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Carmel

Isn't it standard practice to append the state name to U.S. cities except when they're large and well-known? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is; we even have a guideline on the subject. In the process of discussion of this guideline, it was pointed out that Carmel was an isolated exception; so I moved it once to comply (and have the same format as the other municipalities in Monterey County). I would have moved it to Carmel, California as it was originally created, but the redirect has been edited; if there is consensus to have it at the fancier and less common name, fine by me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. General consensus and best practice across Wikipedia is disambiguate only when necessary. There is no reason to disambiguate here. Furthermore, there is a heated RfC discussion on the talk page of your guideline. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Carmel-by-the-Sea is famous and doesn't require additional disambiguation. The user who keeps moving it to this title is doing so because it "looks nice". Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Famous where? And isn't it more of a population threshold than a "fame" threshold? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Famous around the world for its unique history. Read the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The threshold is whether it is well-known enough that the AP does not use a state with it; this is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition (Phoenix, Arizona is still ambiguous with Phoenix). Thus we follow the usage of a reliable source, avoiding any temptation to yield to local pride. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you are just edit warring without consensus as usual. When you make a move request, you are supposed to wait for the outcome of the discussion before moving the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

According to that manual of style, only a small group of large American cities don't require the state name, and Carmel certainly ain't on that list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That guideline is in dispute and apparently no longer has consensus support. Lacking more specific guidance, we have to fall back on general naming policy and guidelines, including only as precise as is necessary to disambiguate. Anyway, the article has been at Carmel-by-the-Sea for some time and moving it is clearly controversial; therefore any move from Carmel-by-the-Sea has to go through the WP:RM process - I've modified the proposal to be from Carmel-by-the-Sea, but I suppose the option of to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California should be added to it too. I'll do it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So for each city with a state added it to it, you have to do research to be sure it's unique, and then take the state away, when it was perfectly fine with the state as part of it. Thus generating a whole bunch of busy-work with no value whatsoever to the readers. Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, one of the problems with predisambiguation is that it causes editors to believe or assume that putting an article at a unique predisambiguated title obviates them from their responsibility to consider treatment of the base name of that topic, including researching whether the use of the name is unique or primary.

As a result, it is very common for the base name of topics with predisambiguated titles to be neglected with respect to how that name is treated relative to that topic. The problems are manifested as:

1. missing redirects (the predisambiguated topic's base name is a red link),
2. missing links (the predisambiguated topic is not listed on the dab page for the predisambiguated topic's base name, nor in a hat note of the primary topic article when there is no dab page), and
3. the predisambiguated topic is not considered a "significant competing use" in primary topic determinations for that base name (e.g., Plymouth).

So, to the extent that dropping the "AP style" causes editors to do the research you're talking about, it's just causing them to do work that should have been in first place, and is likely to have been overlooked. And it's work that needs to be done for every article in Wikipedia; there is no reason that it is not required for U.S. cities.

Practically speaking, there are probably very few instances of Problem #1 that still have not been fixed, though I think I ran into one fairly recently. Problem #2 is probably more prevalent because it's harder to notice (no redlinks). And Problem #3--Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to convince me that it's anything other than a colossal waste of time and effort. You put "Carmel" into the search window, and it's going to come up as "Carmel-something" and is easy to find. Adding or taking away ", California" makes not one iota of difference - except that adding "California" makes it crystal clear what they've got, e.g. for example if they've got the words "carmel" and "caramel" mixed up. Screwing around with this stuff is nothing but useless make-work stuff - which would perhaps make more sense if you were actually getting paid for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, now you're down to a point that arguably applies to most everything that goes through WP:RM, not to mention the countless moves that are without discussion. I think we have to start with the premise that naming policy is important, and naming our articles consistent with that policy is also important, and so is fixing articles that are inconsistent with it. Without that premise, yeah, there's nothing to talk about. Just leave everything where it is unless there is some big problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not as important as the naming fanatics make it out to be. The first rule should be to serve the needs of the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best fit for this role since I'm here to spend most of my time on other things. My participation in GAR is mostly as a backlog helper. However, I highly recommend User:Anna Frodesiak, who I believe is already involved in education outside Wikipedia. Please leave her a note or contact her. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I left her a note. I still think you'd be good; we need people who are capable of doing good reviews, but the role of being a mentor is fairly diverse. That's just sort of a good litmus test; if you can do a decent GA review, you probably have a fair bit a clue. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Online Ambassadorship

