User talk:Viriditas/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Help requested

Thanks for your warm welcome Viriditas. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, although I've enjoyed the articles for years. I was wondering if you could help me on a couple fronts. 1.) I'd like to update Transcendent Man which I believe you are monitoring. The film has received a great deal of press and attention that is not listed as of yet and I'd like to see if it can be added. I just want to make sure I don't mess something up or get someone upset about a change I make. #2.) I'd like to start a new page for the director of the film Barry Ptolemy. He has been on Charlie Rose and been interviewed a lot lately and should have his own page I feel. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks! Alexanderxerxes (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and respond on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I've read and watched several interviews. Over a dozen, plus I've read about another dozen articles from newspapers and magazines. Basically, I've learned about Ptolemey's motivation for making Transcendent Man (reading Kurtzweil's book The Singularity is Near) which he calls one of the most profound books ever written. He claims he had many of these ideas since he was a teenager (which I have seen him state at the Palace of Fine Arts in SF in April of this year). His big influencers: Stanley Kubrick, Orson Wells and John Ford. The fact that he worked with Steven Spielberg on the set of E.T. is pretty well documented (he wrangled some of the animals when he was only 12 years old and working with Spielberg inspired him to make films). He attended U.S.C. film school in 19990 and then started a production company where he produced TV commercials and TV show pilots while he searched for his "special project". He is quoted as saying "he had no idea it would take him 15 years from film school to find the project that would make him risk it all." In 2006 he read Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near and that was the inspiration for Transcendant Man. Starting in February of 2007 he and his wife Felicia Ptolemy followed Kurzweil around the world as he made his predictions on the future of technology. In 2009 the film premiered at the Tribeca Film festival to strong reviews and then premiered at the AFI film festival in L.A. in November. There he is recorded as stating that he and Kurzweil were working on "something together." The film has gone on to favorable reviews and it seems it is becoming a cult film. Kurzweil and Ptolemy have appeared together on CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, Charlie Rose and several magazine and newspaper articles. Kurzweil has recently been on Real Time with Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert promoting it.

Ptolemy has stated on Voice of America that it won't be long until a computer will be able to take his job. Meaning a computer could make a film at the human level. He has called Kurzweil, the Einstein of our time and will become of the most famous and recognizable faces in the world. He stated on a Big Think interview that his natural tendencies to see technology growing exponentially came from his father (no name) who introduced him to computers at an early age and he saw how fast things were progressing. He has stated on an interview for Singularity Hub that since making the film he and Kurzweil have become friends, which seems to be the case in the many pictures I have seen of them on various blogs and sites.

In an interview with High School Rejects Ptolomy was asked what his next project would be and he said he could not openly answer but that it would be a science fiction film.

Okay. How is this as a start? Let me know what other info might be warranted. Thanks! Alexanderxerxes (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I will merge it into your subpage article. I have that article on my watchlist, so from now on, update that page and then leave me a note if you want me to review something. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks

...for re-assessing the Ben Wilson article. Great story, eh? And congrats on your DYK traffic for The Magpie. Well done! Marrante (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I came across "is considered" somewhere in the many WP guidelines (maybe MOS?) as being one of their particular bugaboos, so I typically avoid the phrase. It's just an invitation to someone to come annoy you and frankly, it's not great writing. Better to regroup, tackle the problem up front, restate the idea and avoid the intrusion of someone whose ego is likely to need far more stroking than your own. Marrante (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I really enjoy the Ben Wilson article. I have asked the biography project to reassess it as I gave it a C-Class.[1] You may also want to request a reassessment at the visual arts project talk page. I don't generally assess B-Class articles for projects that I'm not a member of, but if I'm active on the topic I might. As for the word "considered", it is not listed as a weasel word. It was added to an essay on controversial articles (formerly a MOS page) by User:Ravpapa on 9 February 2009.[2] Please note, the intention of Ravpapa's proscription is not to prevent people from using the word, but to remind editors to always attribute sources. This ambiguity in Ravpapa's essay is probably the reason the word does not appear in the current MOS as a word to avoid. Looking at the DYK archives for June alone, the word/phrase has been used in at least nine DYK's, and all of them appear to be acceptable. The core of Amandajm's objection to my DYK is not the use of the word "considered" (which is appropriately used) but to the term "best", which he criticizes as a "soft fact". It would be easier for him/her to accept my DYK if there was an official award ("Best Painting") or unambiguous fact that supported my appellation. In this instance, we only have a class of paintings and collected art criticism. This is because the topic of effets de neige is somewhat obscure and has only received popular attention within the last 20 years. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you re: wrongful convictions

Honestly, it was the strength of his case that won his freedom; justice was way past due for Mr. Caine. Cool Hand Luke 01:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Planetary boundaries.

Thank you for your contributions to Planetary boundaries. 99.190.80.245 (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As myself and others have told you, until you create a single account, you are just going to run into more problems. You are also giving Arthur Rubin more ammunition, which I'm sure was not your intent. Please reconsider the way you are going about things, because it isn't working. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Transcendent Man

• Transcendent Man sure was fascinating, wasn't it?
• I think you need a drawing with some sort of animal instead. Please name an animal if you think so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The film was more fascinating for its look into the mind and motivations of Kurzweil than for his ideas about the singularity. I thought it was a strange coincidence (one that doesn't appear in the film for some reason) that both Kurzweil and physicist Ronald Mallett are motivated by bringing their dead fathers back to life. Kurzweil is attempting to re-engineer his father, while Mallet is trying to travel back in time. I've followed Kurzweil for many years and I admire his work as an inventor and engineer, but I found his comments and observations about biological life forms and death to miss the mark. Instead of trying to cheat death, which will most likely fail, why not truly investigate it? Is there any greater mystery? Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I like the drawings you gave me, but if you are offering, how about one of Xylocopa sonorina? That's an article I worked on and plan on improving. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A bee! Ok. I like bees a lot. I stroke them with my finger and they never sting me. People kill them because they're bugs. Hmpf! I saved a worm on the sidewalk the other day, and everyone thought I was mad,.... except for the worm. He thought it made perfect sense.

