User talk:Viriditas/Archive 24

Motivational badges

I saw your motivational badges suggestion at the village pump and I think it's a great idea. I'd like to mention that something similar is being proposed as a WMF project at meta:Wikimedia Fellowships/Project Ideas/Badges for Wikipedia Community Engagement and I thought you might be interested in participating in that. Best regards. 64.40.54.250 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --WTF (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Positive ANI yesification

Hey Vee! Long time no see. I mentioned you at ANI. In a good way. Have a lovely weekend. Draco^E 14:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Aloha! What have you been up to these days? Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

On here? Remember that saying about wrestling with members of the porcine species? I should have kept that in mind. ;) In real life? Working through another weekend and dealing with mortality issues. Trying to make more time for special people. How's life been treating you? Draco^E 22:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

When I first read that, I thought it said morality issues, and my eyebrow arched for just a moment! :) Yeah, mortality issues, birth, aging and death, the transience of it all. Glad to hear you are still alive and kicking. We're only here for a moment; I think we should try and improve the place while we're still here, rather than loot and plunder, but that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Starting a new page for Joe DiMaggio Jr.

My question is one of citations. I knew DiMaggio Jr. personally and some of the details I plan to include are facts obtained through this association. How do I verify these kind of facts? Selene Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selene Scott (talk • contribs) 04:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for contacting me. Wikipedia is considered a tertiary source, and any biographical entry we compose should be based on secondary sources. Primary sources are allowed, but they must be used carefully to avoid editorial bias. Unless you have published your recollections in a reliable source, we would probably not be able to use them on Wikipedia. However, your information could help improve the quality of the article if you would use the talk page to make note of certain aspects of the biography that might be found in primary and secondary sources. If you intend to create a new article on Joseph Paul DiMaggio Jr., the easiest way to approach this is to first create the article in your user space by clicking on this link: User:Selene Scott/Joe DiMaggio Jr.. From there, you can add content and we can review it together; I would recommend this route. Please also take a moment to review Wikipedia:Notability (people), and pay very special attention to the section on invalid criteria. Thanks, and feel free to contact me if you have more questions. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

Sorry for stepping into that minefield of an article without more care. I should have made the one edit only, then just commented on the talk page. Does that sound like the right approach to you? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, that sounds about right, but also keep in mind (and this is something I need to work on as well, so you aren't alone in this endeavor) that sometimes, it matters more how you say what you say than what you actually say. I felt that you were more interested in reverting than in discussing and communicating the problem, and I wasn't exactly sure what the problem was in the first place. If you had reversed the process and made a talk page comment first, then waited for a reply, and then after discussion made a change, that would of course helped quite a bit, but there's nothing wrong with your bold edits; it's just that you sometimes have to get other people on board with what you are trying to do before you do it. Thanks for contacting me, and let's hope for more fruitful discussion (and outcomes) in the future. Have a great week. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

re ANI

Loved what you did here [1]. Can you do it here [2], pls? El duderino ^(abides) 06:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Something Strange

Hi there, Selene Scott here. I'm new and haven't been adopted yet so I'm telling you this cause you're the only one I've talked to. I figure you can point this info in the right direction. I was browsing the page on Algorithm. In the first sentence where it describes what it is it says something about calculations for extreme pain or something along those lines. I think maybe vandalism. Check it out. If I knew what the correct term was I'd have put it in myself, but alas, I was reading to learn! Thanks "Selene Scott (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)"

Hi. Yes, it was vandalism, and it was instantly reverted. Regarding adoption, I added the tag to your user page. I'll have more time to discuss it later. Viriditas (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

actually no it wasn't. the new user who deleted the "yielding excessive pain" was reverted by a bot, and blocked. hilarious. [3] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Slowking, I think you are mistaken. The diff shows a vandal adding that content and the bot deleting it. If you are using the new diff feature without changing your preferences back to the original green color, that might explain your confusion. You can comment on village pump technical and ask the developers to restore the original diff feature by default due to problems like this. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

thank you. i am confused however, consider that the vandalism is in the current version. [4] so it appears to be reverted and not. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism in the current version. Try clearing your cache. Otherwise, you might be viewing an older version of the page. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The vandal was most likely a fed up student! "Selene Scott (talk)" —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Heh, maybe! BTW, great job on catching the vandalism and reporting the vandal. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Need feedback from you

As a courtesy, I thought I should run this past you, since you wrote the original text for WP Hawaii/New articles. This is something sorely needed over on the Texas project, and I'm kind of my own over there. If you have no problems with it, I thought I could duplicate what you wrote, substituting Texas where necessary, to add to the project's main page. Right now, it's on my Marker page. Just thought I'd run it past you.Maile66 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to do what you like and even improve upon it. Thanks for letting me know. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello User:Viriditas, I hope this message finds you doing well. I wanted to inform you that I've started a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a potential interaction ban between you and I, as conversation has recently been in bad taste and unproductive. You can see the discussion here. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 04:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gnosticism in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gnosticism in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnosticism in popular culture (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for your encouragement, support, and helping to get me Adopted! Selene Scott (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope I'm not buggin' you too much lately

I need to pick your brain. Referencing Here and Also here. In a nutshell, there is no NewArtBot or Tedder bot ffor the WikiProject Women's History. Tedder offered to help me set one up, if I could give him search terms. I can't. Wasn't involved in creating that project. Those who were initially involved seem to have departed. The subject of Women's History is pretty vague, without cut and dried parameters. It's not like defining search terms for a geographic project. So, I've been hither and yon, following up every lead somebody gives me. I also joined GenderGap and posted there. So far, the effort is a flat bust. The editor who set up the rules for Hawaii and Texas isn't really active anymore. I'm starting to feel defeated about this. Have you got any ideas about how to get this done?Maile66 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be in and out for the next 12 hours or so, but I will address this. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so the problem at hand is simply identifying search terms for the bot? Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed terms

equal opportunity, equal pay, feminism, feminist, gender bias, gender discrimination, gender history, indigenous women, women, women's history, women's history celebration, women's history site, women's liberation, women's movement, women's studies, women's suffrage, reproductive rights

I would also add combinations of terms such as "female", "her", "she" along with profession names, such as "engineer", "mathematician", "physician", etc. This can also be accomplished with category rules, but that assumes that someone is adding the category.

You can also look for things like "she competed", "she played", "she practiced", "she worked", etc. That will work well in finding new articles, but you have to write the rule.

You might want to look at WikiProject Gender Studies, as they have already tagged many related articles.

Rules

It doesn't look like there is a stub template for women's history biographies. It might be easier for the bot to find articles if you have this template.