And a happy new year to you too! I sort of forgot about the whole holidays. I worked right through Xmas. We get Spring Festival here at the end of January. It is a month of non-stop fireworks. Aptly named, it's held during the coldest time of year. The month of celebration is divided into four distinct parts:

1. Freezing one's butt of in a pack train station en route to one's home town. 2. Sitting about in a winter jacket at the family home watching TV. 3. Sitting in a winter jacket at a dinner table eating with the TV on. 4. Freezing one's butt off in a pack train station en route home.

Online Ambassadorship: Thank you so much for recommending me. I am not sure I'm qualified. My parents tell me that I have a serious case of "the stupids" ever since a doctor accidentally, during routine brain surgery, left a glove in my head.

Seriously though, the line "...substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones)." worries me a bit. But, I would certainly give it my best. I will check it out.

Have a lovely new year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe..sounds like my parents' house! Are we related? :) Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Template-japan-stub-proposed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Template-japan-stub-proposed.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

rfc tag at extinction event

Hope the reboot helps.Morbas (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What's My Name?

these edits of yours have been undone because they removed viably and reliably sourced information. The discussion on the talkpage has clearly outlined sources which prove that the song has reggae and ska elements to its genre. No evidence thus yet, has been presented to suggest otherwise. Thus the WP:BURDEN of proving otherwise lies with the users who wish to remove those sources. Without a clear or coherent argument with evidence that supports you're point of view your stance in this matter is incorrect. Your choice to remove Ska and Reggae is disruptive and as I've explained on the talkpage your opinions about musical genres do not trump the reliable industry sources which make the claims in the first place. (no matter how much experience you claim to have in the matter). I ask of you to refrain from making further edits to the article regarding this matter as it is going against consensus. Another attempt at removing the genres would indicate WP:IDHT and would warrant administrators being notified. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You have the burden of proof backwards. There are no reliable sources that categorize the song as reggae or ska, and the removal of the categories was therefore appropriate and necessary. I'm afraid you have also misunderstood and misinterpreted the sources you have used to justify your erroneous claims. There is nothing "disruptive" about correcting your errors, and I would encourage you to escalate this matter to the appropriate authorities on the subject for further guidance. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks bad on your part when a discussion has taken place and consensus has been set, and you bring up the same thing that has already been discussed for weeks on end. The more appropriate thing to do, would bring this up on the talk page, talk to it about other members of the project, then to decide whether to remove it or not. Ska and reggae are added through "Over strobing, ska-infused beats, Drake lends his verse early in the track" and "The track draws upon the warm island pop of her earlier material by lacing a heavy reggae beat with synthesized organs." Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I came to this article from the posted RfC requesting outside input. Obviously, it was needed. Please read the sources you cite above for comprehension; neither of them supports the categorization of this song as "ska" nor "reggae", and the vast majority of the sources on this subject merely state that the song is "island-infused R&B". That's it. You and others are misinterpreting sources and misusing Wikipedia categories, in effect adding original research. The song is neither categorized as ska nor reggae, and there are no reliable sources that support such categorization. As I said on the article talk page, you are welcome to find additional sources to make your case. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If a song's genre is sourced.... I.e. we have sources calling the song R&B, Electro, Ska and Reggae then the song should be placed in those categories. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, there are no reliable sources that claim the genre of the song is ska or reggae. That is original research added by the editors of the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you are WP:ICANTHEARYOU as we are presenting reliable sources for the respective genres on the page, and all you are able to do is contest it. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article as a result of a posted RfC to provide outside input on this so-called "consensus". It is obvious that my input was sorely needed. I have no interest in this article or topic, unlike the vested interest of you and the primary contributors. I think this particular issue sheds light on a problem with certain editors and reflects poorly on their edits. You are welcome to discuss this on the article talk page, but not here. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You tell us to refer to the talk page when instead of hearing other viewpoints, take it upon yourself from remove from the article. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 01:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We go from the sources, and the sources do not support the addition of the ska or reggae categories. Feel free to discuss it on the article talk page, not here. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are also welcome to discuss on the talk page how, although Billboard and AOL Music call the song ska and reggae, how it is unsupported. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 01:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is my talk page, and I've repeatedly asked you to keep the discussion on the article talk page. Stop hounding me. Two music critics describing the island beats does not make the song classified as reggae or ska, and clearly, there are no reliable sources, industry or otherwise, who classify this R&B song as ska or reggae. That is original research. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