Yes. I noticed that too. The past didn't seem to interest him. I think he sees life as merely a medium of transmission for information, ranging from DNA to memory, to be transported through time into the future. The vessel containing his father broke and the contents were lost forever. I don't think he got over that. His focus is all about safeguarding the contents by making a better vessel and by backing up the hard disk to protect a person's precious, accumulated self. Maybe the singularity (an odd term) is really about reuniting and melding with his father for eternity. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you like bees! We spent all that time talking about the fake honey you found, remember? I save insects all the time, too, and most bees aren't dangerous—in fact, the most dangerous animal tends to be...us. I agree with what you said about Kurzweil and the Singularity, however, after watching the film for the third time (I usually do that for every film article I work on here, because you can never get it all from one viewing) I've noticed several problems. For one, this focus on Christianity is a bit strange. There should have been Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, and even Neopagan views, even if for only 10 seconds. Second, the portrayal of the opinion from a biologist as that rooted in religion was a huge mistake and reflects a serious bias. After multiple viewings, this bias becomes glaring, and it appears that William Hurlbut was specifically chosen to push Kurzweil's POV by making it seem that all biologists were practicing Christians who believed in eternal life. This was a huge mistake by the director and doesn't reflect reality or the current research paradigm which is what he should have focused on instead. What this means is that Kurzweil got a free pass on the science that was most needed to properly analyze his concepts. Third, Goertzel (the AI guy) touches on some important points, but the film doesn't properly address them. Fourth, the inclusion of Missler and Shatner was totally unnecessary and added nothing to the film at all. Hugo De Garis comes off as the most thoughtful subject in the film, but his answer as to whether he would risk all of humanity to perform his research was lost in the quick edit. It seems like he said "yes" but it isn't clear. Diamandis had some very strong opinions, but there was no rebuttal from a humanist POV to balance it out. Etc. The editing, montage, cinematography, and music was excellent, but for those who are familiar with the arguments and expected some real mind candy, this film fails, but then again, which popular film can actually deliver such a thing in the first place? That's why the most intellectual and thought-provoking films rely on art, metaphor and symbol, not words. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Now I'm going to watch it again to fully understand what you are saying.

Stupid fake honey men! Did I tell you I saw another seller last year? He was talking to a customer. When I walked by I yelled fake! fake honey! a bunch of times. Ha! That was very embarrassing when I made that article. Stupid fake honey men!

I'm glad you save insects. People forget that when they're hurt, their whole world is about themselves and how they're hurt and how terrible it is. I don't even have sticky paper for the giant sewer roaches, because once a gecko got stuck to one and there was nothing I could do to save him and now I blub every time I think of it. I'm really not a crybaby. It's because geckos are the sweetest animals on earth and he knew he was in terrible trouble.

Nice bee article. You sure do write well. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the article needs improvement. You are welcome to collaborate with me, if you like. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what I can offer, but I'll look. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What about an illustration of the life cycle section, or something similar? BTW, have you ever experimented with creating scientific visualizations? There's a real need for artists like yourself to learn these tools and apply them to encyclopedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I don't know. That sounds like SVG work. My drawings are hardly fit for the mainspace. Although I was quite pleased with the statue height image, even though it was MSPaint handiwork. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I liked that image. Glad it's still being used. :) So what do you think about a diagram of the life cycle section, from egg laying to hatch? Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I really think it would just look like an amateurish cartoon. Those lifecycle pics need Gimp or the like to do arrows and curved lines. Plus, the images would look absurd--certainly, not fit for your article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! :) Have you ever looked at these types of drawings in scientific journal articles? There are two types. On the one hand, you have the careful line drawings that closely resemble the object, but on the other hand, many of these types of drawings are purposefully "cartoonish" and express the same ideas with a freer, looser hand. Should I try to find you some examples to convince you? Otherwise, would you be more comfortable with simply drawing the differences in genitalic morphology between the two species? :) Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at pictures right now to see. But, I really don't think I could pull it off. :) Really, really. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You're probably looking at the same images I'm looking at, which means you know you could pull it off! :) My guess is that you personally feel constrained by MSPaint, and I can understand that, but I think it is workable, especially based on your previous work. Out of curiosity, did you or did you not say you were playing around with Inkscape? What if I came up with a rough storyboard idea for you? Would that give you some idea as to whether or not it would be quick and easy to create? There's no pressure on you to do this, and the article is weeks to month(s) away from even being presentable. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Best hold off on the storyboard for the moment because it's not really pulloffable with MSPaint. I'm learning Gimp, not Inkscape, but haven't had much patience for it since starting a long argument with some flash animation software. It just won't listen and the objects keep floating out of frame. If it doesn't start working soon, I'm going to submerge my whole computer in quicklime. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold off? Me? Who are you kidding?  :) There's no pressure on you to do this, and the article is weeks to month(s) away from even being presentable. The first storyboard idea I had for an image, involves content I haven't added yet (you can read about it at the top of the discussion page in the to-do list under the "expand" section). Basically, I want a little image showing a tree being logged in the forest in the Pacific Northwest, then a zoom of the bee's tunneled chamber in the log itself showing the nesting galleries, then an image showing the wood being shipped to Hawaii. That's how the bees allegedly arrived in the Pacific. This could standalone or lead into another image zooming out showing the life cycle in the tropics, where the weather allows them to lay eggs all year around, with another image showing cooler weather and less egg laying. Yet another small image could elaborate on how nectar robbery works, with a zoom on that as well. Another image could show the arrival of the blister beetle that failed to kill them, and then the use of the bee in tropical agriculture. There might be another panel showing frustrated homeowners trying to eradicate them because of the holes they make in wood. There could conceivably be a split panel on that one showing a guy saying "no need to kill them, here's how you deal with them" but I would have to do research on that first. Finally, a zoom out could show a map of the bees moving from Hawaii to the Pacific Islands listed in the article, then Japan and China. All of these images could conceivably be part of one graphic. Of course, I have explanatory text for each image so it would work better as a vertical comic strip panel or maybe as a circular graphic in the form of a tunneled chamber they create, with a carpenter bee diagram in the middle. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Those images sound hard to do in MSPaint. I can't even get animals' back legs right. :) I hope "hold off" doesn't have any bad meaning in Hawaii. To me, it only means "don't do a thing until a condition is met", nothing more. I think the images you want would be best done with magic markers and a scanner. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. How about this: Maybe I could practice with one image. Maybe not despoil your lovely article, but some other, very simple image, of the type you've described, for another article. Something where a cartoonish image would be appropriate. If you give me an url, I will draw it. I hope you can understand my fear in making something absurd. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna, that's a great idea, but I was just throwing this idea out there for us to think about. Nothing needs to be done just yet. Of course, if you are inspired to create something, don't let anything or anyone get in the way! :) Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Request for Arbitration Notification

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Proud Serbian Chetnik

The lack of edits at this time from the user suggest to me that he is offline. I'll leave it to you but I don't believe you can blank people's user pages. I'm sure if two are seen engaging in an edit war with one person consantly blanking the other's user page then the onus is on the outsider. If I were you, I'd report it rather than blank it. By doing the former, you have a chance to cite any offensive or polemic material but by doing the latter, you're taking the law into your own hands. Your choice Viriditas, no bad faith sentiment from me on this one. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the guideline. It specifically calls for blanking. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you follow! I'm not personally reporting you nor am I engaging in an edit war. It would be folly for me to intervene where it is none of my business. Your first edit appeared unconstructive but now you cite protocols, you have a fair point. It's not something I would have personally done though. I'm sure not every part of it was offensive and I can't sit and assess which bits are fit for purpose and which need to be removed. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy pasting technical info

Hellooooo. What's the skinny on copy pasting technical info? I would love to copy paste the bulk of this into RV Zeeleeuw. It would be impossible to rewrite. Could I reorganize it? Would that avoid copyvio problems?