Let me see if I have this correct about the stub. You're talking about the template I see at the bottom of so many articles that says "This is a (category) stub. You can help by expanding it." Correct? And then I could request a bot to be created and run to stick that stub on already-identified articles that qualify? Is this it? If I understand what you've said correctly, this stub should probably be in place before the rest happens. Yes? Maile66 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's only one way of finding new articles. You can also run a bot (or AWB) and tag those stubs with project tags. And that's really what you want the new article feed for anyway, to tag the articles. Then, you can watch them permanently with a project watchlist. I wouldn't get too hung up about it, though. Can you submit the terms I added above? How about asking Tedder to create rules for those terms? Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, whatever

I give up Maile66 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, I may - or may not - have messed up on the template. I really don't know. But I do think I'm taking a break from that particular project. If Tedder gets a bot going, that's a good thing. But I don't want my frustrations to affect that project. It's a good-intentioned project. It would seem to me to be a project of casual visitors, but nobody with real knowledge being involved on a regular basis. GenderGap over on Commons is similar in that way - it's just one more cyber blog. If you want to participate in the hot topic of the moment, fine. But it doesn't seem a resource otherwise. So, I'm going back to doing what I was doing before I got this project in my head. But thanks for all the help you have tried to give me on this.Maile66 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dreamtime

Hey Viriditas! Just want to express my appreciation for doing the GA review on Dreamtime. I recognise that it must have taken a fair bit of your time, but i hope that you found it interesting. All the best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review it. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The new vandal

Hi there, I took out an unnecessary 'from' from the Edgar Cayce page and upon reviewing the page's history found that a bot reverted it and referred to it as 'possible vandalism by Selene Scott'. Is this something I should be worried about? That's all I need is a reputation of being a vandal at this stage of the game.Additionally, the page is now incomplete with no closing remarks about the death of Cayce."Selene Scott (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)"

Hi. Please read the edit summary again. On my end, it shows the bot reverting vandalism by an IP. You edits are still in the article. The edit summary used by the bot says it is reverting to your version, which is a good thing! Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed an arbcom case related to the mailing list that you are alledged to be coordinating with. You can review the case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anupam_.26_Bobrayner and provide a statement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wildwood (novel) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless work defending Wikipedia from those who would misuse it for dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional reasons. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words. bobrayner (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam

I agree with what you say. I hope you agree that [5] leaves minimal wiggle room. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What usually happens is that he behaves for a few months and then he gradually slips back into the old patterns. I think he could avoid this pattern if he just focuses on areas that aren't controversial and don't involve religious or political disputes. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You may well be right. I think that it is as well to draw a line in the sand at this point, because as you say it is clearly a recurrent problem. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		Dear Viriditas, thank you for your guidance on reviewing my contributions and ensuring that they adhere to the Wikipedia policy on paraphrasing. While I was dismissive of your advice at first, I should not have been and I am grateful that you have been so loving and forgiving to me. I hope to be your friend and work with you to make Wikipedia a better place. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Taking your advice, I looked for article requests here, and created an article on Aelosoma, a species of polychaete. This article creation is in honour of you! Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it passes WP:N. I'm gonna Prod it. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Citing French Polynesia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Can you help me properly cite French Polynesia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia? Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried filling in the parameters for {{Cite encyclopedia}}? What article are you trying to cite it in? I ask, because one usually goes with the reference format already in use. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to cite the article "French Polynesia" on the generic Britannica Online Encyclopedia for a few lines about Rurutu and Rimatara. I don't know if there is already a widely used format or tool for citing Britannica which can be used.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In which Wikipedia article are you trying to cite it? Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Teuruarii IV and Tamaeva IV.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Those articles already use cite templates, so you can use {{Cite encyclopedia}}. I believe the template should show you how to use it. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Holoholokū birthstones

The Holoholokū birthstones are a requested article over on the Hawaii project. They are named in Wailua River State Park, under Holoholokū Heiau. I'm just wondering if these stones should be an article on their own, since the heiau has no separate article, or if these should be a redirect to Wailua State Park. What do you think? Maile66 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. I think the answer depends on how much work you are willing to do. Wikipedia favors merging small stubs into related articles, so it you aren't going to spend a lot of time on this, then the redirect is fine. If, however, you plan to research and expand the stones/heiau, then yes, you could create another article. Have you looked at the literature to see how the subject is treated? Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe's Garage GAR

Just wanted to let you know that the nominator on this article seems to be blocked. Agadant (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Heartland??

That's twice this week you've used "Heartland" as an epithet? against me -- I'm not sure what your point is, but rather doubt you are compying with WP:Assume good faith.--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you been following the news lately? It seems to be just you and Heartland at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I imagine we agree that Heartland's Unibomber billboard was a really, REALLY Bad Idea.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps for different reasons. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just a website, guys. Cla68 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a billboard. Do keep up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A former billboard, I think. WUWT has a amusing post on the billboards they should have run: my favorite is a play on Mann's "upside down Tiljander" blooper -- which would doubtless be too arcane for any actual billboard, but is entertaining to think about.... Boris, how are you? Well, I hope. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been well but quite busy, thank you. Engaging in a vast international conspiracy to defraud the public and bring on one-world government takes a lot of energy, you know. I've been hoping to get down to your part of the world but unfortunately haven't found the opportunity in some years. I love the desert, and getting to see Meteor Crater up close was a childhood dream come true. (I was a kid during the Space Race, when young people thought science was cool instead of something for dorks and losers.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Meteor Crater still there, still as cool as ever. My wife & I got ejected some years ago for walking the trail all the way around the crater -- seems they closed it for "liability" reasons. So don't count on that -- hike is still in some guidebooks, I think. Cool, wet spring here = lots of flowers. We were in Petrified Forest last Tuesday, another consistently wonderful place -- giant stone tree-trunks *everywhere*, how cool is that? For once, wind not blowing 60 mph, Mariposa lilies by the tens of thousands..... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe's Garage & page numbers

Hi. Don't you think it was a bit hasty to promote Joe's Garage to GA, given that most of the references to Lowe's book, and a couple to Slaven's, still lack page references? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:GACN for when page numbers make or break GAN. Have you read it? If any of the claims meet those listed five criteria, then we would require them. However, as a courtesy, I would be happy to go through it and add the rest. Would you like that? Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I was told in a peer review before that I'd need to include refs for every paragraph, and I assumed that was true ever since. I do think it's a good habit to get into, though. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've added all the page numbers. Please feel free to contact me if there are any other issues. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks not only for reviewing the John N. Shive GAN but also for your Google-fu in pointing out so many sources that I was unable to find. Woz2 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar and for giving me the opportunity to review the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup listing Hawaii