GA

Sorry, have only just returned from holiday. Thanks for the pass and apologies that I wasn't able to get back to you/co-operate sooner/further. All the best. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Viriditas/Archive 19! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Smiling back...

Hello Viriditas, I dream of horses 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.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How is this

What do you think? Please tweak it!!

Hello. I'm Anna. I am Canadian, but I live in China. My activities on Wikipedia include copy editing and formatting articles. I'm interested in animals, and am a member of Project Gastropods. I've started a number of different species articles, some of which have become DYKs. Sometimes I contribute my photos to the project.

You reach me on my talk page, by email, or on IRC chat.

What do you think? What IRC link would be best for students? I am hopeless at this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're doing fine, and far, far from hopeless. Give yourself a bit of credit. I prefer your original "I'm a Canadian living in China" instead of "I am Canadian, but I live in China". Also, be yourself. I know you are very, very funny, and have the best sense of humor. Don't hide it. And remember, don't listen to me, listen to yourself. I'm glad I could be of no help, whatsoever, yet again. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm hopeless!!! Really. I read back what I've written and it sounds idiotic. I'm pretty comfortable with:

Hello. I am Anna. I'm a Canadian living in China. I am patient and friendly.

...and then I am lost. A good ending might be:

For live help, I stay online at IRC chat. You can also reach me at my talk page or by email.

Help! Remember, you got me into this. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate account

I was intrigued by your comments in AN/I. Can you clarify? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean without engaging in WP:OUTING? Well, the user has been around for many years now, and I'm very familiar with their editing habits, attitudes, writing style and unique vocabulary. All of their claims on ANI about not knowing who I am and about confusing them with someone else are completely false. The fact is, at least one administrator is fully aware of the real situation and watching it closely. That's about all I can tell you at the moment. However, many editors know who Jack really is, as his game is very poorly played. It's actually quite sad and pathetic to watch. My best advice for you is to stay away from him. I plan to do the same unless I see more of his nonsense on the noticeboards or on my watchlist. This guy is bad news, trust me. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I believe you. I have no wish to "out" this account (and I'm not clear how that applies, unless he used his real name in the former account), but if policies on accounts are being violated then I think that they need to be enforced. The lack of an account history impedes dispute resolution, in the event that there is more problematic conduct that requires dispute resolution. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I know I am going to hate myself for getting into this conversation, but what admin presumably knows who "I really am"? I'd like to drop them a line and see who I am being confused with. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack, you aren't being "confused" with anyone. You simply haven't tried to hide, and linking you to your previous account, which got you into the same trouble you are in today, was very easy. Now, please, be on your way. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your input. I think you helped us both. Quarreling is such a drain on the system.

Thanks for restoring the block notice on the vandal's page.

I was questioned about my actions about that vandal. I have spent a lot of time fighting vandalism, and I try to be very careful. (I see cases like this every day. This user was blocked after only a few minutes. But he was actually a vandalism-only tag teamer.) I am far more tolerant. I even keep a list on a desktop notepad of low-level vandals I have warned. I check up on them and drop them from list if they discontinue. Was I out of line in my judgement in the xxxtheproxxx case? I often need feedback on my actions to understand if I'm making the right call. I greatly value your opinion. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to this thread, the current system of dealing with vandalism is maddening, but we have to wade through it the best we can. We shouldn't use a talk page notice on the user page to justify a vandalism warning. However, it was clear from the outset that this was a vandalism account. The mythology goes like this: some users may start off as vandals and become respectable editors. I don't know if it is true or not, but as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have to sometimes give them the benefit of the doubt. You may find that talking with them instead of leaving template messages (or in addition to it) can offer more insight, as it encourages them to speak their mind and to interact with more experienced editors. Take it slow and let things work themselves out. Don't try to hurry things along, and you'll be just fine. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Points well taken. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
Message added 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Whale

Whack!