By the way, I read what you wrote above about the folly of butting in. I thought we were supposed to when we encounter something objectionable or contrary to guidelines. N'est pas? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Technical info—that's an interesting question. Have you read the infobox template info? I would contact the ship project just to be sure. I think if you copied the most important data over, it would be fine. I've actually got a print copy of a standard ship infobox from a book about ships, but I won't be able to review it until tomorrow as it is buried under a pile of books on my desk. I was going to use it on Hokulea but never got around to it....

Yes, I read the template. I'm out of my depth with most of that. Besides, that juicy info on the site won't all fit. I will ask at project ships. Good plan.

Now, if I can only figure out how to make the Zeeleeuw italics and the RV not.

Re: Folly of butting in. User:Evlekis wrote that, not me. Obviously. :-) Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

By golly, you're right. I must be going batty. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to end the episode, thanks Viriditas for pointing out the section and I did indeed contribute to it. I have no need to raise an issue about your page-blanking if you maintain that what you did was above board. I doubt there will be any more commentary there before the user in question logs back in; he probably won't be blocked, topic-banned on Balkans but that's all. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In view of recent events, and with apologies to all, Anna's "batty" comment above has just made me laugh out loud. Perhaps she is aware of its street slang meaning in the UK (popularised, I think, by Sacha Baron Cohen. But perhaps not. I suspect the former ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

On my! I was not aware. I just looked it up. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proud Serbian Chetnik (again)

It may be in your interest following the feud between the two of you to know that it was all in vein. You took offence of a photograph of Milošević and yet this user hated him more than you did. By presenting himself as a "supporter of the ideology", he picked his moment to reverse his editing from pro- to anti-Serb only to be caught out as blatant sockpuppet of another blocked user User:Sinbad Barron. This draws a line to yesterday's ugly episode which I hope doesn't come back...but it probably will. This user frequently returns with new names but WhiteWriter or I normally spot him. I was slow on the uptake this time.

It may be irrelevant now but having assumed the user to be genuine, I still say blanking was both abrupt and inconsiderate. You can achieve better results if you remove the small pieces of material which are deemed offensive. Better still, perhaps you should in future invite the user himself to water down or remove material that may be offensive. I have in the past been asked to take things off my page and I have complied and this with no block threats. Your reasoning (not clear yesterday), "mass murderer" will not have washed because if I wish to display a picture of him on my page, I shall do so and nobody will stop me. A mass murderer is one with blood on his own hands (eg. Harold Shipman). You could just as easily say that any world leader whose security forces have presided over one single death can be deemed a murderer. Some disagree but try explaining this to the family of the victim. With politics, the situation is that you engage in combat against an antagonist but whilst terrorising one population, you appease another. I'm not an apologist for war, I'm merely explaining the scientific terms of conflict which are necessary to exist before two rival leaders can exchange gunfire through their armies which then leads to civilian casualties on all sides. I'm a subject of the affected part of the world here but what I say applies everywhere and to everybody. This is the reason none of us should interfere on user pages where users advertise their politics (albeit falsely here). I know several examples where this is the case and the users edit freely with no disturbances. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I recognize your cultural difference but that's not the American way. To quote Bill Clinton, who in turn was quoting Carroll Quigley: "...our people had always believed in two things–that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so." Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

How true. Use the military strength one has and balance the transfer of evil from one malice to another, and see that the same atrocities are committed by one's forces in the process of doing so. In two centuries of US intervention preceded by millennia of other powers asserting their influence, not one region of the world is or ever became for a short time "better" than it had been previously. This isn't my cultural view, it's a fact! Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You know little about history. The most significant changes in history have not involved military force. Get back to the books, my friend, your knowledge of history is very, very poor, indeed. When you are not busy defending sock puppets, take some time to read and understand soft power. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need help with the English language. I suggest you use your native Wikipedia or return to school if English is your language. I have never defended sockpuppets and least of all this one who for me is the most notorious I have encountered. Concerning my knowledge of history being poor, I guess you can look at it two ways. Is there somebody with extremely great historical knowledge? Are we all not ignorant? Can even the most revered historian to have written about 15th century India be expected to have the same knowledge of South America in the 3rd century? Every region, every story. I have significant knowledge of the events affecting the Balkans and Central Europe over the past 150 years. I don't claim is is as good as other people and I know there is to be great gaps in this knowledge, but I contend my knowledge of this region is superior to many people's knowledge of their own land present or past. Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your defense of a sock puppet is noted. Best practice is to blank and remove disruptive user pages that have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. I acknowledge and respect the fact that you disagree. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'll leave it at that. (Add this to the archive if you wish to remove it, I won't edit your archives). Take care. Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all Viriditas. In fact I am not even disagreeing with you. Regarding mine, I modify it from time to time and those closer to me realise much of the content is tongue-in-cheek. Every so often I'll be asked to remove or amend potentially offensive material and when this happens, I see no reason not to comply. Only when you first blanked the sockpuppet's page did I revert you and only because I suspected unconstructive behaviour. Upon restoring your edit, I never returned to the issue. With that I'll say again, how you handle things is your choice. Nobody owns user pages, correct, I was only suggesting a more cordial approach in your own interest as a constructive editor. Now that can't be in bad faith on my part I hope you agree! Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I shall end the discussion with what I hope you will believe to be the fairest comment. Now that the matter with the user in question is closed, you and I may edit for years to come and not cross paths. Now should I spot a user making edits on another user page, I'll follow procedure via the channel you recommended and report the matter. I hope this is all right with you. Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology from your summary accepted. What don't you "believe a word of"? Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Given your propensity for fiction, am I wrong to doubt you? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Propensity for fiction". Sorry have I missed something here? Are we discussing a parody user page or serious edits? Or is it one and the same to you? Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question, isn't it? Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Each time I make an edit, just revert me and cite my user page as the purpose! After all, I don't own it and you are free to edit! Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand you are gifted in comedy. Considering that comedy is rooted in tragedy, that's understandable. But tell me, what is funny about saying you are the "permanent secretary to Justice Minister in Zanu PF", a government led by a man who claims to be the "Hitler of the time"? Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a free world and Mr. Mugabe can say what he likes. I have a better suggestion, if you don't like my user page, don't read it. Evlekis (Евлекис) 09:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't like it. I said, I found you had a gift for humor, but I didn't get the joke about the Zanu PF. And really, it is not a free world. Men (and women) are enslaved by their own minds, and are prisoners of their own ideas. Imprisoning thoughts like nationalism, ethnic hatred, greed, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes true. I'll try to explain. The idea behind the unseriousness was that the infobox was real, and I pasted it from somewhere; I then amended the captions to partly personalise it and partly fictionalise it in the hope it looks "absurd" because - you may find this hard to believe - I am not hugely political. Asides my own views, I don't believe in any politician. As it happens, I don't vote. No matter in which country I live, who the candidates are, I don't have faith in those people and I won't vote. So I just mock them from top to bottom! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) 09:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, whether we like it or not, everything we do is political, from choosing a product to purchase, to paying our bills, to interacting with our fellow human beings. Politics is, essentially, the art of getting people to do something they would not normally do, but this can take many forms. Bartering in the marketplace (getting a price you want) is one form, while convincing your partner to see an action film rather than a chick flick is another. Politics is also a form of representation, either at the local level or on a larger scale. Regardless of whether you vote or not, you will be impacted by politics on every level. Whenever you talk to your friends, or join a group of like-minded people for discussion, you are engaging in politics. You can't really get away from it. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

