User talk:Viriditas/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

2012 Aurora shooting

I am not clear on what I did wrong. United States Man (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the template. My concern is with WP:BLPCRIME. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I was just trying to keep the content on the page because there was an edit war going on. The IP kept removing it but I just put the info back until everyone figured everything out. United States Man (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the template I added to our talk page. I think the IP was right for removing it. We need to be very careful with adding this kind of material. The person wasn't charged with any crime. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And just to let you know, HammerFilmFan sent a message to Huntster because he thinks you should not send messages and called you a bit testy. United States Man (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Message received. I'm working on composing a new message for HammerFilmFan right now. I think he'll like it. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I like that too. Lol. United States Man (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll see if I can get better sources.DaltonCastle (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sure you'll find something. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are....

This picture was made without using Photoshop

...much too kind. Arcandam (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Comments_by_a_sock.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Columbine shooting on Aurora shooting article

I've been off Wikipedia for the past few days, since before you left your comment on my Talk page, and I have no idea what state the article is in now, but just to respond to your comment: I simply didn't think that particular statistic merited being mentioned in the lede as one of the most important facts about the Aurora shooting. There aren't a lot of big shooting events in Colorado, so saying it's one of the biggest shooting events in Colorado doesn't seem that significant to me. I thought the statistic about the most victims in any shooting in NATIONAL history would have better justification for being in the lede. But I removed the Colorado stat from the lede in full awareness that it was just my opinion that it didn't belong there, and that I might be reverted; also, I didn't remove it where it was mentioned elsewhere in the office. As I said, I have no idea if the Colorado stat is anywhere in the current version; that was just my rationale for removing it at the time. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we disagree. I work on lead sections all the time, and this kind of statistic always appears in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your idea of having WP:Conservatism work on the radical gay activism article

I am very much not in favor of this. WP:Conservatism is (and, to all appearances, is intended to be) a vote-stacking machine for editors with a conservative affiliation, not simply a project for improving conservatism-related topics. There are some articles it's difficult to prevent them bannering, because they maintain the claim to being an actual WikiProject rather than a resurrection of the conservative notice board and WikiProjects may banner and watch articles within their scope, but this article isn't about conservatism - it's of interest to conservative editors because they might wish to use Wikipedia to push an anti-gay agenda, but asking the alleged wikiproject to banner the article, against wikiproject practice, is just inviting more trouble of the kind we're already having. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that whatever we do, we need to remain optimistic and hopeful about editors from different backgrounds working together to collaborate. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Neogeo diffs

Thanks for finding those. That did change the character of the situation... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

FarenHYPE blanking

Your blanking of FahrenHYPE 9/11 is a violation of WP:BLANK. The guideline states:

If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion.

The guideline provides the following exemptions:

• Libel
• Privacy of BLP
• Copyright vio
• Incorporation into another article

The reason you provided does not qualify as a allowable exemption under the guideline. The rationale you left was "you do not get to maintain and promote unsourced articles." Besides not being an acceptable exemption, I find it highly personal and suggest you stick to improving FahrenHYPE and leave the drama to another "unnamed editor" who is much better at it. [That was humor] Note that the article was previously kept at a deletion discussion and represents a consensus which is still in effect. Obviously you need a new consensus--at AFD--to blank the article. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 04:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Insults are a poor form of humor. The problem is that the humor is subjective, but the insult remains. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, a redirect to a parent topic is not a blanking, nor do I need a consensus to redirect an unsourced article that has packed sources for eight years. I'm afraid you have the burden of proof backwards. It is you who needs to add sources to prevent the redirect. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline defines blanking as "editing a page so as to leave it... without any substantial content." Redirecting certainly falls within that description. You see, once it goes to AFD, a whole bunch of editors will scramble to find sources. Why should I have to find sources all by myself? This is supposed to be a collaboration. In any event, if you have a policy which supercedes or negates WP:BLANK lemme know.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, the page wasn't "left" without substantial content—it was turned into a redirect. This is the third time you've claimed that a redirect is a "page blanking". It wasn't and it isn't, and it sounds like you need to read up on redirects. Appealing to a deletion discussion from eight years ago isn't helpful. There are no sources, and the burden is on the editor wishing to keep content not on an editor redirecting an unsourced aricle to a parent topic after remaining unsourced for eight years. If this isn't making sense, feel free to escalate this to the appropriate noticeboard, but please don't continue to make silly claims on this page. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI a link to a policy--any policy--would make this go away fast.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, I'm not trying to make anything go away, and while appealing to a rule might work in some situations, I find it helpful to use our minds instead. Tell me, Lionel, what is the difference between page blanking and redirecting? Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BLANK: "editing a page so as to leave it completely blank or without any substantial content"
• WP:REDIRECT: "a redirect is a page which has no content ..."