DocOfSoc (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for helping out MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject Novels initiative

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gynocracy DRV

In view of these contributions, please comment at Gynocracy DRV if you haven't already. thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your note brightened my day. : ) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 17:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Might be of interest

Hi Viriditas, I may be 100% wrong here, which is why I don't want to just make allegations about a user that may be legitimate, but I still think you might be interested in seeing this. [2] is the contributions list for a newly registered user. I find it interesting that the user is editing the same type of articles, in some cases the same articles and making edits that closely resemble the edits made by a certain user who was blocked for two weeks recently. In fact, the account was registered a couple of days after the block. I'm sure you know who I'm refering to, as both of us left comments in the debate about his sockpuppets. For his sake, I hope I'm wrong. Coudln't this get him in a lot more trouble? Cmr08 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't have time to look into this until later, but it would help if you file a report in the archived SPI. That would get the ball rolling at least. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I had some extra time, so I filed the report. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just ignore the reverted message I left about jumping too quick. It appears that the new sockpuppet has been blocked. Cmr08 (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's no problem, I'm just glad I noticed the account before he had a chance to cause any real problems. I can't understand why he would set up another account when his block was only 2 weeks to begin with, he had to know he wasn't going to get away with it. Cmr08 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

On the situations you described, Gliese 229b in particular; I was pointing to an ongoing issue that was being mentioned on the talk page. Please do not remove maintenance tags without discussion.--  Novus  Orator  04:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Color Changing Templates

I was mistaken when I thought that changing the template colors would be more appropriate for that situation. I acted in Good Faith but did not consult consensus.--  Novus  Orator  04:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Faces of Meth

I got caught in an edit conflict and might have zapped some of your stuff. I'm not sure.

Thanks for the edits to the article, by the way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It was a healthy zap. ;) Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's looking good. Thanks for the help. You are very good at digging up info.

I will see if I can pay my dues over at DYK so as to be eligible to submit the article. It's probably already close to big enough. Thanks!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your excellent work on the article. Here is Maitreya in a cozy place relaxing after a long, hard day of smiling while sitting elsewhere.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

hi again

thanks for your offer re Amy Chua. it has been ok but now an IP editor keeps reverting everything except whatever they like, and they arent joining the talk page where we're already discussing the changes. i'm not the only editor who is annoyed but i think everyone gave up because they kept just reverting everything. do you know what else we can do? thanks... MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the IP is posting from Duke? Anyway, I requested page protection based on BabelStone's previous request on the talk page.[3] Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

i dont know what to do on the page now, it doesnt seem worth it. thanks though!

RE:Hawaiian Time Machine

Aloha. I haven't heard from you in a while. Okay I kinda of understand your point but can it be an external link?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted an extra infomational link. But I removed it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion

Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

picture again

hi, i undid this change but what do you think of this [4] why is this guy uploading new pics that look as bad as the old one? isnt it weird to try and replace everyones pics on this site with your own bad ones? theres nothing wrong with the old pic especially the cropped version i uploaded so i dont know why hes doing it, do you know him? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I only know he's been here for a while, but under a previous account name. I think there is room for a compromise here. In other words, we keep your photo, but we ask the user to take one of the inside and outside when there are no people. That way we get all three that we need. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks. i dont understand why he keeps wanting to put his own image up there when the old one that was there since the article was created seems fine! he just wants to put his name everywhere? i uploaded my crop version but i havent even put it onto the page yet. his new image that he put up is a different one from last time. it looks almost the same but he took a new picture. it still looked washed out though! MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I know. Don't try to understand. :) The only thing you can do is control the quality of your own work and output. It is very frustrating, but your character will be measured by how well you can interact and communicate with difficult people, so we must thank him for helping us work on ourselves! :) Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Prison food

I was thinking of starting the article.