BINGO. That is the message I impart to people in everyday life who think I live by politics! I tell them "I don't support any party/leader" but we ALL have political views, otherwise we'd be vegetables. I agree 101%. Evlekis (Евлекис) 09:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with politics in the West is that it has not yet made the transition to evidence-based policy practice. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'd gone off line. For all their efforts, no they haven't made that transition. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Thanks for fixing my edit's technical problem, and restoring my message. This is only the second time it has happened, and I don't know why. Hope it doesn't make a habit of it. Thanks again, Postpostmod (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving Barry Ptolemy

I got some kind of message that suggested I could not move the page in the manner I did. If you have a moment could please help me move the working page to Barry Ptolemy. Thanks! Alexanderxerxes (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it. Please try to add the links as citations using the <ref>...</ref> style. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

ISS and 1999 LE₃₁

Still too cloudy to see ISS. Check out the interactive external link in my new asteroid stub. It's very nice. You really get a feeling for where it is. Play with all the buttons, including the sliders. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work, Anna. I've often thought that Wikipedia would benefit greatly from having interactive graphics embedded in the body of the article. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it sure would. Related: I've been trying to figure out how to convert video formats to ogg, to add to articles. It would be good for certain things, like tofu production. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you started with Commons:Media_help and Help:Converting_video, or are you past that point? Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. I'm so stupid. I looked at tons of shareware and freeware sites, but never thought of looking there. at the converting page you gave, I found [3] nad [4]. I will try it.

Now, what sorts of videos would be useful? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your big-hearted support at the RfC/U and for reminding people that Wikipedia, at its best, is a place where people coöperate to produce fair and well-balanced articles. You made yourself a target by sticking up for me, and rose to the ensuing incivility with great panache, a delightful sense of humor, and an attitude that can only be described as classy. DracoE 15:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(That’s a legitimate pair of röck döts there!) :-)

Aloha

This started when you wrote on my talk page but it has been so long, I thought I should respond here. Almost a year ago you said you had found some of my articles and wanted to know if I was interested in upgrading any of them. I was grateful then and I apologize now for never answering. I have not been doing any Wikipedia work in this interval. I am busy rewriting an entry that I expect to submit shortly, which was a personal obligation I took on before going into hibernation, and am just now able to fulfill it. I am not able to say whether I will return to writing here after that. I am also questioning whether Hawaii is really what I should be focusing on, should I initiate any more efforts. Your note was most appreciated, however, as I have enormous respect for the contributions you have made. If I feel I can continue along the lines of my prior work, I will seek your thoughts. Thank you for your support. Alawa (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Reward(s) are here...

CHAK 001 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

		The Special Barnstar
		You have always kept me in check and have worked well with other editors. Therefore, not only that you have earned a good cookie, but you also earn more than a cookie. This barnstar shall be awarded to you. Though we may disagree with certain subjects, this is a great achievement for a great person doing their job! CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 07:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy.

Thank you for your contributions to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy ... The Atlantic (dated 15.Dec.2010) and Politico (newspaper) (dated 10.Dec.2009) were helpful. (",) 99.112.214.186 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Unreviewed

Viriditas, you can review one of my articles here, since so far, there are no user reviews.

Meanwhile, I was about to say to User:Ged UK that I was going to continue my "normal" article edits. However, you should note what I am talking to is an administrator, and he wants me to calm down a bit. You continuously wanted me to "find an article that interests you, do the research and write about it". I can continue doing whatever you wish, but the comments that you made with that quote on my talk page (based on past discussions) does offend me personally with repeated messages, so please, let me take myself some time to calm down a little bit and rest before I continue editing more articles. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Herb Kane

Aloha, I posted an enlargement of the entry for Herb Kane. Can you tell me if it is appropriate to remove the stub assessment? I'd appreciate any feedback on this piece should you have an interest. Thank you. Alawa (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily reassessed as base C-Class. I'll need more time to look at it for B-Class. Please consider expanding the lead and making sure everything is sourced, and then submit it to GAN. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:David Allan Bromley.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:David Allan Bromley.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Smile for the day

This isn't the U.S. Congress. We don't hold Wikipedia articles hostage to minority POV. Good one. :) Yopienso (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, don't tell me summer is already over for you? :) :) Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gold Dragon again

I'm not sure if you're still interested in this or not, but I thought I would let you know anyways, and you could just delete this if you're not. Ok, I know the last time I mentioned Gold Dragon's new sock puppet, there wasn't much to go on, but now, he's up to his old tricks again. The contribution list[5] shows that he has been edit warring in a number of articles, and just tonight has now attempted to re-insert an edit in which Gold Dragon was involved in an edit war. Compare the edits. Demon Hill[6], Gold Dragon[7], and even Max Force (another of his sockpuppet)[8].

