User talk:Viriditas/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

"Streamlining"

I would like to challenge this practice of Qworty's he calls "streamlining". It seems to just mean eliminating all headings and sections, which not only makes the article a less readable block of text, but eliminates the section guide at the top of the page which is an aid to navigating the article. Such headings used to be part of what editors called Wikifying. What are your thoughts?Rosencomet (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's easier to discuss with a specific example. What article do you have in mind? There are several approaches depending on the type of article. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 29 2012 (UTC)

Well, besides being IMO gutted, both Starwood Festival and Association for Consciousness Exploration are articles that had separate sections on history, activities, location, etc. Now there are none except Notes and References (in fact, the entire References section has been deleted from Starwood Festival for IMO no adequate reason). Other examples would be LaSara FireFox or Luisah Teish. (Many others were "streamlined", but it's hard to see since it was just one step in eliminating virtually all the text in the article.)Rosencomet (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want to work with me, I need to focus only on one article, and then you can use my approach as your own for the other articles. So pick one of the above articles for me to look at and we can go from there. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would choose Starwood Festival, as one of those I have been refraining from editing on my own. Any help the article can get would be great, and might help with the tags it has accumulated.Rosencomet (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it is very important that you understand that the reason I am doing this is so that you can become a better editor and minimize future conflict while operating independently. I'm going on a coffee break, but when I return I'll take a look. In the interim, it would help if you make a list of problems with the current version of Starwood Festival below. Remember, the best way to expedite this process is to do the research and find the best secondary sources on the subject so we can use them to improve the topic. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

1. The wholesale deletion of the Reference section, containing over forty references. Much of the material deleted by Qworty can be sourced by these references. Need they all be inline citations? Perhaps some would more appropriately be in a General Reference section, others under Further Reading? And some might be only passing references or otherwise worthy of deletion.

2. The lack of sections with headings. This “streamlining” seems to make the article less readable.

3. The Past Speakers and Past Entertainers sections. I feel these lend notability, since every entry has a notable article. It serves the same purposes as the lists on other festival & event articles, as is argued here [1]. Qworty seems to argue that they are acceptable only if each has a citation. That not only sounds unwieldy, but no other article’s list I’ve ever seen is constructed that way.

4. Which leads me to an important question: I think that for certain kinds of data, the best and most logical source is the Starwoodfestival.com website. In what cases is that true, if any, and does that change depending on who places it; that is, is it’s use only promotional or commercial if I am the editor doing it? It would certainly make citing the appearances of speakers & entertainers easier. I understand that an issue of notability requires a 3rd party source, but does everything? If an article said a subject taught at Harvard, I’d expect their website faculty list would be sufficient and a news article would not be required. (I am TRULY not trying to spread links to that website. If there's another way to do it, I'm for it. But if it's NOT against some rule, why not use the easy route?)

That’s plenty for now. I have no problem deleting such things as Peacock Language, opinion, advertising copy (depending on how that’s defined), unsupported and/or unsupportable statements, repetition, etc (and I’ve never been clear as to when miscellanea are appropriate). Rosencomet (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good list to start with here; good job identifying the problems. Now, to address the problems. First I would like to create a subpage in your use space for you and I to work with: User:Rosencomet/Starwood Festival. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed. The person who deleted the lists gave "unsourced" as the reason. I was hoping you would tell me which citations' sources were reliable and which were not, and why. I AM serious about improving this article; I wouldn't be doing all this work if I was not. But I only get to work on things now and then. The last thing I read from you was the list of other articles you wanted me to look over; if you think I have been ignoring your critique since then, you're wrong. I just saw the rest. I figured I'd gather what I could, then delete whatever should not be there; I thought that would be less work for you. And I still don't know when, if ever, the organization's website is a proper source, but I have not used it in a single instance. Please don't dump me now.Rosencomet (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me point out that I have also been reviewing all the references, and placed many on the talk page that I decided were not acceptable either because they don't seem to refer to the event or because they only have a passing reference. I'm also trying to create inline citations either in addition to or instead of raw references. I can't instantly become a better editor; I'm trying to start by being a harder-working one. Rosencomet (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fleishhacker Pool