One one hand, there are a zillion occurrences of the term on wiki, and a ton of sources, and it might turn out to be pretty interesting. What do they eat? Who knows? Do they get apples? Do they only get gruel like in the movies?

On the other hand, it might be best as lots of little sections gradually being created in different prison articles by "jail people" who know about these things.

Also, I found Nutraloaf, which I hear goes really well with a side order of "that skinny guy's whole lunch that he doesn't want".

So, what do you think? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But, what if you have three hands? :) I think this type of article would be on par with space food, so you may want to have a look at that article. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of like a collection of trivial factoids. Is that what you mean? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's more of a problem with layout, structure and presentation. I mean, that this is a niche cuisine, like space food. Should make for a good article. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Good point. Maybe I should partially retract that trivial factoid statement. I just seems like each section is very stand-alone -- snippets of info lacking overall cohesion. I will think about it.

And by the way, excellent job on the Faces of Meth article. Please forgive my shoddy writing. My English is really going down hill, along with my intelligence. This is the result of living in a foreign country for years. I am also losing my ability to paraphrase sources. I am recently finding it frustrating to take something written well, and find a way to rewrite it equally well. The best structure is taken, and it's a question of rewording it in a less than ideal way.

Thank you again for your good advice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing, like anything else, becomes easier the more you do it. Because I do it so much, I barely think about it, but if you want to give me some examples, I can offer some help and suggestions. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a picture of viriditas maybe?

File:DBG ChihulyGreenGlass.JPG

DBG ChihulyGreenGlass

I was going to take a photo of a Palo verde tree for you, because it really is, trunk and all, the spring-green color I think Hildegarde of Bingen might have had in mind as "viriditas." But none of those photos came out very green-looking, and this glass sculpture is pretty cool. What color do you think viriditas would be? Sharktopus^talk 02:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was lucky enough to be on vacation in San Francisco during the Chihuly at the de Young in 2008, and visited the exhibition for about two hours. As for the color, viriditas, have you read variations of green? Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Chihuly's glass looks amazing out under blue sky. You should definitely visit Phoenix, from which I am just getting ready to move, hence the flurry of photos of stuff I won't have nearby soon. Only one of his sculptures for DBG is still on display here, but it is worth seeing. Thanks for the link to the article on green; I had no idea we had that in here. It is wonderful. Sharktopus^talk 16:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A Canticle for Leibowitz to FAC

Viriditas, I logged into my account for the first time in over a year and see your inquiry about A Canticle for Leibowitz. What timing! Of all the articles to ask about, this is one that entices me to some focused work in WP. I'm more than happy to help. I have to review the FAC requirements to get up to speed, as well as closely read the article again. Interested in your take on what's needed.--
Jim Dunning | talk 20:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I've been a bit busy with RL, so give me a day to catch up and get up to speed. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I love that book!!!!! May I help too? Sharktopus^talk 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I notice it has not undergone a peer review. Perhaps you could get with Jim and find out if we can submit it for a peer review to prepare for FAC. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

wow this is cool work for a great book! MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! :) Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Faces of Meth

You deserve 99% of this one! Good writing. Let's hope the DYK exposure reaches someone, somewhere out there, and it helps them head in a new direction. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Anna. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a logo

I would like to upload this. Can I? I still don't know the logo rules. I've done it before and it worked. Other times everything went red. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This time, upload to Wikipedia, not Commons, and add a logo tag. You should be fine. Commons is only for free images. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What's a logo tag? Also, can you please take a look at the refs in Montefiore Club? I'm seriously about to burst into tears. I'm not kidding. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How sad that it closed, it sounds like a great place. Can I help? I don't want Anna crying, for sure. Sharktopus^talk 12:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC) There, all those pesky redlinks are gone now. I looked at Flickr for some pictures of the club; there are some but none with CC license. Sharktopus^talk 12:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Viriditas!

Thank you Shartopus!