Can anything actually be done about this? He just keeps creating new accounts everytime he gets blocked, and goes back to editing the same articles, making the same obvious edits, there just seems no end to this. Is it even worth looking into to? If he was to get blocked today, by next week, he'll have a new account and were back into the same problems again. Cmr08 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Whac-A-Mole. First things first: have you created a subpage in your user space that we can use as a watchlist, listing all of the key targeted articles? Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean by creating a subpage in my user space to use as a watchlist. That's not something that I have ever done before. The reason I mentioned this was because you were involved in the original block for Gold Dragon, I wasn't trying to be a mole. I appologize if that's the way it appears. Cmr08 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty straightforward, so I don't know where the confusion arises. Let me start again. Whac-A-Mole. This is the term or expression for the unfortunate strategy of trying to revert/block a sock puppet who changes accounts like a pair of clothes. You've never heard the term before? (see Whac-A-Mole#Colloquial_usage) As for the watchlist, if you create a subpage in your user space with a list of links to the most common articles edited by the user, you can share this watchlist with other users (like myself) who can help monitor that subset of pages for problems. Furthermore, creating this watchlist will allow me (or you or others) to use it as evidence for further administrative attention, i.e. for determining which pages might require protection and/or which accounts might need a range block or some other solution (per WP:BEANS it's best not to talk about the specifics, because the sock will try to game it). Is this making sense? We need to put forward a good case for long-term abuse, beginning with a list of articles (and accounts). Then, we need to talk about why the edits are problematic. Finally, we can submit a new sock report and ask for a longer-term solution involving some or all of the above. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, the whack-a-mole thing went right over my head. I actually thought you were insulting me, its been a long day. Most of the work that I do here is just touchups, reverting vandalism etc, I never really got into the types of edits with the user page stuff you mentioned. I will take a look at this when I get home from work, and see if I can figure this all out. Once again, I appologize for the mixup here, and I thank you for your help. Cmr08 (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping it real

	A Rainbow to Follow You Home
	Alawa (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Water on Mars

Thanks for your message. I too would like to see the Water on Mars article cleaned up. I even thought about taking it on, but the task seemed so daunting. I'm happy to offer you any support or advice needed.

As for the Age of Mars section, I think it's been modified since I left my comment. I don't remember the original reason for recommending deletion. However, the timeline currently shown is outdated. See my articles Geology of Mars (still in progress), Noachian, or Hesperian (still in progress) for the most current timeline. Also, I would not title the section "Age of Mars." The age is about 4.5 billion years (same as the other planets). I'd call it "Geologic History" or "Martian Geologic Timescale."

I'm not sure how the section should fit with the rest of the revised article as you envision it. However, the important points to note viz. water on Mars is that the Pre-Noachian and Early Noachian are thought to be characterized by abundant surface water that produced stream valleys and lakes. This surface water gradually disappeared as the atmosphere thinned and the planet cooled. Most of the water became locked up in ice at the surface and as permafrost in the subsurface. By Late Hesperian time a thick cryosphere had formed that lay on top of a zone saturated with liquid water. Ocassionally, the cryoshere was fractured by impact or tectonic processes that released immense quantities of the deep groundwater to the surface and formed outflow channels. The subsequent Amazonian period is characterized by ice-related processes, with only a minimal role for liquid water.

Hope this helps and best of luck. Tom Schaffman (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Would it be OK to move the timeline to a template, so that all the Mars-related geology pages can point to the same timeline, making updates easier? Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. The only caveat I would add is that the dates are approximate, particularly for the Hesperian/Amazonian boundary, which is uncertain by a factor of about 2. The Hesperian/Amazonian boundary could be as old as 3.2 and as young as 2.0 billion years (Hartmann, 2005). Schaffman (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusation

Someone randomly accused my IP of being a sockpuppet a while back, I never got why. If you check my edit history I wasn't even actively editing on my account when I was accused of being a sockpuppet, nor was I even editing on a page that (so far as I know) that the user who accused me of being a sockpuppet was editing on). In fact it appears the only edits that IP ever made was to accuse my IP of being a sockpuppet: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.14.53.128

I used to edit under my ip 174.114.87.236, but once I ran into a bunch of semi-protected pages that I was interested in I had to use the account I had made originally and I've decided to stick with it. This IP: 74.110.153.144 is from before I moved a couple of doors down, those sound like pages I remember looking at when I first found Wikipedia but they're all from 4/5 year ago. I'm not sure that this is me: 70.26.114.235, a couple of the pages look familiar but most don't, and I'm fairly sure my IP isn't dynamic as its been the same ever since I moved (see the statement on the 174. page). Either way, I don't think a sockpuppet accusation is founded, like I say one of these hasn't edited in 5 years, the other which may/may not be me appears only to have made minor edits, and neither IP has posted on any of the pages I am active on now. The recent edits by 174. are because I forgot to login (bad habit), and I've continued to use that IP on the 2011 libyan civil war talk page so as not to cause confusion or the appearance of sockpuppetry by showing up with another account. Lastly, and most importantly, I have never voted on an RM or contributed to any talk pages or articles with more than one account and pretended to be two different people.

I've posted this on my talk page as well as yours so that if this ever comes up again people can see it was resolved. Vietminh (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read the comments you posted on User:Paul Erik's talk page. I am unsure of why you are contemplating accusing me of being a sockpuppet at this time, the only editing connection I can find between me and you is that we have both posted on the Climate Research Unit email controversy talk page, and that we seem to be on opposite sides of the RM. This is even more confusing because I never posted on that page with my IP address, so the only way you could draw a connection between them would have been to scan all of my editing history. I am unsure whether or not it is your standard procedure to investigate the editing history of people who oppose your point of view, but before you proceed any further with the accusation you have made I suggest you make yourself aware of the Wikipedia policy's on harassment located here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment. If your intent is to intimidate me out of offering my opinion on that talk page then you will not succeed, in addition to the fact that said behaviour is harassment through and through. If this is not your intent I would like an explanation of why you have chosen to accuse me of sock puppetry at this time because it appears to have no logical connection to anything other than the fact that we disagreed on a talk page about a topic.