I hope you aren't going to suggest that a "blank" page is different than a page with "no content." – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 11:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• You stopped one word short. A redirect has no content itself. That's not the same as having no content. The intent of WP:BLANK is to prevent articles from being useless blank pages and ensuring that any article that a reader arrives at has meaningful information; if they are redirected to a relevant article then this goal is fulfilled. WP:BLANK is a guideline that should be used with common sense; guidelines aren't meant to be taken as a literal word-for-word law that must be followed to the letter. This is especially true when the redirected page in question is completely without sources. WP:V is a policy, and as the entire page has no sources of any kind, and therefore no content that can be retained in keeping with WP:V, this core policy supersedes the guideline you're referring to. - SudoGhost 12:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Informing you

This message is to inform you that you came up in a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#News. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Nomination for Traditional healers of South Africa

Hi thanks for looking into the article. I have done what I can, however, even if it is still far off being a GA, feedback on what else could be done to improve it would help signficantly. A user Lemurbaby (talk) was going to look into it and was the one that suggested I nominate it, however they haven't responded, so I assume they are busy elsewhere. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do in the meantime. Mycelium101 (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It will take me a few days to a week to complete the review. Please be patient. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made as many updates/recommendations as per the GA review as I can see. I believe it is in a position for final review. Thanks once again for all your work. Mycelium101 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll attempt to take a look tomorrow morning. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Take your time and no hurry. I appreciate your input and time you have spent on this. From one appreciator of mycelium (and all it provides) to another ;-) Mycelium101 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

If you check the edit history of Jared Lee Loughner you will notice the RFC bot had closed the RFC as expired (older than 30 days) PRIOR to my edits. RFC's expire automatically at 30 days of age. Safiel (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you took care of the problem with the no archive directive. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian User looking for GA reviewer

I stumbled across a user called KAVEBEAR who specialises in Hawaiian articles who has been asking questions about how to get articles reviewed for GA status. I thought of you and thought this might be in your area too. One of the articles she is asking about is Wahinepio. Regards Mycelium101 (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me! However, that might present a project COI, so I won't be reviewing any Hawaii-related articles now or in the future. The COI is only that I have an interest in seeing Hawaii-related articles improved, so that would not make me a neutral reviewer as a member of the Hawaii project. It's best if random people on the GA review board take such a task, and that's pretty much how I operate. In other words, every GA review I've ever done has been because I'm either helping to clean out the backlog or I'm picking a random article from a GA category. Granted, I might have some interest or knowledge about the topic, but I try to choose a topic in as random a manner as possible so as not to present a problem. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Kanaka maloko

I encountered this and have no clue what to make of it. It could be upside down and make equal sense to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Reagan

You know it really turns me on when you quote Reagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel (talk • contribs) 06:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)‎

Do you have a sister? Is she a redhead?  :) But, seriously, Reagan's comments in this matter are very interesting. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Drama

I think you mean well, so I'm going to do my best to be nice about this. You keep saying I should have less drama and more editing. I agree. In fact, I'm on a drama reduction program right now.

Part of it is asking Macon to stick to his commitment to disengage from me. Another part is asking you to consider doing the same. Lately, you've been showing up on ANI forums and my talk page, making comments that serve to increase the amount of drama in the name of decreasing it. This seems counterproductive to me.

Take a break from me. If you see my name and feel an urge to respond, please think twice. Ask yourself if things wouldn't go smoother if you looked on in silence. And by all means, start by unwatching my talk page.

I don't hate you, I don't think you're a horrible person. I think you're caught up in a way that's just not working. Let go of it and we'll both be less frustrated. The drama level will decrease and we'll be able to focus on articles. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You just don't get it. I'm trying to prevent you from getting blocked. The way you're going though, I predict you will get yourself blocked in less than two weeks. I hope not, but you are on the wrong path. Maybe it will take another block for you to get a clue. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what sort of false report will get me blocked next time. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Barefooting!

Hi Viriditas!

We've "met" each other occasionally in here, and I was just reading through The WikiProject Medicine talk page when I noticed your post about barefoot running :D Barefooting is a subject I'm personally interested in, having had possibly the best bit of physiotherapist-generated advice I ever had in my life – "Go barefoot whenever you possibly can!" Of course I know that my own experiences aren't helpful, as such, but might be interesting to you. Are you interested in the subject as a whole, or just working on the article?

I have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, and (as a result) have suffered from all sorts of stuff associated with it. I used to have tremendous problems with my feet (mainly recurrent dislocations and subluxations of tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges). Also a lot of leg and lower back problems as knock-on effects of the foot problems. I've been predominantly a barefooter for well over a decade now (I only use footwear in circumstances where my feet would be over-prone to injury otherwise), and, from personal experience only, I've noticed a significant improvement not only in the feet, but also in my general health. Interesting stuff – much more of a whole-body change than I ever expected. Massive improvement in circulation in my feet, for one. Despite walking barefoot in snow and frost, I haven't had a chilblain or Raynaud's symptoms on my feet now for over a decade. Pesky (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Aloha, I'm a big fan of your work and your attempt to help improve communication between editors. I'm trying to get a review going over at barefoot running but I haven't finished the one I'm working on just yet (although things are coming to a crashing close, so to speak). So, I'm curious, just how do you get used to walking barefoot in snow and frost? I can't stand cold feet! Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Awww, thanks! The thought of having a fan like you made me feel all emotional, lol! I think my feet get used to the changing seasons gradually – I certainly notice the cold far more if there's a sudden change from warm to frosty. Standing still in snow and frost is uncomfortable (gets too cold) but provided I keep moving the feet seem to cope OK. Not that we get really intense cold here in the UK; I expect it might be different if I were in a different part of the world. The thing I find more of a problem is when I have to wear something on my feet, and it's warm weather: my body's got so used to using my feet as a way to shed excess heat that I over-heat very quickly if I'm working hard and my feet are all wrapped up. Pesky (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar

Thank you for the Barnstar. I noted your page comments and left my comments on the talk page. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Korean War

If my characterization of your repeated promotion of a band on my talk page (and on another talk page) as "spam" offended you, I'm sorry that we got off on the wrong foot; however, please reply to my lengthy comments on the Korean War TP rather than just reverting as soon as you are able to do so without violating the 3RR. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If English isn't your native language, then please say so, but your repeated erroneous characterizations are absurd. I have not promoted any band anywhere, nor am I a fan of or interested in the band you describe. I'm getting the distinct sense that there's a major communication problem that exists on your end, not my own. You obviously failed to comprehend my sense of humor and appeal to absurdity, apparently taking it literally as a matter of fact. As for your answers on the Korean War page, they are entirely unsatisfactory. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your vitriolic personal attacks on my talk page, but let's keep Korean War professional. Please add the reliable sources that describe the US policy we were discussing as a "war crime" to the article (assuming they exist), along with the image. I agree that it would be a valuable addition, if sourced correctly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you have a reading comprehension problem that needs to be addressed. I just finished explaining to you that I have no interest in any band, music, or political philosophy, and yet you once again repeated on your talk page that I do, even though I've told you that I don't. Therefore, I must ask that until the time comes that you can honestly communicate what you've read and demonstrate that you've understood it in good faith instead of always avoiding the question that is under discussion and attempting to reframe the debate by changing the subject and twisting my words, until that time has come, I will not hold out hope that you will change your ways. Your claim that a clearly defined war crime cannot be called a war crime is indicative of your bad faith editing and I suggest it is unlikely to change in the future. You may enjoy fooling people, removing well sourced content, denying responsibility for your actions, and generally engaging in dishonesty and maliciousness, but I do not. Therefore, I must ask you to confine your bad behavior to your own talk page. I will determine if engaging in further discussion with you is necessary or important, otherwise I will report your continuing disruption of the encyclopedia as time permits. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Roses in Portland

Hi there! Thanks so much for your assistance with improving and reviewing this article. I was wondering if it might be possible to "cap" or strike concerns that have been address so that we can identify concerns still needing to be address more easily? In some instances you have responded to your own comments and amended the article yourself (please know how much this is appreciated), but I just want to make sure which of your concerns have been alleviated. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look now. Thanks for the kick in the pants. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Screen time

Is the term a neologism? I don't want to expand it unless I'm sure it's not. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking this should redirect to sedentary lifestyle with a section about screen time. My reasoning is that 90% of the sources discuss it in this context. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done

MfD nomination of User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC

User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Just made a comment here on AN/I regarding the Mitt Romney Tax Returns CSD/AFD/Whatever, it references your involvement and I'd appreciate your input as I'm not sure what the best way to resolve the CSD vs. Redirect issue is. Note: this is not an AN/I about you, just I would rather hold the discussion there instead of on multiple pages. Thanks! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. StAnselm (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Already reverted and refused, so nothing to respond to here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

StAnselm, this is an inappropriate warning. It was not an attack page by any stretch of the imagination, and your CSD nomination was rejected as such. Warning Viriditas about such is inappropriate. Please familiarize yourself more with what actually constitutes an attack page before templating an experienced editor. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the severity of the above warning. It was done automatically with Twinkle, and that seems to be what is posted when something is tagged for speedy deletion per G10. StAnselm (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle includes an option to not do that, FYI. Uncheck the box that says something like "notify page creator" to do that. Furthermore, the twinkle message for an attack page is framed as a warning, which is what was inappropriate (the categorization as an attack page). Since you didn't know, it's not a problem, just a friendly message. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I just noted this question you asked on my talk page. No, I am not a member of that, or in fact any, project. StAnselm (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Roses in Portland

Hi, Viriditas. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your assistance with this article. Never have I seen a Good article review dedicate so much time and energy to improving an article. That being said, so many changes have been made to the article recently that I feel I have to take a step back and really examine the many changes to both the article and the talk page. I had capped resolved concerns on the talk page in an attempt to separate resolved and remaining concerns (organizational purposes). With those caps removed, I am somewhat overwhelmed by the amount of text on the page. Would it be possible to strike concerns that have been resolved or temporarily cap comments until the review has been completed? At this time, it is difficult for me to determine if this article is close, or very far from, GA status. Again, THANK YOU for your work on the article. This has been a very long and thorough review, and I hope we can all work together to produce the best possible article on the subject. Please continue using the discussion page or post comments on my talk page if needed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 21:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guerillero | My Talk 21:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Talk Page

I've submitted a notice to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard Naapple (Talk) 22:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Patience is a Virtue
	Thank you for the time and energy spent on your thorough review of the Roses in Portland article. Your patience is also appreciated! Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kilauea

I'll be active for a while again! Hopefully, anyway, before the worries of the new class year get to me. You've been a lifesaver before, so you think you can dig up anything on Kilauea's ecology and tourism industry? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii#Kīlauea. Aloha, ResMar 01:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Welcome back. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you think so far? Geology and eruptive history is roughly done. I'm hesitant on its prehistoric eruptive history, I could add a bit more but the complete picture only goes back ~28k years. Still a ton and ton of writing...ResMar 23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel

Nobody informed me, so I'm doing you the favor of letting you know this is going on. Not sure there's anything for you to add, though. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

List of magnum opuses

I know it's hugely subjective, but I want to see if the community can shape it. What do you think: User:Anna Frodesiak/Violet sandbox

(Please don't confuse this with List of magnanimous octopuses. That was deleted because it only included one entry: "Walter the Benevolent", know for handing out sweets to fishermen at the incredible rate of eight bonbons per second.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I love your sense of humor. You should have your own YouTube channel. You could make a ton of money from endorsements. I'm not sure a subjective list would get any support. You could try creating it in your user space, but unless you have a source that agrees on specific great works (and I'm sure you could find one) it won't fly. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. I didn't know YouTube has channels, and don't really know what channels are. I also don't know what endorsements are. I thought it's when Lady Gagger says she prefers one brand of cheese, and the cheese company gives her money.

As for the opus thing, maybe I will add a few incontrovertible items like Don Quixote, and gather all the sources I can find for others and see where it goes. Thanks for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A channel is just your home account page with links to your videos. It's like your user page. "Oka cheese is proud to support Anna Frodesiak". Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhh, that sort of channel. Well, TY is blocked here, after all. If it ever gets unblocked, I'll consider that.

Oka, I forgot about that. Haven't had that in years. I am currently working on a giant block of Emmental, imported of course. Chinese people don't really like or eat cheese here. I expect that if I gave them a hunk of Limburger cheese to smell, they'd immediately faint and require an ambulance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's too bad. YouTube is one of the most creative outlets for comedians, artists, etc. The most popular YouTubers will use chroma key kits. I think someone with your ideas could produce some fantastic videos. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you reel him in?

Not sure it's fair for me to ask this of you, but you've had generally constructive conversations with SS247 in the past. He has veered into trolling territory, and I think you just -might- be able to pull him back. Thanks in advance. Arkon (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He's receiving helpful advice from several editors. If you tried bringing up the issue with him and failed, you may wish to discuss it in on one of the DR boards. I think he's pretty sick of hearing from me at this point. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice on what to do about this

Please see the recent changes on Lānai (Hawaiian language). A user just removed the hatnote and removed the Wikitionary notation on the article. The user reference the Manual of Style, but I don't understand it. Do you? Maile66 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page asking for clarification. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. Sometimes these things are just someone liking their style over someone else's, and name-dropping the MOS in general to try and justify it. Geez, you can't even do a word definition without this silly stuff happening. Maile66 (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well...that editor just reversed out my restoration of the hatnote. Maile66 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mahalo. Maile66 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Lānai (Hawaiian language)

Sorry, I guess I missed the messsage alert. I'll comment on Talk:lānai (Hawaiian language). ENeville (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Barefoot running

Good evening (HST)! I see that you're working on that article, so I will try to look up in Lexis/Nexus and Infotrac for any additional sources. Do you do natural running, by the way? Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't, but I looked into it. Any help you can offer is appreciated. I would like to close this GA out soon. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. By the way, when I was in Oahu a couple of years ago I ran on the beach in my heel-cushioned running shoes and the next day my ankles and calves were really sore. In contrast, a couple of months ago in Maui I ran on the beach with my minimalist shoes and wasn't sore at all. It seems that the barefoot running style is better able to handle different types of surfaces. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bret King.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bret King.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great job with your research at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Marbles (2nd nomination). Excellent work! — Cirt (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. That was very kind of you. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TWDVQSVcyUDlQTTQ

Let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm done. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Barefoot Debate"? Heh. Interesting reading material Vir...ResMar 16:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Barefoot running. I requested the article for the GA nominator over at Talk:Barefoot_running#GA_Review. Do you run? Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wigwam

Hi, Viriditas. Thanks a lot for your enquiry about the "Wigwam" sample. I left a comment on the article's talk page. The sound sample works fine for me. I'm not sure what the cause would be for it sounding bad for you, or whether other people have problems with it. Maybe I'll wait and see if anyone else says anything. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The sample works fine after I download it to my computer, but I cannot get it to play correctly within the page. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas/RfC

Per the template, 30 days is approaching on the 20th. Do you plan to do anything with this?--v/r - TP 14:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish it were up to me alone, but it isn't. Steady as she goes, Mr. Paris. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did move it to your userspace. If you plan to file it, you've still got 2 days. If not, you can throw a {{db-u1}} on it and I'll come by later and delete it.--v/r - TP 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It was moved to my userspace for hosting only. There are many users involved. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also unclear about when the clock starts ticking? When it's created under my userspace? When it's created in its current location? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It was 'moved' to it's currently location. Moving it doesn't reset the clock. That'd be gaming the system. You can see in the log the "Created" and "Moved" dates.--v/r - TP 02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is "gaming the system". StillStanding (24/7) is a new user who doesn't understand how the template works. Please try to assume good faith, Mr. Paris. Two to beam up, Viriditas, out. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say he was. I said that moving the template to reset the clock would amount to gaming the system. "That'd" is short for "that would". 'Would' being the key word. Please don't put words in my mouth. A little bit of WP:AGF yourself. And please decide what you intend to do with the page.--v/r - TP 03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I know what you said, Mr. Paris. You were implying that one of us believed that moving the page would reset the clock. Nobody believes that. That kind of impolite implication might work on Ferenginar, but here it sounds rude. As for my "decision", as I already told you, it isn't up to me. Your advice is noted in my log, Mr. Paris. You may go now. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I got your message early with the "Steady as she goes." Star Trek references are cute. I was answering StillStanding-247's question...directly answering it. Do we need to take this to WP:WQA? Accusing me of ABF is still a personal attack the last I checked. It's in your userspace, it's up to you. No one else has bothered with it in over a month.--v/r - TP 03:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't your user name a Star Trek reference to Tom Paris? I wasn't aware that there was a WQA, but feel free to take this "there". Lots of people have bothered with the page during the last month, you just aren't viewing the right page history. Try the talk page. It's been active. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WQA was folded recently via WP:VPR. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My recent edits