Hi Viriditis. The cleanup template at WP:HAWAII should be replaced. It's linked to defunct Wolterbot, for one thing. If you click on it, it leads to Hawaii/Cleanup listing, page which seems to be a long list of (2 yrs out of date) tedious and manual updating. That whole page should be deleted. The template below goes directly to Toolserver, and is a regularly automated update. It's so easy with the Toolserver. But I do think I should pass to you to decide and implement, rather than just taking it upon myself. Maile66 (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it sounds like you have it completely under control. Good work! Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've taken care of it.Maile66 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oahu Wiki-Picnic in June

Check it out: Wikipedia:Meetup/Oahu/1--Pharos (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New essay WP:BURNOUT

I have created new essay "WP:Admin burnout and meltdown" for further editing by others. Feel free to expand with more ideas, or pass the word to other editors, as time permits. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories

I am interested in what you have to say about categories. I am certain they are useful as a reader who knows about them, though they may be somewhat redundant to navboxes (which I have some reservations about too). I am also pretty sure that you are right about their being more useful for bulk editing and bots. What I am interested in is :

1. How much readers use them.
2. In what way they are used.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

Will do. Right now I have to finish up a GA review. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a moment to address this. I don't think readers use categories at all (or at least very little). Maintenance workers and active members of WikiProjects use categories as queues. However, I want to see this process become more automated, such that 1) we are delivering the content of categories to users by request, and 2) we are visualizing the content of categories in terms of a) historical timelines and related topics, and b) replacing navbox templates with links to categories, such that the category system becomes the default navigational template. A lot more where that came from...more later. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice please

Though I've been around the block, I honestly don't know what you mean for better ways to handle topic area problems like Ogdoadic Tradition. I haven't really looked at the related articles but I'd venture a guess they're also a bit of a problem given that one. The fringe board looked more like pseudoscience and things like that. I'm not sure where else to look. Can you give me some pointers? Where or who would be good to bring up things like this? You can respond here and I'll check back. Any advice you can offer would be appreciated. If there's a good way to deal with issues like this when I come across them, I'm happy to do it. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be brief, you were posting to an admin's board, and they simply aren't equipped to handle the kind of problem you described. After reviewing your complaint, it seems like the best thing to do at this point is to redirect the article on the Ogdoadic Tradition to Ordo Aurum Solis, and to summarize the main points in that article. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, my intuition was correct. It was a duplicate topic of the primary. The main contributor even admitted it in the parent article: "According to Ordo Aurum Solis and its initiates, this was the real birth of the Hermetic Theurgic Tradition, later to be known as the Ogdoadic Tradition, or Ordo Aurum Solis." Therefore, I have redirected to the parent topic. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard sometimes seems to have lots of pseudoscience, but the regular editors there are no strangers to pseudohistory, mythology, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WoW

I've seen WoW for Warcraft elsewhere online, but yes, when I see "WoW" on Wikipedia, I think of "Viriditas/Archive 24 has been vandalized by the Willy on wheels". I bring you greetings from the wolves :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing articles

Category:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing

Category:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Kumioko (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoid the merge

I can just bump it over. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly certain we had an article (and an image) about an empathy belly many years ago, with a picture of a man wearing one to get a sense of what his wife was going through. Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of that. :) As for the stub, I searched every term, but not Simulated pregnancy. I will just move the lot over and call it a day. Thanks for the catch. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Two words: Regis Philbin Old news is old! :) Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Regis Philbin, two words: "somewhat slow". I remember seeing him on TV once years ago, and that was my impression.

The reason I stubbed the tummy thing is because somebody told me of the China Daily story over coffee today. Oh well, I much prefer starting stubs when there is an image available anyway. All's well that ends well, except for these poor sods. They're not getting invited to hang out with the boys anytime soon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The religious right in the U.S. hates these things, because when a female teen tries it on for the first time they decide to use contraception...immediately. I can't exactly recall when and where I tried one of these on for the first time (it's been a long, strange trip) but I remember it was damn heavy and uncomfortable. This is the kind of thing that actually works to fight teen pregnancy. Every school should have one. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a very interesting idea. Maybe someone could get the pope to wear one for a day. Now, if they could get teens to simulate passing a watermelon, in 80 years Earth's population would drop to about 142. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The population issue is somewhat touchy because most people don't really get it. When you look into it, you realize that it isn't the number of people that is the problem, it's the amount of resources they consume. To simplify the argument, we focus on population numbers, but by simplifying it, this provides ammunition to the 19 Kids and Counting crowd. Bottom line is, sure, the Earth's carrying capacity could be extended with world megacities and megaregions, but we will need several additional Earth-sized planets to harvest enough resources to sustain them. People just don't have time to think these things through since they are too busy, er, reproducing. Although I don't consider myself a transhumanist, I do think that life and memory extension technologies could solve this problem. But that seems more and more unlikely, as I see a real-life Idiocracy unfolding every day. Just tonight, some crazy young, unemployed kid approached me for no reason as I was jogging and screamed "Heavy metal music, motherfucker". I'm sure he thought he was being ironic, in some bizarre hipster way, but I couldn't help thinking that he was merely reciting aloud the epitaph of the human species. Heavy metal music, motherfucker, indeed. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I have no idea what the hipster was getting at. This reminds me that the increasing consumption in China may not only be due to increasing population and wealth, but also to the body mass of the people. Now that they're drinking a lot of milk and eating better, it turns out that they are quite big people. Teenage boys all seem to be 6 foot 4 now. Grannies are still waist high. Maybe somebody should figure out how to measure the population in mass instead of number of people. They might be astonished. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Hyon Gak Sunim, I know exactly what the kid was doing. Hyon Gak used to tell a story about how when he was younger, he and his friends would go up to people in the supermarket late at night and make really loud noises to see if customers were paying attention and if they were aware of their surroundings or just "asleep". I suppose the Heavy Metal kid is an idiot on the surface, but looking a bit deeper, he's a Shakespearean fool in disguise intending to wake people up out of their stupor. :) I wonder if China has built any vertical farms yet? Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid to google Hyon Gak Sunim. He isn't disliked by the admin over here, is he?

A man once yelled "wake up" really loud right in my face. I was not in a stupor. He was a fool. I felt like slapping him violently, several dozen times. I still do, when I think about it.