Lastly, I would suggest that in the future you go to more strenuous lengths of investigation before you make an accusation. I have openly declared my switch from an IP to an account on my user page, and I have ceased all activity on my IP (except for the occasion where I forgot to login, but I am hardly the first person to do that, but again that didn`t even occur on the page you and I were both editing on). Also given that the person who accused me of being a sockpuppet is an IP who`s only edit ever was to make that accusation I am again confused as to why you would assume that was a valid accusation to begin with (if I were a sockpuppet for an account that was so flagrant in sockpuppetry would a further investigation not have been conducted at that time?), I can only assume you didn`t check this before you made the accusation you did. Also I do not see how I can be reasonably expected to declare that IP addresses are dynamic in nature, I do not think that edits I did 5 years ago under an IP I no longer have control over are really important, especially when those edits have nothing to do with any of the pages my user account is active on now. Vietminh (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Vietminh has started a section about you at WP:ANI. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brownie Mary

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jay Bahadur

Nice spike. It might have been the Daily Show appearance. I emailed him for an image, and the next day he added one. I was so pleased. Thanks for the input, by the way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you could lead the main page DYK with the image and a hook I've got in mind! :) Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'm dying to hear the hook. Trouble is, it only seems to be 600 chrs. (Edit counter is down at the moment, so I guessed.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I just added two refs to the education in the infobox that have some background info. Are you interested in expanding it? Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've got you started. Can you take it from here? Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'm digging. Not finding much. Will keep digging. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm giving up. I just can't find anything else. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You're giving up? What did you do with the real Anna Frodesiak? :) :) Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Me? Giving up? Oh, sorry, my dog was chewing my keyboard and must have typed that. Unlikely, yes, but he was chewing at the improbability drive moments earlier, so who knows?

I'm seeing 1,800 chrs. Plenty. Do you get the same chr count? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The page size and DYK scripts give a result of 1574 characters "readable prose size". The new reference I added to further reading (Houreld, 2011) has a bunch of stuff we can add. Care to look at it? Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be adding a bunch of refs in the next 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So what's the hook? Pray tell. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've got several in mind. But I'm about to go offline. Maybe you can come up with one? :) Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll work on it. Thank you so much for the work on the article. I really got lucky meeting you when I first started. You're what's good about Wikipedia. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the lead should be rewritten as it sounds too much like his press packet that appears on various sites. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm back. Thanks again. The hook sounds great. Short and sweet.

I'll look at the lead, although if I tamper with it, it will likely become worse. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

I didn't want to say unless it was just temporary, but my ISP now allows Wikipedia images and graphics. As of August 2, 2011 at 16:20 the globe at the top left is back, all the little icons, and pictures!!! Just though you might like to know. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Was it like a Wizard-of-Oz-monochrome-to-color moment? ;) Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes! It was. It was thrilling, actually. Like Christmas.

That reminds me. A kid once said, upon seeing old black and white photos: "When was colour invented?" She obviously thought the world was black and white in those days. This same kid once had a bunch of keys, selected one, and tried to open the front door as we waited with our hands full of groceries. The key wouldn't fit. She yelled, "Hey! Somebody changed the lock!" Yep. Honey, you have the wrong key. Kids are awesome. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 00:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth... is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist

Almost the exact same wording from the Earth article is used in the Solar System entry on Earth. Anyways have posted a message to the talk page over there if you were interested in a similar change to that article. SkyMachine (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. I'm still ruminating over the wording. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, the fundamental problem, as I see it, seems to be that there has been a paradigm shift in the astronomy literature in the last 15 years, to the point where we should look at the most recent sources for guidance. It is true that the Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist, but this statement implies that we have looked elsewhere. The problem is that we really haven't, since Earthlike exoplanets are at the limits of our detection technology. So, the statement is inherently misleading. We haven't looked elsewhere because we can't currently detect Earthlike exoplanets. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I just listened to William Borucki (Kepler PI) compare the process of finding planets with Kepler to the first generation of cathedral builders. That's interesting, as I have never heard it described that way. He's right of course, but increased funding would greatly speed the process along. All they are doing right now is focusing on frequency and distribution. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes this kind of exploration is an ongoing work in progress, and progress is never as fast as we would like it to be. For now I guess I will argue for framing these types of claims in relationship to the actual body of knowledge we have as many people seem to have problems with acknowledging the uncertainties involved. SkyMachine (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jay Bahadur

rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It made the top of the list with image!! Thanks so much. I guess you've figured out by now that polishing is not my long suit. It's definitely yours.

I emailed the subject an html of the main page. I think he will be happy. Thanks again for everything. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help, Anna. If you must know, the real reason I stepped in was because I saw the clock ticking on your new article and I wasn't sure if you were going to submit it. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a fault I have. When there's no deadline, I'm fine. As soon as a clock starts ticking, I freak out and stop moving. Strange. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a good way to conquer your fear :) :) Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!"

Nice. Way to make your friend go into shock. What do you do with your friends who have agoraphobia? Send them on a spacewalk? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Aaanayoottu.jpg

"Agora-what?"

They were docile........until someone dropped a bag of peanuts in the middle. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick, someone contact an admin! Gary Larson has hijacked Anna's account! Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop with vandalizing my talk page

Dude, stop with vandalizing, threatening behavior and what you call recommendations on my user page! I suggest you keep that here or elsewhere but not at my talk page, thank you for cooperating. Gise-354x (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you, Viriditas, for having faith in me. It is not misplaced, and your moral support is encouraging. I'm grateful. Yopienso (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A treat to share

The support of several fellow editors during my recent episode was gratifying and humbling; thanks to each for your confidence. Yopienso (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Face of Canada

I think the user is working on it and an edit conflict my upset her. Maybe give her a minute.

By the way, are you laying low on IRC? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with it. I was more interested in getting rid of the sig and creating the category. No, I'm not on IRC. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, by the way. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am getting dumber

Is it just me, or is the whole ambassador procedure getting confusing and complicated? I can't even figure out where to add my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:United States Education Program/MOU/sign. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. That confirms it. I am getting dumber. I saw that page, but stupidly thought it was where student sign up because I didn't read it carefully and didn't recognize names. If I get any dumber, I will become the first person in history to have negative IQ. But on the upside, that would get me on Oprah. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It has become much more complicated and bureaucratic, so it's not you. Think of it this way: if you can't figure out where to sign your name, you can be certain that's true for many more people. You're the canary of Wikipedia! :) Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It seems strange now. First, they ask you to "sign", which feels soooo committal, even though I'm committed. Then, students are supposed to pick you, but what if they're in a course that's not in the "pod" you've joined? A pod??? Like from the Body Snatchers? Also, they want monthly reports to different parties. A monthly report? That sounds awfully bureaucratic. Like something that costs more than it benefits, and won't really get read anyhow.

I don't know what to do. I might drop out. Maybe I could just be a freelance ambassador. :) You know, Like Tuttle, or was it Buttle? After all, I'm always around, plus I'm on IRC, plus I did it last term, plus I try to be helpful. I wish it were simpler because I'd like to help. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Go with your gut. You know, I agree with everything you've said and more. I wish they would listen to your concerns. Did you contact the program? Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Contact them? Sounds like a can of worms there. I'd rather not make waves unless I thought it'd have a shot at changing things. Sounds like wasted keystrokes. Heck, I don't even know how to drop out? No kidding. :) Also, I don't want them to be mad at me for abandoning the project. I'd like to quietly exit.