I'm going a bit bonkers. It's Chinese New Year and so the magical time of 97 hours of fireworks day and night. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask you about that earlier, but forgot. The noise must be deafening. I really enjoy the lion and dragon dancing, but like many people here, I have a sensitivity to loud noise. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They are horrible, and they set off the motorcycle alarms, which is deafening, and maddening. The horror! The meffening! (I also have a sensitivity to loud noise.) Some are particularly noisy, like the decibelter, soundefyer, deafenator, the racketeer, and of course, the noisenator. After a round of those, people all stand around saying: "What?" "Huh?" "What did you say?" "What?" A fun time had by all.

We don't have the lion/dragon thing where I am. Just the fireworks, the horrible fireworks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the Chinese believe that the noise brings good luck? I wonder if this superstition has the same roots as the old American tradition of blowing party horns on New Year's Eve? What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. They are very superstitious. I think they do it because "that's what you do at Spring Festival". It's a tradition. They do it somewhat joylessly, and I guess that they really don't think about it too much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Noise-cancelling headphones and white noise machines

HEPA air filters and Hainan cuisine

Koi fish, lanterns, and Chinese dumplings

Kung Hei Fat Choi (and a few favorite things)

DKYSTATS for Faces of Meth

I don't know if it was a non-lead hook. Do I put it in both:

Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#February_2011

and

Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#Non-lead_hooks_with_over_11.2C000_views?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that it goes in both tables as a non-lead hook. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. 1st for Feb and 19th all-time non-hook. Nice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your name to the top as you created the article and the hook. All I did was help you expand it. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Agora

The appropriate sources of the scientific errors of the film are in the whole paper of Kepler, Astronomia Nova, where he explains the reasons because he cannot use the equant with Mars orbits with Tycho Brahe data (and not with the Sun, like Hypatia in the film pretends).--Linceo (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

As I explained on your user talk page and on the article talk page, that is what we call original research. However, we do have sources about the film that mention historical differences between the fictional film and recorded history. Those are the sources you need to use. Please use the article talk page to discuss it further. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the award. I'm glad my contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. City zen (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

re User:Missiondolores

 Done, unblocked. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Childhood's End

I have a copy of the 1953 hardcover edition, but unfortunately lacking its paper jacket, assuming it had one. That cover does not look "right" to me, but it could be hard to settle either way. All the best, Wwheaton (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the color has faded, but could you describe the color of the hardcover edition you own? Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Solid plain red. No illustration of any kind. Wwheaton (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the one. The dust jacket was red as well. I wonder what the current image is from. I'm going to remove and replace it in around 5 hours from now. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I looked into it again. The red cover I was talking about appears to be the paperback version, not the hardcover, so the current image of the dust jacket is correct. Too bad about your missing dust jacket. The asking price of the first edition hardcover in good condition appears to be $8500. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! I paid $38 for mine via an Amazon seller, five or ten years ago. I think it was listed as new, but not in mint condition. I'm glad there's a collector's market for it, even at a modest level. (I wonder if the seller could supply a photograph, or at least describe it? Is it on ebay, or Amazon, or what?) I first read it (the paperback of course) in 1955, when I was 13, but I cannot quite recall the cover on that. The one I recall had the Overmind ship over the city.Wwheaton (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just checking Amazon again, I see two listings, $127 & $159, the latter claiming "new, never been opened". Seller is International Books in Maryland. I am mildly interested, are you? Wwheaton (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, I found the talk archive, thanks. Duh— Wwheaton (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I was worried I might have deleted something unintentionally. Whew! Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Middle East conflict

Template:Middle East conflict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Marshmallow Challenge

Helooooo. I am questioning the notability of Marshmallow Challenge. I never really read GNG until fairly recently. The article doesn't seem to pass. Can I, and should I, kick it off Wikipedia?