I need your guidance. Am I cracking up, or handling things okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problems. Can you point me to any issues? Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No. :) Just doing a sanity check. Thanks. Oh, and I made one of these. When I hang food above them just out of reach, it's really funny. So, I will sort of take your advice and get it on Youtube. Maybe my hamsters will become famous. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Was that you laughing in the video? Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not me. I wasn't there. But today, I will make a new wheel out of metal, because I think if it's heavy it will spin them more when they stop. So, I have to deal with the dum-dums at the hardware store. I'm way smarter than they are. They are always surprised that I can figure stuff out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Spin them more?? Will it blend? Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Poor things! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far

Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

• Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
• Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
• Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
• Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
• Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
• Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

• This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
• It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
• If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
• The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
• Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
• Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
• Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Smithsonian

Do you know the name of his/her previous account? --Activism1234 02:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't, but it is quite clearly an obvious sock puppet. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

All right. I don't know either. If you did, I would've gone to SPI. As of now, I brought their name up with an admin, who will look into it tomorrow (going to sleep now), but suspects also they are a sock. For now, just ignore their comments and don't revert further. --Activism1234 03:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

After I brought it to admin attention, the editor was blocked as a sock. Thanks. --Activism1234 18:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse

Hi Viriditas. The Maureen Dowd case is now one of beating a dead horse. IMO there is nothing to be served by continuing this discussion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Magpie (Monet)

The article The Magpie (Monet) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Magpie (Monet) for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 17:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on it. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well....I am honestly impressed. Look at you go with a Monet painting! Good job! _{(wanna help with Edwin Deakin)?}--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Me too; good job! Yopienso (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247 vs Belchfire

How is it that one is blocked indef for "Massive battleground mentality, assuming bad faith, and worst of all, threatening violence" (and I have to assume that last one to be the deliberate, willful misconstruing of comments obviously meant in jest by an admin who "supports the campaign to fire Obama") while there is an active campaign to let Belchfire, guilty of all relevant portions of same, with a potential RFC/U and nothing else?

When did Wikipedia get invaded by Conservapedia and some of their worse rejects gain adminship here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing for your answer. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened with the topic ban anyway? It looks like it just auto-archived off the page without being closed one way or the other. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 17:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the flaws in the AN/I process, namely the squeaky wheel bias. If you remain quiet and allow some space for people to come to a decision, the thread gets archived. If, however, you post every day without allowing the thread to quiet down, the thread won't get archived. AN/I needs to inject some common sense into the process and stop favoring whiners and complainers. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Or just not auto-archive until a discussion has been closed by appropriate template. Can't Miszabot do that? It works like that at AIV and RFPP, through various hacky methods. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 21:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure it can. The DR/N bot will not auto-archive until a template is placed stating that the issue is closed, failed or resolved. But, getting any sort of reform with admin is like battling both the knight and the dragon.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Magpie (Monet)

The article The Magpie (Monet) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Magpie (Monet) for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 10:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done indeed. That's an impressive article. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Squeaky wheel

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

Hairstyles in the 1950s

I just wanted to drop you a note to say that I really enjoyed this DYK. For me, this is the ideal DYK: short, interesting, informative, culturally relevant and historical. Fantastic! Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey I was the one who started it, my idea, for the very reasons you say!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You wrote the DYK? :) Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Aloha

Hi Viri! Sorry I have been gone for so long. I've been working on my Huna book all this time and it's not finished yet, but it's closer than ever. It has changed a lot which is good. Anyway, I've been really involved in the page on Facebook called Huna is not Hawaiian. And over there is a guy named Rand Noel who knew Kahuna Daddy Bray. He is starting an article here about him, but it needs some work. I gave him what I have but just can't put any time into editing what he is putting up. If you have the time and interest, he'd love to have your kokua. The page is here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Kaonohiokala_Bray

I hope you're doing well! Makana Chai (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I'll take a look in the next day or so. Let me know when the book is done. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I just made a few copyedits. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass (song) GAN

Hi Viriditas. Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I happened to notice your review when checking with the article's talk page, in the absence of a notification on my own talk page − or perhaps I'm jumping the gun, perhaps you're only part-way through the review(?). Just a bit confused about whether you're now waiting for me to respond to the points you raised or whether there's more to come − apologies if it's the latter scenario. (I take your point re location of of ongoing discussions, but would you mind replying to this on my talk page when you've got time? Many thanks.) Regards, JG66 (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Lahaina Banyan Court Park