I haven't seen vertical farms here. I saw them in a documentary once. People do sometimes grow things on their roofs, but not much. Here in Hainan, there's lots of farmland, and seasonal produce is brought into the city every day. It's very nice to have lots of carts and open trucks selling fruits and vegetables by the roadside. I wish they would do that in the West. I think people in downtown Montreal would love to buy a melon from a man with a cart. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, he isn't disliked; as far as I know, he is completely apolitical. I requested deletion of his biography (in my user space) because after writing it I realized he wanted to be left alone as he said he was receiving too much unwanted attention and I think he left South Korea for Germany, IIRC. I hear you about loud noises. He could have whispered wake up! but would it have had the same impact? :) The melon man with a cart sounds cool, although I'm sure Montreal has indoor/outdoor farmer's markets, don't they? In Hawaii, we used to have pineapple cars, people who literally drove around with retrofitted trucks with pineapples attached to them for sale. Of course, the street food/food truck phenomenon is still big here, and you can still buy fresh coconut water, coconut candy, and banana bread on the side of the road in certain areas. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Montreal's markets are rare, very expensive, and for rich housewives. Haikou is in the process of replacing cheap markets with big supermarkets. They will miss them when they're gone.

Nice to hear you can still buy roadside stuff in Hawaii. We have piles of coconuts outside corner stores. They chop the top off and stick in a straw. I think they're about 50 US cents now. Now, it's watermelon season. About 50 cents for a soccer ball sized one. Seedless, crisp, lovely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:-D

• Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down 99.181.150.169 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I hear they done call you "The Michigan Kid" in these here parts. Is that true, mister? Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • User:Arthur Rubin/IP list of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.153.207 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If brought to ANI or MFD, my reasoning would be that, if "The Michigan Kid" is blocked or restricted, we need to know what IPs might be in there, to reduce collateral damage, and to possibly create filters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Machine Stops

Not entirely enthused that you changed the plot summary section so that it now begins with the most hackneyed trite cliché from 500 Hollywood movie trailers ("In a world where"...). Now all we need is an audio reading of the article by the "seven-foot tall man who has been smoking cigarrettes since childhood"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh. That was an unintentional side effect of removing "the story begins". I agree that it should be changed. Viriditas (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Per :-D

Per :-D, if of continued interest, within this record is Arthur Rubin deleting Talk pages. Be aware as there are ideological droogies about. 108.73.115.206 (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything at that link. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

He seems to having trouble with links. I did remove some of the anon's post on talk pages stating "please include URL (quote from source)" which didn't explain why the material was relevant nor exactly what he wanted to add, and some of his previous WP:CANVASSing. (I also reverted some of his edits while the main IP was blocked.) I won't do the former any more, although, in egregious cases, I may hat his comments if unrelated to improving the article. (The main IP is now blocked, but because of a real vandal, so it would be unfair to attribute that vandalism to these IPs.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempt this link, but view 500. Look for items with "Be aware" in the Edit Summary as examples. 99.119.128.121 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, when you want to link to a diff, do so like this: [6]. Perhaps Arthur would like to explain his rationale for that edit. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I'll attempt to remember that. Happy editing. 99.119.131.192 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, it looked like WP:CANVASSing, and adding material which was (1) not helpful to editing and (2) removed from the relevant talk pages by other editors, but it was over a year ago. That was during the time I had more trouble with WP:TWINKLE than I have now, so I used more straight reverts, which I now see was a mistake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears you are working a new article, I look forward to seeing it.

• The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right by Arthur Goldwag. 99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I need to finish reading the book, first. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Reques.
Message added 06:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars?

Of interest per, "the Revert" along with Special:Contributions/User:Fat&Happy and apparent Wikipedia:MEAT User:Vsmith are avoiding the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle on [7] Talk:Religion and environmentalism and [8] Talk:Christianity and environmentalism. Is this a failure of the Wikipedia process? 99.181.151.68 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, they are reverting you as a sock puppet, so they can bypass all of that. I would like to see you register an account, but I suspect the reason you won't do this is because you are afraid you might be blocked. Would you agree to some kind of amnesty, so we can get you up and running? Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentors?

Per User talk:Epipelagic#Wikipedia:Five pillars, who would you suggest for mentors? 99.119.128.28 (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Epipelagic's suggestion is good. Of course, you could always ask Arthur Rubin to be your mentor. :) Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, would it be so bad? Shouldn't we try and promote reconciliation? Try it anon, Arthur might even let you borrow his Koch decoder ring. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a formal wp mentor process? 99.119.131.245 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. The best I can offer you is Wikipedia:Mentorship. I think the answer is no, it is informal. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I made a poor mistake after edit conflicted by you and replaced your paragraph, but then you removed my paragraph that I was adding during the edit that you deleted my paragraph in.

Please let me find the paragraph that is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph started with : ultimately ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

PLease stop editting everything: this talk page and the indicent so I can find the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but please be more constructive. Go register an account and work on some articles and stop attacking Scjessey. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I made the edit, you can continue editing. Thanks

I have thought about making an account but I might not after all. I am a long time reader-lets keep it that way.

Well, if you would like to register an account, there's some benefits, and I would be happy to work with you if you have any questions. Please think about it, as it would make it much easier to communicate on a single talk page. Plus, you would have access to a watchlist and a single contribution page listing all of your edits, rather than multiple pages based on dynamic IPs. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason you closed the incident and ask me to not edit it? I am not sure what made you to close this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikidemon explained it you already: "...slow down, heed the material in the welcome package, and basically work with others to improve articles instead of getting into disagreements." You seem to be here only to fight, and that's not going to end well. Find a nice quiet place to work on an article, or just create a new one, but give the dispute a break for at least a few days. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy review

Hi Viriditas! You are giving Spencer a pretty thorough review, which is very kind. :) I know that you are striving to make the article as good as possible. The only problem for me is that it's quite difficult for me to use the computer at the moment, due to a physical ailment. The short time that I can spend on here each day I would ideally like to be spending on my current project. So, you can imagine that I was ideally hoping for as lightweight a review as possible. In other words, only having to fix things that are definitely necessary to pass GAN. I know that the page is far from perfect, but as long as it's "acceptable", that's all I want at the moment. The guideline to using the criteria here says: "The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently." I would ideally like to keep the review to this, if possible? ie, We just focus on fixing anything confusing, but not worry about making the article be at its optimum best. I feel bad saying this because I know its a privilege to get a detailed review, and if I had FAC in mind this would be ideal. It just so happens that the article isn't a priority right now. I really hope I don't sound ungrateful! But it is also to save you the work and effort. I don't want you to worry about making the page as good as possible when I'm not even worried about that, you know? :) Let me know what you think, thanks again for taking it on because it is a long page. --Lobo (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but would you agree that a lightweight review would be impossible for an article that is 80KB? I'll try and finish it up right now. BTW, you've made a number of great points on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes of course, and I know there will be issues to address, but I just meant as lightweight as possible. Thank you for being understanding about this, I felt like a bit of a dick saying it, heh. --Lobo (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Viriditas Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at GB fan's talk page.
Message added 04:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GB fan 04:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