I'm still thinking about the drawing you requested. I'm not very good with abstract anything. Could you suggest a picture of something tangible that you like? A bunny? A pineapple? Something I can draw. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. I believe we are dealing with several issues here. First of all, the concept of the "marshmallow challenge" primarily refers to the Stanford marshmallow experiment (1972) and related ideas of emotional intelligence, so we probably need to disambiguate or use a hat note to differentiate between the experiment and the creativity/collaboration exercise. In other words, some sources refer to the Stanford experiment in terms of the "marshmallow challenge", so we have dueling concepts to deal with first. Second, I think Peter Skillman's Marshmallow Challenge is notable as a design challenge that encourages creativity and collaboration, however, it is not clear if it should standalone or be merged into another article. I think we need to look into this a bit deeper. As for the drawing, take a look at viriditas, and read the Kim Stanley Robinson section. Now, look at your Cafe image on the user page. These framed images hanging on the wall visually represent a selected number of articles you've created or worked on; isn't that an abstract, symbolic representation? :-) Perhaps you could do that with the KSR section? For example, the balloon floating over the Earth (fourth from the left, second row from the top) represents your work on the amateur radio high-altitude balloon articles, in particular Balloon Experiments with Amateur Radio. And, I could probably write a 1000 word essay on the abstract meaning of the little book of "FACT" on the table, laying next to Jimbo's crown. Heh. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I will do the hatnote.

I'm not sure what article marshmallow challenge can be merged with.

My concern about notability is that almost all the sources are just links to the TED video.

I've already checked out the Viriditas article and googled it and related topics. I'm a blank. I'll work on it.

I just stubbed Prison food. I'll drop a line at the wikiproject and see if I can get some people to expand it. Maybe there are computers at prisons and prisoners who have time on their hands (I think that's all of them) can contribute. Maybe that's the evolution of inmates' time usage. A long time ago they worked "making big ones into little ones on the rock pile", then license plates, now Microsoft helplines, and maybe now Wikipedia contributions.

Thanks for the input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anna, when you have some free time, read the KSR section one last time, then read the wiki article on logarithmic spiral (see also: emergence) That will give you an image or two to work with. Great art can't be rushed! I will try to find more sources for the marshie article. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I found the parent article for "Marshmallow Challenge". It is called iterative design. It might be acceptable to merge it there. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I reread the KSR section, and also checked out the other links. Although my maths stinks, I get the idea, and find the whole spiral thingy very beautiful. I'll mull it all over.

Thanks for your work on the mallowchallenge. Iterative design might be the best place to stick the article. I'll take it under advisement (don't know what that means, but it sounds cool). I'll wait on the hatnote too. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink

I noticed you have been concerned about a recent episode regarding the sarcastic and bigoted behavior displayed by the user, Badger Drink. I wasn't quite able to follow the entire conversation about the Goyum episode, but if you check out my user page and the talk page at the Stonehenge entry regarding a photo edit initialed by Badger Drink who had to throw in an insult as he made his edit, you will see it has culminated in a vicious and unjustifiable attack on Christianity. This is what he last left on my talk page:

"I find it rather surprising that a self-professed "Christian" would have a hard time reconciling a happy postscript tacked on to a bunch of schizophrenic bullshit, but such is life."

I too believe he should be banned from Wikipedia as he has demonstrated a complete lack of civility and even outright vicious hostility towards those he disagrees with. I reported him to one particular editor who has banned him in the past for a 24 hour period. But haven't heard anything from it. I don't edit too much here on Wikipedia, so I don't really know how the protocol goes in such cases. --Mactographer (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia culture has a tendency to ignore incivility. On the one hand, this is a pretty good strategy for dealing with difficult users. On the other hand, ignoring incivility on article talk pages or on project pages has a tendency to drive other users away. Keep in mind, someone like Badger Drink probably doesn't think they are being rude, and is likely to operate like this on a daily basis without thinking anything is wrong. Wikipedia isn't therapy, so all we can do is bring this up with the user, note it on the noticeboards, and proceed to dispute resolution if needed. The amount of time and energy these editors take away from others due to this process, makes one think that ignoring them isn't such a bad idea after all. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is very good practical advice to ignore incivility. It's a lot of fun and not much work for some people to insult others. It's a lot of work and not much fun to persuade anybody to sanction them. If Wikipedia ever wanted to get serious about its disproportionately male cadre of editors, it could not do better than banning its rudest 10 editors, every day, for as long as it took to get across the message that we care about gross incivility. I say that not because there won't be plenty of women among the rudest, but because I think women are more annoyed than men by random strangers getting off on insulting them. Sharktopus^talk 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sept 11 conspiracy theories