Hi, Viriditas, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good; great work. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm now done; please feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Good luck with your peer review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your reminders are helpful and appreciated MONGO 00:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Childhood's End

Hi, Viriditas, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edit Done; please feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Good luck with your peer review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

MFD

Thanks for the notification. Regards, GiantSnowman 09:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

MfD

Thanks for the notice. By the way, I hope we don't have hard feelings about this. I do appreciate your insights. T. trichiura Infect me 14:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Claude AnShin Thomas

Hi, Viriditas, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look later today. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edit Done; please feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Good luck with your peer review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Youreallycan and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Rschen7754 04:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

YRC edits

By any chance, did you save a copy of the edits on YRC's user talk page before they got oversighted last night? Please drop me an email if you did. Prioryman (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't, and I would prefer to keep things on-wiki. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. It would also be very helpful, since you saw the edits in question, if you could describe their nature on AN/I and why you reverted them. It's understandable that some people are frustrated that they can't see the evidence but I think it would help if those who did see them could explain what they saw. Prioryman (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It won't matter and I won't do it. The community is emotionally stunted and blind to empathy when it comes to normal human interaction. It's not at all a surprise that the demographic of those who lack empathy and compassion for others matches the administrator cadre and active editors. Basic human decency is nonexistent on this website. I would trust a random person on the street more than any admin here. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An enduring thought.

Greetings Viriditas, I hope you know that I give maximum credence to every opinion you give; consistently of your best effort. If a divide exists between our views, I'd be exponentially more interested in finding the truth than concerned with being correct, or loyal to a demographic under God. I just want to ensure that you know this, because it is true. Best regards, - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Tsunami

The news here is that a tsunami is hitting Hawaii any moment now. Since you're on the computer, I'm guessing you're on high ground. Best wishes. Yopienso (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

My entire street is blocked off by the police because I'm so close to the shoreline, but I'm at home because me and Mother Nature are like this. There's a six-hour warning window and we're just in the beginning of it. According to estimates provided by computer models, it was supposed to hit at 10:28, but we've had nothing but anecdotal reports so far, mostly from Hilo. Civil defense is worried about people going home at this point, so it's wait and see. I heard the warnings were canceled in Alaska. Have a pastry on me! :) Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No reports of damage as of 09:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) but there's still an alert in effect. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You were lucky:

"Most places in Hawaii are on the fourth tsunami wave, official says, noting that the data now show the evacuation may not have been necessary - but was still a good precaution." -- CNN

Yum--I'll save the pastry to have with my morning coffee; going to bed now. Yopienso (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sleep well. Live coverage here. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass (song) GA review

Thanks for your time on this review. But I'm confused by your approach: you started off saying "I present a few proposed changes for your review. Choose them or discard them at your leisure." – then you went ahead and made them in the article anyway. I will be looking to reinstate at least part of the lyrics you deleted, yes – and perhaps I should get a third opinion regarding some of the other changes you made. (I mean, can you show me an MoS point that dictates there should be almost no passive voice at all in article text?) I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound churlish, but a more collaborative approach – even a slightly collaborative one – would've been appreciated. And I can see from above that a reviewer's shown you that courtesy. Apart from that, your jumping in and rewording article text has introduced some obvious factual errors. So I will be making some changes now of my own, but perhaps you wouldn't mind replying on my talk page if there is indeed an MoS stipulation about avoiding passive voice at all costs. JG66 (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Half of the article is still written in passive voice, so I don't know why you think there is no passive voice. Also, I can find no evidence of any GA/FA article that includes more than 50% of copyrighted song lyrics, which is why I asked you to get a third opinion before restoring it. In any case, there are /still/ quite a number of song lyrics in the current article. For the record, because of your complaint, I won't be doing any further good article reviews for the foreseeable future, and I don't have time to discuss it at the moment. Thanks for sharing your concern. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

re Errors?

undid error introduced in GA review (Let It Be was not their "then forthcoming" album in that context)

Could you explain how Let It Be was not their then forthcoming album in the context of its rejection? "What would become" is entirely synonymous with "their then forthcoming". Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Because it's confusing – the album was never going to be called Let It Be until early 1970, it was Get Back. This is an approach I've seen applied in a number of Beatles (proper) articles, where the sessions/the rehearsals/the film project is Get Back; the 1970 album release is Let It Be. All the work in Jan–Feb '69 became the Let It Be album. But once more I'm confused, Viriditas, because while you're asking for explanations, you don't seem to acknowledge that you'd written in your review: "I present a few proposed changes for your review. Choose them or discard them at your leisure."