I have responded with a link--Shrike (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

An amazing irony

I just connected some facts I find profound. First, I knew I recognized your username; I did not connect specifics; but recollections were positive. Perhaps you remember our interactions, perhaps not; even if you did, you would not know the significance until I explain detail I have as yet not shared. The detail relates to converging circumstances; and why I initiated my suggestion. I was copy-editing one of the first articles I created on this site when I realized I needed some content. And that it had been long available. An earlier wiki-friend lived in the exact city where the needed content was located. I reconnected with that friend on my very next edit[1] and they messaged my talk page in reply.[2] After we exchanged comments I knew a user I wanted to recognize; with the highest available award. But this did not exist, so I posted my suggestion.

When I described the kind of user I wanted to honor, it was this person I molded my criteria after: The spontaneous acts; which can not be contrived; the philanthropic deed; the bare charter that withstands scrutiny; the uncommon find of authenticity; the qualities that produce tangible things; intangibly; the legacies formed; the fortification of cherubs; a soul immune from slander who can silence the same. This was also the first person I intended to nominate, and the person who could be discussed in nothing but wholesome terms.

My knowledge is first hand and I have the goods to back every element of my criteria; including the full grandiose! I almost mentioned this person as a complete aside; fully prepared to explain with examples, why they were so utterly qualified, and why we are remiss for not giving them proper recognition. Here are the diff's that made me remember: (diffs contain spoilers so please access them only after completing the read) 1 2 Isn't that something? My76Strat (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course I have been shown with an active imagination. My76Strat (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want it any other way. If you are The Man with the Most Active Imagination in the World, then I salute you, sir. Stay thirsty, stay hungry, stay foolish, and keep dreaming! Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey friend, I am glad seeing you here. I do know that my writing can seem bazaar at times and things can be obfuscated. I wanted to be sure that you understood where I was coming from, all the way to Anna? And my wonder if you remember the time we talked before? I actually was worried that I somehow offended you and really wanted to correct any mistake I had made. Cheers My76Strat (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You've never offended me at any time. "Keep dreaming" is ambiguous, but in this context it means "stay gold". Are you familiar with that phrase?. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

One irony after the other. Wow! I am writing an answer to Skinwalker ((taking a break here and there) I already incorporated dreamer and could have as easily used "stay gold" in a place where I arrived at "winds of change". Do you remember the first time you and I ever talked on Wikipedia? My76Strat (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so. Refresh my memory. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• [9] My76Strat (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A little minor bit of advice requested

I'm not sure if "daughter article" is the correct term for this, or "sub article" or "sub page". In a nutshell, I've been reading the Emma Graham series of books by a Martha Grimes. I'm thinking of either creating one separate page to cover the series, or separate pages for each book. But how I would like to set it up, is like a sub page of the author's page. It would be a set up like User:Maile66/Book Martha Grimes/Emma Graham series - that way. My question is this:If I do it that way, do the sub pages need to have three "What links here" connections to avoid being tagged as orphans? Or does their sub page status avoid that? Maile66 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but creating an article about a series and separate book articles is fine as long as you have enough content. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm trying to avoid the dreaded "Orphan" tag. If those sub pages are linked to nothing but the main page, will it be considered an Orphan? Maile66 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the criteria for orphans has been loosened. As long as you have at least one link, you should be fine. However, your proposal makes it sound like you will have three, so it should not be a concern. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your advice. Maile66 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian cuisine imag

First image I came across on Commons under "Hawaiian cuisine." Please find one you like and put it there, try and work with others instead of complaining about what they do. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Correcting your historical errors about Hawaii is not a "complaint", and I'm not going to work with you to rewrite history and add useless templates. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Spencer Tracy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William H. Wright and Screen tests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

<mumble grumble>...

.. but the fact is that I owe you an apology - and I offer it here. I got overly emotional on what I perceived as "badgering" someone that I really like a lot, and rather than AGF, research, and look around, I came to your talk and accused you of something that I shouldn't have. I am sorry. I could say that "out of context" it still seemed (to me) to be a poor post - but I'd be searching for excuses for my behavior; and that's not what I should be doing. I see now that you and My76Strat are indeed quite well acquainted, perhaps even to the point of being friends. I also noticed that you actually "supported" his RfA. Yes, I do tend to jump hard when I think someone is being picked on, and I did screw up big time this time without exercising due diligence. As far as me being a "crazy man" .. meh .. they do untie these extra long sleeves on my white coat from time to time. Anyway .. I was wrong, and I am sorry Viriditas. Chedzilla (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, but it does give the false impression that you are using this alternative account for behavior that your primary (admin) account wouldn't engage in with other users. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, but that was the takeaway message I received. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposal in development

I want your advice on how to improve my proposal User:Wer900/Community Council of Wikipedia, which establishes an editing authority for Wikipedia to coordinate the project on a large scale. I'm not canvassing your support; I want your advice to improve it. Thanks in advance, Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you use this space to compose an executive summary for me of less than 150 words, summarizing the main points while gently persuading me as to why it is a good idea? That will allow me to give you the best advice. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to create an editing authority, containing a Council as its legislature and an executive branch in order to implement the recommendations of the Council. The tasks of this editing authority include the coordination of new community initiatives to improve the content of the encyclopedia which are beyond the scale of any individual editor or WikiProject, providing resources for existing community processes such as the administrators' noticeboard, and the creation of regulations in order to unify the implementation of policies across the encyclopedia. The body does have the power to pass policies and guidelines, but this is intended to be an emergency power and not one to be used very commonly. There are provisions in my proposal to prevent excessive incursion and bureaucracy, not least that the editing authority will be checked in its powers by ArbCom. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 16:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a few things, so give me a few days to respond to this. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I had a chance to look at this. The only way it will work is from the bottom up, not the top down, and currently, you've got the model reversed. The basic problem is that you haven't addressed two important things: 1) why is Wikipedia governance needed? 2) why are there barriers to its implementation? When you've addressed those two questions, you will discover that the current system of Wikipedia will not allow it, primarily for ideological reasons, but also for political ones as well. In a situation like this, it is best to start small. Start by asking the first question. When you do that, you will discover that about a quarter of the editors here are against any type of governance, another quarter are for it, another quarter will go either way, and another quarter are apathetic or neutral. What this means is, you need to understand your audience before you write another proposal. I'm not saying your proposal is good or bad, I'm saying that there are real barriers to its existence, and you need to understand and face those barriers before you continue. One other thing to consider is that a great many people who edit here are simply not amenable to any rational discussion about governance, and will dismiss it out of hand without consideration. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Now you know why I'm reluctant to become an admin. I fall to pieces too easily. I promise to grow a thicker skin. Again, thank you for helping put the matter to rest.