I think i may have swam in it as a child. You are probably correct, and i just raised it to "mid", and it could even be "high" for the bay area, esp. considering that SF was the center of the bay's culture during its existence. This is the first i have heard of the importance scale being abandoned. I dont see any documentation to support this. If true, i just wasted about a month of my evenings adding importance ratings to unrated SFBA articles. personally, i like the low/mid/high/top, and also like "bottom", esp. for articles on people born in the bay area but whose notability is not tied to the bay. that would place "mid" in the middle, where it belongs. anyway, thanks for the corrective, i was not really reading it when i added that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think people realize how massive this pool really was, and the current image is terrible. I wonder if we can use one of the widely distributed postcard images of the pool looking lengthwise from on top of a hill filled with happy bathers sunning themselves. It's an amazing image. I still remember looking at that gaping hole in the ground as a child and thinking that it was incredible. And, I still wonder why it was never rebuilt as a skatepark in the late 1980s That's got to be one of the dumbest mistakes the city ever made. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry i added "low" to the berkeley sixties film. I was not aware of that project having dropped the importance parameter. I also hadnt read the article in full, and hadnt considered that it was more important than i believed. i have seen the film, and always felt it was a good film, but thought of it as a "local" film with not a lot of international attention. i was wrong about that, no excuse if the article is sitting right in front of me (i was doing the sfba project edits quickly, based on my familiarity with the bay area). About using the importance parameter: I had started my project editing at the SFBA project, which seemed to indicate the importance parameter was active. I assumed incorrectly that other projects which still had room for it in their assessment panels still used it. i was aware that some projects didnt use it, as i have looked at the assessment grids for about 50 or so projects, and many don't. i had no way of knowing that this was due to some sort of project by project dropping of the importance parameter. i thought it was just never created, maybe due to limitations on volunteers time. for instance, since the film group dropped it in 2008, i wouldnt have known, as i didnt start editing until 2009 or later. I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but considering the size of WP, and how many different policies exist, i was bound to make a mistake now and then. I can see that the american film project has nearly no importance ratings. this was the first panel i have seen which shows the evidence for it being abandoned, and not just underutilized. I will try to refrain from doing any alterations to the class/importance ratings for other wikiprojects on talk pages i go to for other purposes, aside from perhaps simply adding the base template when its screamingly obvious (Wikiproject oceans for articles on protected waters outside the bay, etc), unless i have more familiarity with that particular projects policies. I am sorry my editing pattern seems strange, i really wasnt trying to do anything that i thought would be unusual. I was just trying to revive what appeared to be a moribund project (along with the SFBA portal, which was completely dead in the water when i arrived there).peace.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Fleishhacker Pool was HUGE. I have a very large reproduction (I think its a reproduction) of a print from a color illustration of the interior in my dinning room. (I should really dust the darn thing).--Amadscientist (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I think the reason it has never been adapted for any other use is the historic ruins may be protected.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I always confuse the Sutro baths with the Fleishhacker Pool. LOL! --Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you thought the Sutro baths were big, wait unitl you see the old photos of Fleishhacker Pool. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen them. looks like something from ancient Rome....but then, I am told that I use that analogy to much! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Women in Bolivia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Belchfire-TALK 09:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethicalv

I admire your patience. Given this user's SPA history to date I wonder if it warrants an ANI discussion for a topic ban? --Biker Biker (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

He's already been approached by men's rights proponents who are active editors in good standing, and he's been asked to help them improve their set of articles. I wish he would take their offer but it really does seem like he has his own agenda. I certainly don't want to contribute to any more drama than necessary, so perhaps we should wait and see. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at his contribution history, it looks like he's been approaching other editors, instead of the other way around. One thing that may be worth keeping in mind is that much of the content he has been trying to create may fall under the umbrella of the general men's rights probation, so if his editing patterns continue to be problematic moving forward, it may be easier to get a topic ban handed out than it would normally be. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Belchfire-TALK 04:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire

Regardless of whether he's violating policy and/or guidelines, you don't need to warn him about such violations if you're banned from his talk page. Even if the warning is required by guidelines, you should ask an admin warn him.

I apologize if you banned me from your talk page; I don't remember. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall ever being "banned" from his talk page, and he edits my talk page just as frequently (look above). I seriously suggest you look at his talk page history to see how many Wikipedians he has blanket reverted in the last two weeks. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. Furthermore, Snottywong's "Edit Summary Search" tool reveals that Belchfire is intentionally disrupting Wikipedia by removing adequately sourced content with false edit summaries. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You should tread carefully. Issuing warnings to BF on a page you have not contributed too gives the impression you may be following BF around simply to confront him.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to read and understand WP:HA#NOT. I have no interest in confronting Belchfire about anything, not do I have the free time. I have an interest in seeing Belchfire respond to questions about his editing and to stop violating policies. Using false edit summaries to justify content removal is unacceptable. There is a clear pattern supported by diffs showing that Belfchfire will falsely claim that content is unsourced or a respected academic source is "fringe" so that he can remove material and push his POV. He has failed to respond to requests for clarification on this matter. If he can't stop disrupting Wikipedia, then the community will need to stop him. I'm sorry you disagree. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