Hey, since you have a good grasp of the ONEWAY concept, I'm curious to know your view on how it applies to Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. My initial feeling was that it didn't, but I'm having second thoughts. When you have a chance, can you take a look here? Your name was invoked by another editor. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough one; one could make good arguments either way. My understanding of the discussion is that AQFK is claiming that the topics aren't connected, but is that true? The weight given to the subject in the current article appears to be appropriate. I don't know as much about this topic as others, but my understanding is that the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission Report failed to adequately address the subject, hence the continued interest in conspiracies. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is that ONEWAY may apply, since there is an absence of mention of conspiracy theories in reliable sources dealing with the attacks (such as the 9-11 commission report). My first reaction was that the section belonged there, but then ONEWAY was raised, which gave me second thoughts. I'm not familiar with the 9-11 literature, and saw this raised on the infamous fringe board. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much. Let me know what you need. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much again. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

using tags

hi youve always been very helpful. im being told i dont use tags correctly, is this the case? if it is the description of the tags is very confusing. can you tell me if this is a correct summary ive been given at Talk:St. Mark's Place (Manhattan)? you can reply here thanks MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I've reviewed the issue and I've determined that regardless of your use of tags, the problem is centered on the article itself. As such, I've commented there. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks. what beyond my ken said was very confusing though, because he says there's a difference between there being no sources at all and there just being no sources listed. how can anyone know for sure there are no sources at all? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. The problem under discussion is ambiguous in regards to which tag to use and whether sources support the statements in the article or if it could possibly be OR. The discussion should bypass all the confusion and simply focus on adding sources, otherwise, remove the unsourced material to the talk page with a request for sources. In my opinion, it is better to get down to brass tacks and work towards resolution then to wonder about the meaning of an editor's comment. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

i see. i didnt want to remove things yet though, i wanted to leave some time for other people to see that there werent references for these things and to add them. its a very interesting list. but your idea of moving things to the talk page is a good idea. thanks! MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

creating categories

hi viriditas, could you please tell me how to create categories? thank you very much Habel (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried enabling HotCat in My preferences/Gadgets/Editing gadgets? Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PSYOP

Nice write up of the recent PSYOP controversy. -Atfyfe (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, though I daresay it will have to be updated. Good start though! Jusdafax 05:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm just the editor in this instance; the original material was composed by several users. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas in California?

Did I see viriditas yesterday? Sharktopus^talk 06:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Why did you upload them as PNG files? BTW, did you see the responses to Wikipedia:Peer_review/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz/archive1? I could really use your help with this. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been traveling and distracted, let me get back to that project. One is a jpg and one is a png. I still have the original jpg of the png if you prefer that. Sharktopus^talk 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks, really. Have you had a chance to look at the peer review for A Canticle for Leibowitz. When you do, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scanned them, they look like helpful guidance. I thing separating out character bios for a few chars will help us shorten plot summary. Where shall we start? Sharktopus^talk, —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

Reversion at Buddhism

I think it's best if Kim-Zhang-Hong's edits are discussed on the talk page without repeated reversion, even if that means leaving them up for a while. I don't want this to devolve into an edit war. Also, comments in edit summaries are fragmented from the rest of the discussion, so that's also non-ideal. I appreciate the patience you've shown through this dispute.

(Not particularly relevant, but I also really like the Dhammapada box you have up there. Good thing to have on a talk page!) --Danger (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This was previously discussed on the article talk page in August 2010, and you will find the link on the current ANI report. Kim asked me to prove a negative, just as he is doing now; he still uses unreliable sources to push his POV. There simply isn't anything left for me to discuss. His current response on his talk page demonstrates the ongoing problem. He's again avoiding the burden of proof, asking me to prove him wrong. This has gone on far too long. He's been asked to find reliable secondary sources that support his view and he can't. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)