Trouble is, I really want to help the students. It was fun last time. No paperwork. Just a blurb to read. If I go rogue on their IRC channel, do you think they'd 27b stroke 6 me? I'm kidding there. They'd freak for sure. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not contact SR by e-mail and share your concerns? Maybe they can create a new position for you. Personally, I think you should be the official artist of Wikipedia, but that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I could email him and ask if I could be an IRC rogue ghost helper. I like the sound of that!

As for the artist thing, yeah, I think I'll start with making a new cartoon version of the globe with a bunny sitting on top, and uploading it as the "newer version"! I could become the first editor to be personally blocked by Jimbo . Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

All I know is, when I first saw your work, the first thing I thought was, how do I get t-shirt with that article image? Your stuff might be lo-fi, but it works, and it is rare that I get the "I want that" feeling. BTW, did you ever get a chance to see Banksy's film? I laughed really hard when I saw it in the theatre. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That really makes me feel good.

Exit through... Ah. I have that in my archives. I will watch it. Did you tell me about that movie? Sorry if you did and I forgot. I usually write down everything.

He has a cool website. Wow. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I just downloaded photos of all Banksy's stuff. Genius. Soooooooooooo good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you like Barry McGee (Twist)? Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about McGee. I like Rod Filbrandt's "Dry Shave", who has a similar style. I really like Robert Crumb, and think the documentary was fantastic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I just stubbed that, by the way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh. If there is one thing a man doesn't like to hear, it's "dry shave". :) Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yuk! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen Don Hertzfeldt's Billy's Balloon or others by him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure! Weren't those included in film trailers a while back? Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What do I know about film trailers? I'm in China. We just have really loud previews. Actually, earplugs are necessary throughout the film. Hertzfeldt: I first saw him at Spike and Mike's Festival of Animation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you told me that before. Is it because they can't get the sound levels right? Why is it so loud? It's interesting how China seriously limits the number of American films that can be shown in theatrical release. Meanwhile, we can buy just about everything China makes here in the states. Doesn't sound fair to me. Can you recommend any good Chinese animators? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I replied on my Talk page to your comment, and let me say, I agree that personalities probably are best left out of this dispute. I was a little miffed by SV's absolute refusal to engage in some side debate on her Talk page, and lack of Talk page feedback in her reverts. Maybe some of the editors are weary of that kind of collaborative engagement, but I feel like its essential for maintaining civility. -- Avanu (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

We're agreed on that point, however, you need to understand the deep irony of the situation. This community is entirely incapable of recognizing and acting on breaches of civility. Don't keep hitting your head against a brick wall. Make an attempt to understand the demographic of your audience and tailor your message accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Drrll's talk page.
Message added 00:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drrll (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Avanu's talk page.
Message added 06:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Surturz (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good article delisting

Per discussion page headers for good articles:

(Article name) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Articles that fail Good article criterion can be delisted, period.

It is superior for articles categorized as Good articles to actually meet the criterion for such.(Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you need to read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an essay, not Wikipedia policy. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Delisting articles that don't meet Good Article criterion

• It's never "disruptive" to delist Good articles that don't actually meet Good article criterion. It is constructive and necessary to maintain appropriate standards.

• Per discussion page headers for good articles: (Article name) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

• Articles that fail Good article criterion can be delisted; it's unnecessary to use GAR when an article fails Good article criterion.

• It is superior and more constructive to improve the articles and then relist them as good articles.

• Essays are not Wikipedia policy.

Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your judgment and decision as to whether it still meets the criteria has been challenged. We don't delist GA articles if they can be easily fixed. You have not attempted to fix anything. You are disruptively delisting articles without trying to fix them. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Spring Temple Buddha

Remember when I added this image? It was around June 10. Page hits seem to have increased at the big statue article. Do you think there's a connection? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's confusing. How did an image that only appears in four articles lead to such an increase? BTW, did you notice that your image is being used in 10 additional, non-English wikis? How cool is that? As you well know, your image has been tagged for PNG or SVG conversion. Do you have any plans? Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the additonal wikis caused the increase.

I actually saved it as png and reupped it. But it's not in use. I didn't swap in the png because it looks the same. (Probably because I just saved it from jpg so it did no good.)

Anyway, I hope the increase is due to the image, because that's an extra 600 hits a day. Like a mini DYK every day. The Motherland Calls article got an increase starting around the same time, so maybe it is the article. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I like the image. I still think it should be in the Statue of liberty article, preferably in the infobox, but obviously there is little room, and for it to appear in the infobox, it would have to be redesigned to appear clear at a smaller resolution. My point is that when I look at a statue article, I want to be able to access statistics and comparisons to other statues. One thing that might work (but has never been done) is to have tabs on the infobox that would pull out to the left. I'm curious if any of the developers have played around with that idea. Keep in mind, the interface here is very primitive and could use a lot of work. Someone like yourself, who has an eye for detail and graphic design, could do a lot on this front. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#Question's talk page. 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the yummy pie

Thanks, and thanks. :)

Zoopro seems to be busy with other things, and hasn't green lighted it. I would love a bit of feedback before posting at the different projects. You can of course be frank. [9]. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you invited members from each of animal sub-projects listed (dogs, insects, etc.) to comment? Have you started a centralized discussion on the talk page? Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No. That's the step I've been waiting to take. I want to be sure [10] says what it should say first. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: is this just an update and revision of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) or will it change other existing guidelines? Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The former. However, during discussion, before the table is added, existing conventions can be nailed down and listed. (Some may be agreed upon, but not listed.)

Also:

• An easy-read display would be good. The guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)), are laid out mostly in sentence form. It takes a bit of time to find what you're looking for, and such a presentation discourages expansion.
• The more comprehensive the better. Cases like Talk:Palawan Peacock-pheasant are not covered.
• The table format encourages expansion.
• The table format makes it easy to see, at a glance, what conventions are used for what animals.
• The table can contain items with no agreed upon convention, indicating exactly that. This is useful too. This can be cited to prevent edit warring. It shows that we are aware of a specific case, and have not arrived at consensus. Again, Talk:Palawan Peacock-pheasant is a good example.