Oh, and I haven't forgotten about the image request. Specific requests make me panic and I develop cerebral cementalization, (a real condition that I'm not making up). Next time I'm doodling, and I make something I think you'd like, can I give you that? There's a crab in the backroom of my user page that I'm quite fond of. I would love for you to have that. Would you like that one instead of the flowers? I never really liked that pot of flowers I gave you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"...she came upon a low curtain she had not noticed before, and behind it was a little door about fifteen inches high..."

I heard a relevant anecdote on NPR today. They are focusing on an investigative report about cities in the US for the next week or so. Anyway, today they were talking about the city of Oakland, California, where a bus driver was discussing how he makes it through his day. When he is presented with an unruly passenger or someone having a bad day he says to himself (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), "this moment will pass". Those four words usually helps calm him down. As far as your art is concerned, the world needs more of it. What's the link to the crab image? Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I like that saying. I shall adopt it. There are lots of moments here that require it. :)

Go through the tiny door at User:Anna Frodesiak. There you will find the crab. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't fit inside the door, it's too small. Is there a little bottle labeled "DRINK ME" anywhere around here? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Poke

Hi Viriditas - there's a discussion you might enjoy on WormTT's usertalk page under the heading "And on it goes...". Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And still my question remains: why is Lionel allowed to continue editing? Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added to it again on WormTT's user page. He incorrectly believes it is a BLP violation when someone claims something and we repeat it with reliable sources. This needs to be looked into, i'm sick of having to protect 2 pages where he censors information on a weekly/sometimes daily basis. We are both in agreement Viriditas, no question about it... ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet the community tolerates it for three years. This is why I'm cutting back on editing Wikipedia. If the community isn't going to give a damn about these types of editors, then why should I give a damn about Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because letting him win is even worse for Wikipedia. We stand stronger together Viriditas ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

He isn't winning anything. He's acting like a Cyberman/Dalek hybrid, marching in lockstep with his fellow ideologues-in-arms. Who needs a brain when thinking isn't required? It's pathetic. If that's "winning" than I'd rather lose. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe you pick a project we both work on jointly? I have nothing i really fancy working on at the moment and i'm sure you could use a hand with the odd article? Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me think about it. I have to finish up a GA review tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping to make up Birmingham Gay Village to GA eventually and i have loads more pictures to upload to it. I'd appreciate the opportunity to work with you more though and look forward to your article choice. Have a nice day Viriditas ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I could probably help with that, but you're going to need to start over. We're talking rewrite. I would start with geography and history, with a description of how it became a gay village. I'm guessing here, but I'm sure the venues are tied into this history in some way. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not got much proper digging done but it appears that the more clubs that were built, the more visitors it attracted. I also got the strong impression that the area was previously brown space (industrial) before renovation.

I'll provide the images, you provide the brains...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to do some serious research first. When I do research on towns and cities, I always check local historical society publications first, as they amount to a treasure trove of hard to find information, most importantly bibliographies that can point you to good sources. Your local library should have this information, but some of the historical societies are starting to put this kind of research online. There's always one or two people in this kind of community who are experts on the subject, so you might also want to seek them out and read their articles. It even helps to talk to older members of the community to find out what they know, as that can lead you in new directions. Do you know which club was built first, or which has the oldest reputation? That's a great place to start. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the Back-to-backs are the oldest and they're landmarks. Then the Fox bar i believe is the oldest building at 111 years (although only became a club recently), while the Nightingale is the oldest club at 40 years. I'll do some digging Viriditas. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Before I forget, it would be great if you could upload an OpenStreetMap of the area. I might be able to help with that if you need it. I couldn't find anything over at Maps of Birmingham. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I can make an up to date one but struggled with fair use...could that be uploaded if Google Maps was used as the base under fair use? Otherwise i'd have to create a crude one from scratch. There's an out of date one on User:Jenova20/Birmingham Gay Village at the top of the page, it's a hyperlink. Thanks so much! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap is free. Start here: [10] You can even create a "Birmingham Gay Village" map on the site itself. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you've already got it mapped: [11] I didn't see it before. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The out of date one i was using is offline now it appears...Open streetmap could be useful as i have a copy of Midland Zone - pride edition i can combine it with for a full map. I'll take a look in 8-10 hours when i have spare time ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to do this so i'll definitely do it tonight ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Openstreetmap.org is a pain to edit! Still it's done, i'm just labelling it up and then i'll upload. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, that looks good. What do you think about creating a geography section as section 1 (section 0 is the lead) and walking the reader through the area with the map left or right aligned as a thumb. They will be able to see the detail if they want to click on it, and we might be able to crop it even further, don't you think? Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I can email you the map with links and without if you want to show me some variations?

I like your idea of the geography section first, would that leave history as 2 and anything in recent years as 3? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to interfere too much with your creative process because I think you have a better idea of what the article should look like than I do and I have faith you will do a great job. I'm just throwing out these ideas based on similar articles I've worked with in the past. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And your input is much appreciated =] You can get as involved as you like though, 2 heads are better than one after all and you do have experience on similar articles that would help greatly.

Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Were you able to do any research on the history? Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I only finished the map at 00:50AM lol, it took about 3-5 hours to research properly and place everything. I won't get any research done really until monday after this as i have a jam-packed weekend. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Again, good work. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

GA tools

Hi Viriditas. Did you have any luck with Rich about developing a tool to keep track of GA reviews? The question came up again at WT:GAN and I just dropped a note at Scottywongs page, but then though I should have checked with you here first. AIRcorn (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Rich was blocked again at the time so I dropped the ball. He also asked me to discuss categorization with him and I was in the middle of a GA review (still need to finish one), so the answer is no. Would it be best to incorporate it into the current duties of the active GA bot? Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked StatisticianBot (talk · contribs)s owner a while ago, but got no response. Will see what Scotty says fist and if he can't do it will see if Chris can incorporate something similar into GABot. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What about asking User:Shubinator? Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do. I don't want to create too many separate threads so I might just point him to the one I started at Scotty's. Feel free to chime in. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

CBC Massey Lectures 2004 - Ronald Wright - A Short History Of Progress

So good. I think we both love this planet and wish the best for humankind, so I thought you'd like this. I guess that you may have already heard it. Lots of the Masseys are so good, but some make me wonder why the speaker was even picked. Anyway, I can give you links if you can't dig it up.