Had to reinst most of pre-GAR wording in lead-in, firstly because a statement was attrib incorrectly

Which statement was attributed incorrectly? Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Your change to "The rejection of the song by Harrison's former band led critics to describe it as "the wisest song never recorded by The Beatles"." As far as I know, only one (highly respected) critic/musicologist has used those words – the quote can't be attributed to "critics". Quibbling, I admit, but ditto my comment from above: "Choose them or discard them at your leisure."

rewording by GA rev isn't necessarily supported by the refs

Which rewording isn't supported by the refs? Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• For a start: "Music critics consider Preston's version superior to Harrison's "definitive" version of the song released a few months later." Your rewording implied that Madinger & Easter hold this opinion or have made this statement, when they don't/haven't. I cited Madinger & Easter to support the idea that Harrison's reading is the definitive version of the song; on the other hand, the Eder/Allmusic ref supports both the point about the Ray Charles influence and the claim that Preston's "ATMP" might be superior. (I've recently reworded this sentence anyway, to specifically name Eder.) Elsewhere in that section "Billy Precton's version", your juggling around of items of text meant that, as with that Eder/Allmusic example, a ref that was originally supporting, say, two points made in one sentence is no longer doing that job. Again, to backtrack, how come you're not acknowledging that perhaps it wasn't the wisest course for you to take – diving in and rewording without consultation? (How could references not become detached at some stage unless you've got access to the same secondary sources?) Anyway, I hope we can put this to rest now. As I've said, I'm appreciative of the time you put in as a reviewer – thank you – but I can't see how my objections can come as much of a surprise.

You'll see perhaps that I've followed your suggestion about finding a better source for the Klaus Voormann cover version, and I will be revisiting that point about unnecessary detail re the 1997 VH1 special – that and other useful points you raised in the review. Thanks again. Regards, JG66 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan

Thank You for helping me Greatuser (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Brownie Mary

Hi Viriditas. I just saw your note on Baffle gab1978's talk page and have looked at that appalling "very light copy edit". Please do pop the article back on the GOCE requests page and I guarantee it will be taken up within a week or two. Sorry for the previous trouble. --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no trouble at all. I've been very happy with the GOCE. It looks like Diannaa finished the copyedit. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So she did -- I didn't look closely enough at the history. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

A request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited L.K. Samuels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Gray (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) 12:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Thanks for your response. Can you point me in the correct direction? Not sure if I should request a block or just try to negotiate with this guy?--Revmqo (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Review the linked editing restrictions and note any violations. If there aren't any, then follow the suggestions from the other editor and move to close the ANI thread. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you, but still trying to figure out how to respond to Anupam. He has now listed a source (#124) in the United Methodist Church article that clearly states "for information only - not for circulation- you may not quote or publish without the author's written approval." To me this looks like plagiarism, which is the reason he was blocked before. I've also tried to discuss issues as we "collaborate" on the article, but his mind is made up, and any other opinions are irrelevant. Is this enough to report him again?--Revmqo (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess my post on your page scared him into making the edit.--Revmqo (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Revmqo, I don't know how else to proceed with our discussion. I've been kind to you and accommodating to your requests. Do you not want to discuss the content of the article with me? If not, please say so and just tell me and I'll stop editing the article. After you commented on your talk page about source #124, I immediately replied to you stating that I would contact William Abraham about the content. I then proceeded to remove the source from the article as you requested; I just now saw this post on User:Viriditas' talk page. I was not "scared" as you stated. And I have honestly suggested that we collaborate on the article; that is why I continue to provide sources and discuss the issue on your talk page. When I try to do so, you accuse me of being patronizing. Rather than try to report me to other users, why not try to actually discuss your concerns about the article with me? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas, I'm sorry that our discussion was brought to your talk page. I hope you are doing well and have a Happy Thanksgiving. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Concerning your post, please read WP:BEFORE. It covers nominators, but technically does not cover those !voting. The sourcing on the page was, in my opinion, insufficient to pass GNG when I looked at it. --Nouniquenames 05:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there something stopping you from adding sourcing? Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I had no sources to add. Sources obviously existed, but i did not know of them. It looked like any of a number of non-notable articles that pop up from time to time, and no sourcing was proposed in the discussion or incorporated into the page that might convince me otherwise. Now those sources are present, and my opinion has changed. --Nouniquenames 15:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi There

Just thought I'd take a break and wish you a Happy Thanksgiving! Rosencomet (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Pizza dreams

I added a post at Pizza dreams. There were about six sources mentioning Pizza dreams, but I couldn't get a URL to most of them. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Happy Thanksgiving

Dear User:Viriditas, thanks for thinking of me :) I like the picture of the young turkey! I hope you and yours have a great Thanksgiving Day! All the best, Anupam^Talk 04:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have a question that you might be able to answer. I temporarily removed this information and reference from the article because User:Revmqo informed me that using the document as a citation required the permission of the author, Prof. William J. Abraham. I contacted the author and informed him about the situation and he gave me permission to use the article and quote in the way that it was in the article. How do I present this as proof on Wikipedia? I look forward to hearing your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is a question if paraphrasing or quoting, you'll need to choose one or the other, regardless of permission. Viriditas (talk)

Thanks for your reply! I am just quoting the phrase "not grounded in doctrines of the Church" from the article as is done here (see the left-hand side). My question mainly revolves on the fact of presenting proof that I have permission from the author to use his article as a citation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. I hope you're enjoying your Thanksgiving morning! With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's 9:11 PM on 21 November in HST here. In the example you provide above, the first problem is attribution. Instead of saying "there are some" you need to say "William J. Abraham". The second problem concerns your use of a primary source. Even though you have obtained his permission, the paper appears self-published. I would avoid those types of sources unless they are used to supplement published secondary sources. Ideally, you would want to find a secondary reliable source that appears in a reputable publication which addresses the point you want to discuss, namely those who oppose ecumenism, etc. Your use of sources here deviates from best practice. This is especially a problem when we are discussing controversial POV. In such cases, the use of sources must be impeccable to avoid the semblance of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Well, the paper was published on the website of The Episcopal Church and the author is a well known theologian. In addition, the title of the paper is "United Methodist Evangelicals and Ecumenism". He is actually writing on the views of United Methodist Evangelicals rather than his own personal views. If you still think it's a good idea to leave this paper out from the article, I'll respect that. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an abundance of sources on this topic in particular, although I can try to search for more later. I understand your point about the importance of finding secondary sources that corroborate the paper and thank you for taking the time to look at the situation. I hope you have a nice night and enjoy your holiday tomorrow. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 07:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an unpublished paper about a POV. We don't use such papers on Wikipedia unless they are carefully supported by good secondary sources. Is this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for thinking of me too, Viriditas, with your turkey post. I don't get many posts like that. :) Here's wishing you a Happy Thanksgiving! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Archiving