What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Typically, a table presentation is used as a supplemental figure to illustrate prose. I would focus on describing the capitalization guidelines in prose and supplementing the description with a table as an example. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. May I pasted the last bit of this thread (starting with "...Question: is this just an update and revision of...") into the draft talk? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I pasted it here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines#Table vs prose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

DoDo Bird Brain and Einstein's Gift

That was very big of you to offer some love. It's too bad he's leaving because he did good work with inappropriate usernames, and was quite productive in that regard. A few mistakes over new page patrol is no reason to leave. Just err on the side of caution and continue. Easy. The hostility in his edit summaries were objectionable, though. Anyway, I hope he returns to be productive, sans hostility.

I expanded Einstein's Gift, but obviously have no idea what I'm doing. It exists as an article. That's a plus. Thanks again for the assist. You're aces in my book.  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Anna. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for adding to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Faces of Meth

I missed this one. I don't see the word "logo" used in the discussion. Just "non-free image". Should I re-up it as logo on wikipedia using license {{Non-free logo}}? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not a logo. Are we talking about the same image? I think that's the famous Faces of Meth image of drug addicts. It won't have much support for various reasons, so I would just forget about it. Of course, you are welcome to try! :) Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no. Not the people image. I wouldn't want that in the article. I just scanned the discussion. I'm such a dunderhead. I just assumed it was the logo. I can't image how anyone could upload the faces picture.

So, the logo. I know it's text, and there's not much to it, but it represents the project. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are talking about the green on black logo, correct? I saw that it was used on their website and on their promotional DVD, but I don't think it is used elsewhere. Personally, I don't think it rises to the level of a corporate or government logo, because aside from their website and DVD, it really isn't used all that much. If you can show otherwise, I would support an upload. This isn't the first time you've argued in favor of it. Why are you so interested in uploading their logo? :) Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

True. It's not really a logo. I'll drop it. I always think an emblematic image really anchors the article. But in this case, you're right, it's just a bunch of words, and not really a logo. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Vietminh talk

I have replied on my talk page. Vietminh (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Peace pipe

Vietminh (talk) has accepted your invitation to smoke a peace pipe together! Smoking peace pipes promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by offering someone else a peace pipe, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend who just likes to smoke.

---

Spread the peace by adding {{subst:Peace pipe}} to someone's talk page! You can use a parameter to insert the name of the recipient and add your own text to the message with a second. Smoking this wiki-peace pipe does not affect your health.

(See my talk page)

elephants

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/september/african-elephant-hierarchy-091411.html

The study, conducted at a waterhole in Namibia, shows that in years of low rainfall, when resources are scarce, some male elephants band together into a social group with a clearly defined hierarchy, much the way females do. Group members associate in wet years as well, but with fewer individuals and a dominance hierarchy that is not as clearly defined. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry, I got a little overwrought and you didn't deserve that. You've always impressed me with your calm logic and points of view. Apologies. Dreadstar ☥ 09:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

CUCAS

As you've probably seen, I've been keeping an eye on several Chinese educational orgs. CUCAS, an online admissions company purports to be offically sanctioned. Their site requests a form to be filled in then asks for money at the end. I can't find anything showing it's offical anything. Several editors have added the site and been blocked for spamming.

I just checked the sources at CUCAS article itself. None are good. I don't want to appear "on the attack" regarding such companies, but I don't want students to be duped via Wikipedia's info. If the ext links are unacceptable, why should the article stand?

Would it be fair to remove all refs because they are bunk, and the AfD the article? I can't find replacement refs to keep the article standing and don't want to stick {{fact}} everywhere. That defeats WP:V. Please advise. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. I haven't looked myself, but if there is no reliable secondary source coverage, it should be sent to AfD. The worst thing that could happen is that the sources would be found and added, and the article kept. Go with your gut. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I took a look. I found only two sources, although this does appear to be an official notable organization. However, with such a small number of secondary sources discussing it, we might want to think about merging it into a larger article on education in China, particularly one with an emphasis on students studying abroad. In any case, I demoted it to a stub, did a little cleanup, and removed the prod. It still needs inline sources, however. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the modificatons to CUCAS. I agree. I may be emotionally not at arms length on this one. I still don't know for sure whether or not they're official anything. I do know they ask for money after you submit all info, and they don't tell you about the fee until then. That rubs me the wrong way. The sources are not exactly rocks. I will get back to this matter later. Until then, as you can see, I may have my hands full. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I try to get in the habit of following WP:BEFORE. I was able to confirm a brief mention in at least two sources, and it has been cited as an "official" resource in several others. I don't think we have enough material for a full article, so we should think about the proper article to merge and redirect it into, preferably something about foreign students applying to Chinese universities. That's an opinion from the inclusionist POV. Form the deletionist POV, there is only a passing mention in the sources, so it could be nominated for AfD. I won't oppose if you do. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't consider BEFORE. My mistake. I'm glad you prodded it. Maybe those at CUCAS will now spend more time finding references, and less time copy pasting content into the article, and dumping external links everywhere. Say, could you please point me to the source showing it's official? Thanks. And thanks too for the help with the university project. We are hoping that things go smoothly. :) As you can see, per IRC discussion, we swapped in lots of "List of...." articles on China topics. This should reduce deletions, as they are easier to source than pop stars. It was quite fun digging them up with teacher. We were like kids in a candy shop. All these juicy lists with redlinks. Teacher says they have a great library, so historical figures are great for articles. I hope the students like them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't prod it, I put it up for speedy because the new account was warned, ignored the warning, and went right ahead adding advert material. As for the sources supporting CUCAS as an official site, both Marginson 2011 and Kirkpatrick 2011 imply it is official, but I realize that's not good enough. CUCAS itself says it "is the official online portal for international students applying to China's universities" and "was set up with support from China’s Ministry of Education to act as an online liaison between international students and China’s universities." Since it is the only organization that does this in coordination with the government, that's about as official as it gets, I suppose. I've also seen it mentioned in other sources about how to apply to a university in China. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just let a good ol' fashioned AfD run its course? Then, it will have a week or so to find sources, and others can weigh in. I'm not sure a deal about letting the article remain in exchange for no spam is best in light of the fact that neither of us can find enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Objectively, (I hope), I think that Wikipedia should have its cake, and eat it too. By that I mean, no allegedly official external link that charges money after getting your info, and no article that doesn't pass GNG. After all, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are fighting for the article and the links to promote the org and make a buck, and not just to help students. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the speedy for two reasons. First, since I added it, you removed all the promotional material. Second, the author backed down and admitted the material might not be appropriate. Because of this, it was likely that an admin would decline a speedy and recommend an AfD. Therefore, I think you should nominate it. :) I also think there might be a parent article where the stubby content could merge into. Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes good sense. Any outcome from an AfD would be favourable. I will do it. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's University and College Admission System. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)