The other one that comes to mind is Richard D. Wolff Capitalism Hits The Fan. A pretty decent whack in the brain. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful tip. I'll listen to it online. Sounds similar to Jared Diamond's Collapse. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So, hope you're doing well. Me, about to expand some crab stubs I started and repair some "images needing articles" stubs somebody started and left in a bit of a state.

You never replied about the crab pic. If you don't like it, that's ok. If you would like a pic, just say, but only a single word. That way I won't have the fear. :)

Don't know if anyone has closed the American cuisine template mess yet, but I think it's de facto done. New image? I think not. Other regional cuisines? All images should go, I think, per the people who live there and don't do that dish, if you know what I mean.

Thanks again for all the times you've been there for me.

I've grown a thicker skin, I think. I will try hard to ask myself questions about whether or not I'm in the right, and stand by my position. My problem is that I too quickly question my position. Like I said before, I'd be a lousy judge. I see both sides and can't pick.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the best judges acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both positions, so you are well on your way, Judge Anna! Questioning your position is also healthy. When I'm able, I try to argue both sides. I didn't reply about the crab pic because I like them all. There is really nothing wrong with the hibiscus image; it's just a bonsai! It's interesting to hear someone use the "fear" in a sentence with a meaning other than the one William S. Burroughs intended. ;) I hope your ISP situation has improved. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you talk about why you don't like File:Viriditas hibiscus 01.jpg? There are two reasons I like it: 1) Short stature and container. Hibiscus don't really grow in containers like that, so I think of it as a "fantasy" hibiscus which makes it 10x cooler that a normal, drab hibiscus that looks like every other hibiscus. And as I said previously, it looks like a "bonsai" version which is way neat and makes it cooler than cool. 2) The colors. I don't know how you knew this, but during the sunset, if you look at a red hibiscus at a certain angle in Hawaii, you will get a very faint purple splash of color from the center, probably due to the angle of the setting sun. When I saw you had added the purple splash to the center, I thought, how the hell did she know that?? So, this is beyond cool. In fact, it has redefined the word cool. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Well, I took another look. Actually, it's not bad. I guess it kind of grows on you. Okay. Stick with the bonsbiscus. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clunkings

This made me think of doing some sort of humorous page with a horizontal or vertical sequence of photos showing argument, clunking, regret, reconciliation or something. What do you think? I know zillions of little Chinese kids who would be delighted to pose for the photos. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser! There's a quote in the article on Wright's A Short History of Progress that is relevant to this discussion. From the wiki entry:

...philosophy professor Kent Peacock notes that...Wright has "a stronger grasp of the dark side of human nature", like impatience, aggressiveness, and obstinacy.

We can deal with impatience. It took me two years and I got over it. We can deal with aggressiveness. Take a deep breath and count to ten. But how do we, as a species, deal with obstinateness? Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Have I told you that you are super-awesome lately? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but you are the awesome one. Should we go to arbcom and argue about it? :) Check this out. Those are some fantastic quotes. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No! You are the awesome one. Period. Case closed. We're done here! Hahaha. I got that "we're done here" from someone who says it a lot, (someone off-wiki; I mention no names), and I just want to bloody strangle him sometimes.

Nice quotes. In fact, Wright has a few gems of his own, or that he quotes from others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh. He sounds like a police officer or military person. Although I'm not exactly sure, I believe the term was made popular by police procedural television shows and military dramas. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for one of the most impressive copyediting jobs that I've ever seen on Wikipedia; your work has definitely improved the SRI International article! Disavian (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Koch edit

In your recent edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family&diff=503238372&oldid=503227874, you clarified the per-plate cost of the fund-raiser, which I appreciate. However, you also reintroduced the word "philantropists", which is wrong in two ways.

First, they are known primarily for their wealth, not their philanthropy, and this article is focused on how they use their wealth to fund political -- not philanthropic -- activities. Second, "philantropists" isn't a word. As there seems to be a consensus for removing this term (please see the talk page), I'm asking that you revert that one word. Thank you. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's called an edit conflict. I feel dirty from making one edit to the Koch article, so I'll need to take a shower before editing it again. Feel free to change it yourself, but I can't handle touching that article more than once a day as it makes my stomach churn. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought an edit conflict is when two people edit the same article at the same time and one of them has to merge in their changes to what got saved after they started?! Either way, if you didn't want to add that "word", please fix it yourself. I would, but there's a recent history of conflict and I don't want to cause the appearance of an edit war. In contrast, nobody could slight you for reverting part of your own edit. Please? 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I reverted to an older version and added my text to that version by accident. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that totally explains it. Obviously, it was an innocent mistake. Since I'm sure you haven't showered since making it, now's the best time to revert that part. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you did not revert yourself, the article is temporarily frozen with your mistake. Please take care of it in three days. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to wait three days to correct it. Use {{Edit protected}} on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Selena Gomez

The article has mentioned her relationship with Bieber for over a year, and incomplete edit requests with drive-by mentions of him continue to be added on the talk page, usually after an event evening. In the future I will leave a more neutral response for such requests, but as a person whose disability interferes with their typing, the pages of cut-and-paste responses I made for edit requests only takes material from responses left by administrators; in the beginning, I was not savvy enough to be prepared to attribute them, but even from the few personal details I've admitted to, I have no idea which bias you think you've identified. Despite my user name, I was not born in Idaho, not do I live there, although six blood relatives do and I've liked it when I visit. I would be surprised if you could tell me how often/whether I attend church, my relationship status, whether I have children, or my age (I'm young enough to never have voted, and old enough that I've missed opportunities to), although I'll admit to not being a teenager or as enthralled with celebrities as teenagers and young adults often are. Regardless, thanks for the feedback; I've seen more than enough of you in the last year and a half to respect you. Dru of Id (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of creeps

Cattle creep, hog hole, sheep creep. I want to make a commons category. How about Creeps (passageways)? What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, maybe the bluelink above ought to be more general, with a bunch of redirects. Sheep creep gets about 5x more hits than cattle creep. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you're creeping me out! :) I think you would do fine with Category:Sheep creeps on Commons, as there are a lot of images waiting to be categorized. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Then what about all the cattle creep pics? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely two cats, sheep and cattle creeps. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. And now I discover this. Always after. Never before. Dear me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that a problem? The sheep and cattle creep child cats are appropriate to the parent. You'll want them for sorting. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I guess there are enough items to deserve the cats. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Gaijin42's talk page.
Message added 00:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops

I think that is the first time I have done that. I usually leave the refs in because it is easier in case someone wants to just re-word any statements that I have re-moved. I probably just had a brainfart with that one, sorry.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I've been here for a while, but I've only seen that happen a few times. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring

3RR, 2012 Aurora shooting, blah blah blah, DTTR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why I am being warned for 3RR while multiple editors have removed a POV dispute tag from the article against best practice while two discussions about the POV dispute are ongoing? Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you've been the only one replacing it, and you've done it three times so far. It's a bright line, and removing it/moving it to the section is not vandalism, which is the primary exception for 3RR blocks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So, clarify this for me. You're saying that during a proper POV dispute on the article talk page and on the NPOV board (two locations at this time where the dispute is announced) anyone can remove the tag without repercussions? That's strange because the template specifically asks people not to remove the tag until there is consensus that the dispute is over, and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, which has been around for years, specifically recommends against removing the tag. There are at least five users (Martinevans123 (talk · contribs), 213.168.117.36 (talk · contribs), 173.74.10.29 (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs), BritishWatcher (talk · contribs)) who have recognized this dispute in both current and archived discussions. As the discussion shows, it is by no means concluded or finished. Therefore, anyone who repeatedly removes such a tag in a situation where there is an open talk page thread and a NPOV noticeboard thread highlighting the dispute as ongoing, should be disciplined for disruption. I am curious, why instead, I am the one being threatened with discipline? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I implied in my summary and also in my response to you on my Talk page, I believe you are construing a lack of gun control coverage in the article with the idea that the article itself is biased. Unless you can clearly demonstrate how your particular sub-topic is being inaccurately represented *AND* unduly under-represented, the POV tag is the wrong tag for this. Just because gun control is an important issue TO YOU, doesn't mean that it needs to be the focus of this article. In fact, I think a better use of your time might be to create an independent article that focuses entirely on the gun control matter arising from this event, rather than fighting continually for your content to be included in this article. -- Avanu (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. Gun control is not an important issue to me at all, and I don't believe I've ever edited on the topic or mentioned it before. It's a POV dispute because the sources are not being fairly represented in the article, and anything having to do with the federal and state gun laws relevant to the topic as covered by the sources is being removed for no reason. You seem to have a poor memory, because I'm not the one who started the POV dispute, your friend User:Technician Fry did at 01:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC). Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Technician Fry, but I have seen you being quite vocal about this issue. "the sources are not being fairly represented in the article", could you explain what you mean by that statement? -- Avanu (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you joking? I've repeatedly pointed to the list of 20+ sources that are not being used. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Having 20 sources doesn't mean that the article WP:UNDUE-ly underrepresents a topic. It just means you have 20 sources. So, what does this mean? --> "the sources are not being fairly represented in the article"-- Avanu (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have discussed this in depth in two separate discussions that are ongoing with links to specific examples and edits that show the kind of material I'm trying to add. Feel free to join either one of those discussions, but it seems to me you are trying to waste my time, time that I'm currently using to compose material and edit articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is somewhat of a technicality, because we don't really even need one; we just need to have material that is verifiable.

Hello Viriditas!

Canoe1967 asked for help on the helpdesk, I reverted Canoe1967's talkpage, collapsed the discussion, and posted a permalink on that talkpage. Is that OK with you? Do we still need the ANI thingy or can I have your permission to close it? Arcandam (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what I was asking to be removed. He keeps adding it back. He is free to remove any discussion on his own talk page, but my concern was that he was moving this discussion to pages without my permission to make a point. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand something, sorry, I did not read the full background. What I see on that page are Canoe's comments, not yours, right? I think Canoe is allowed to post a comment on the talkpage, but Canoe is not allowed to touch your comments. That is why I proposed adding a permalink. That way Canoe would stop editing your comments, but could still refer to something on Canoe's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked that Canoe1967 cease moving my comments from his talk page to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado and anywhere else for that matter. He is welcome to delete them from his talk page. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that part. The part I don't understand is that you've removed these comments on Talk:Gun laws in Colorado which were, as far as I know, made by Canoe1967 and myself, not by you. Arcandam (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, you do realize that Canoe is playing games here, don't you? I don't want the discussion we had moved to that page, and now Canoe is asking you to put a link there? Surely, you must see that he's being disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems like playing games to me, yeah. But that part doesn't really matter, right? Lets deliberately ignore the question if the intention is good or not for a while. I think that Canoe1967 should stop moving your comments around. If Canoe doesn't stop Canoe will be blocked. But I don't think posting a link to a tl;dr discussion on a talkpage that gets almost zero pageviews should bother you. Do you honestly think that it matters? Why? Arcandam (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, it bothers me, because he's gaming the whole point of my report. I asked him not to move my discussion to that talk page, a page I never edited and never planned to edit. His point was that he was trying to get me to FORK my proposed additions to that page, even though he know I opposed it and it wasn't even on the table for negotiation. Therefore, he was being disruptive, pointy, and a PITA. There should be no discussion or link to any discussion on that talk page. He is free, of course, to do what he likes on his own talk page. My understanding of the civility and talk page guidelines is that an editor should never do this. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If I have concerns about a behaviour pattern of a specific user (e.g. editwarring, insulting people) and I open a RfC/U I would really like it if that person repeats that same exact behaviour while the RfC/U is open, because it proves my point. Arcandam (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from moving comments around. The issue is appearing in dispute forums all over WMF the same as the 'ethno-taggers' and 'tabloid pushers' etc. When it carried to on my talk page thought I could move it to the proper discussion page citing WMF policy on all text being free licensed. The arguments on both sides I thought were valid on the only two pages that many feel they should be on. If an article has a gun issue then it should be discussed on a gun law page or a gun debate page not in the articles about incidents with guns. If the debate on guns is spread through every article that mentions a gun and every dispute board that can be found then that does not help the project. It just forks the debate on how much we should include in all of these articles. In other words it should be in the proper forum. I hope this makes sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

@Canoe1967: Like I said on WP:ANI: the best thing right now would be for you to simply drop it, ignore and avoid Viriditas, and move on to something more important. Trust me. Arcandam (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all if they will stop pestering my talk page with yet another dispute tag since this last one. I am trying to keep an article under control while other editors are trying to help with good faith edits. Some editors insist on pushing their WP:POINT which is not helping others that are trying to follow consensus, guidelines, and policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I answered here. Arcandam (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)