Hello! Thanks for your message on my talk page! I personally prefer to keep all of my messages on one page. I will, however, think about archiving and if I decide to do so, I'll let you know if I need help. Thanks for offering to help me out though! I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving Day. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you aren't understanding me. It is impossible to contact you from any mobile device due to your current talk page size, and just as difficult from a standard computer. The reason we have recommended talk page sizes and archives is to make it easier for people to communicate. Is there a good reason you don't want people to communicate with you? When your personal preferences conflict with best practices, it is sometimes necessary to re-evaluate your preferences and either change or discard them. Continuing to plod ahead with your old habits when multiple people have expressed concerns could be construed as disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that it was creating that much of an inconvenience. Thanks for letting me know. Of course, I enjoy when others communicate with me and am happy to change my preferences in order to make it easier for others to do so. I've moved conversations from my first four years here to my archives. I will work on the rest at a later time. I hope it is easier for you to leave messages on my page now. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 01:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Have a nice evening! With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note, your talk page is still quite large (289,805 bytes) and your archives can be condensed into a single archive at 100,00 bytes each, which is the recommended size for good reason. It makes reading easy and accessible. Anything over that size tends to be too much for a single page scroll for the table of contents and makes it difficult to find discussions. Again, thanks for listening. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I appreciate your concern and am glad to take your advice. I am also glad that we're friends on Wikipedia now. I will continue to archive the rest of my talk page at a later time, creating one or two more archive pages in my userspace. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 01:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt back into your conversation, but Anupam this is exactly what I mean when I say you are being patronizing. You seem to consistently use flowery language, but you never actually follow through with other people's suggestions. You also are only willing to use your own point-of-view without considering that of others. Maybe you don't see this.....but I think you do.....--Revmqo (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, he's trying to listen and that means something. It's easy to get frustrated with each other, so let's take this as an opportunity to develop our capacity for patience and our willingness to accommodate different viewpoints. Civility is not easy to cultivate, but if we can do it, we will reap its bountiful harvest. Let's remember and reflect on the parable of the mustard seed. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Not really frustrated. I'm just convinced after reading all of his posts/and other about him that he is playing us. Hopefully he will prove me wrong. Sometimes being honest is the best approach.--Revmqo (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
      • We can't control the honesty of others, just our own. I deal with dishonest people every day, but as long as I'm honest and I protect myself from their influence, that's the best I can do. Many of these people don't even know they are dishonest, they have tricked themselves into thinking and acting in a certain way to such a point that they are lying to themselves. Not much we can do about that. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
        • How very true! Thanks again for working together to fix the church list. --Revmqo (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Revmqo, this was a conversation between User:Viriditas and I and I do not appreciate you continuing to hound me. If you do not like me, then please, move on, rather than bullying me. I am a senior editor here and have contributed to several subject areas on this encyclopedia; of course, being here for several years, I have experienced some conflict, as all editors do. I do not think that you and I will interact much in the future given the fact that you only edit a couple select areas. That being said, my "flowery language" is actually genuine language (apparently being polite and respectful is a foreign concept to you) and I did take the time to accommodate his request, contrary to your personal opinions. As I said earlier, if you do not like me, please don't bother to attempt to communicate with me; I've been nice to you in every single post thus far and you continue to treat me very poorly. That being said, I am a forgiving individual and would be happy to be friends, if you'd like. You can let me know! If not, I'd rather not communicate with you. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Calm down dude. All I (and many others) want is for you to take the time to listen to our side as well. I am not hounding you. Veriditas and I have been working on an article together and have been dealing with another editor with much the same attitude you "seem" to present. --Revmqo (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Revmqo, your use of quotation marks around the word "seem" is another demonstration of bad faith; I would recommend you to read WP:AOBF. Since you have only made a limited amount of edits here, you might not be familiar with WP:AGF; I invite you to read the guideline which might improve your editing experience here. It seems that you might have experienced issues with friendliness before so hopefully the guidelines I linked to might help you. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 02:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point yet again. --Revmqo (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Our time on this planet is limited due to our short lifespans. We should therefore try to make the best of it and endeavor to treat each other with civility and respect. Let's also not take small disagreements and blow them up out of proportion. Let's focus more on harmonious creation and collaboration. Put your differences aside and try to work together. With that said, there's no need to reply anymore. Use the silence to find the tranquility you both need. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen Kent (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Roach (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) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Alohamesamis

I have been informed that I am to let you know I posted a note that concerns you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If a notice is required, this is your required notice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)