One of your warnings [2] claims that BF has been using "false edit summaries". Using a patently false edit summary, like "minor c/e" when instead the article was blanked is indeed a policy violation. This policy exists to prevent editors from having their edits scrutinized by using an seemingly innocent summmary. The proper place to discuss BF's edit [3] with the summary rv good faith edit - obvious fringe material was/is on the talk page. Whether or not the source BF was referring to is fringe or not is irrelevant. The fact that BF believes the source to be fringe is all that matters. Your accusation that BF is intentionally making false edit summaries is a massive lack of WP:AGF. It also appears you intend to report BF to ANI, and the purpose of your warnings appears not to be to protect the encyclopedia, but settle a grudge. Be careful with that first WP:SHOT.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have an overactive imagination. I have no "grudge" with Belchfire so I haven't any idea what you are talking about. On the other hand, he does appear to have a grudge with me, as his recent AfD nomination of an article I just created clearly shows. Your summary of events up above is not at all accurate. He has repeatedly made false edit summaries alleging that this content is unsourced and that content is fringe, etc. When his claims are looked at closely, they appear to have no basis. The only thing his claims have in common, is that they were all made as reverts to push his personal POV. For example, he reverted a new user over on sexism (and never welcomed her) while claiming that the university textbook she used as a source, Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society (2013) by professor Christopher B. Doob of Southern Connecticut State University, was "obvious fringe material"; this edit summary appeared as justification for his revert. In reality, there is no way for Belchfire to support the claim that either this respected textbook or Dr. Doob is any way "fringe". This is the kind of false edit summaries I'm talking about, and there's a clear pattern of it going back for some time now. There's no grudge here, but a simple matter of putting an end to the disruption. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what constitutes a "false edit summary" flies in the face of reason. I fail to see where any of the diffs you mentioned have summaries that attempt to evade scrutiny. The ref wasn't the NYT after all. In fact, if you feel so strongly about this source, why haven't you reverted BF or brought this up on the talk page? It's behavior like this (or lack thereof) that only affirms my belief that you are fixated on BF. Perhaps an IBAN is needed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to play games with you, so you will need to go elsewhere. You're wasting my time and I don't have that kind of time to waste. I have not made any "interpretation"; Belchfire's edit summaries are completely false and he's either deliberately lying or lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia; I'll leave it to you to determine which. The example I gave you above does not "fly in the face of the reason". It is a clear example of the probem and Belchfire was asked to account for his behavior.[4] He chose to ignore it. To recap, in that example, Belchfire claimed that a respected university textbook that relied on documented primary and secondary sources put together by professor Christopher B. Doob of Southern Connecticut State University was "obvious fringe material". Clearly, Belchfire isn't relying on any facts, and this isn't a matter of opinion. Belchfire labeled this as "obvious fringe material" in order to edit war and revert content that conflicted with his personal POV. This is unacceptable behavior. Users must not misuse the edit summary nor edit war based on false edit summaries. He did this because the user he was reverting was a new editor and he felt he could get away with it. This isn't the first time he has done this, there is a pattern of disturbing reverts going back many months, all involving false edit summaries like this. And to remind you, I am not involved in any of Belchfire's conflicts or content disputes, and what I feel about the sources has nothing to do with his bad behavior. I have brought this and other problems up with Belchfire on his talk page and his response has been to delete and ignore these concerns.[5] Now, please go bother someone else. As you have already been reminded, warning another editor is not harassment nor is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations. Please don't make me repeat myself again. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you seek another opinion about what constitutes a false edit summary. Consider this your warning that if you continue harassment in this vein, sanctions will be proposed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't react well to baseless threats and intimidation made on behalf of disruptive users who have been repeatedly warned and blocked as a result. Consider this your last warning to avoid my user talk page in the future and to stop your wikilawyering, baiting, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. False edit summaries used to revert and edit war are completely unacceptable. There has been no harassment here of any kind except your attempt to harass and threaten me. Now that you are no longer allowed on my talk page, perhaps it will stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Help Desk

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Most_active_WikiProjects.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Anbu121 (talk me) 11:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:ChildofMidnight/Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics

User:ChildofMidnight/Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics, 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:ChildofMidnight/Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ChildofMidnight/Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lovely poetry

you wrote here. KillerChihuahua 00:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

		Season's Greetings!
		Hello Viriditas: Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a happy and enjoyable holiday season and a happy New Year. Additionally, Santa Claus is also quite likely appreciative of your efforts to improve the encyclopedia! Northamerica1000(talk) 06:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Riane Eisler

I just reverted all of the edits by David loye (talk · contribs) as obvious conflict of interest[6] - among other things, inserting over 10 links to organisations he and Eisler are involved in. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I added on award back with an inline citation. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Mele Kalikimaka!

Have a good holiday! Be safe and hope you and your family have a wonderful new year!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"OK, who brought the Christmas Tree?"

All the best for the season, from dave souza, talk 15:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Very best Season's Greetings to you! Yopienso (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Aarrgh, I'm not clever enough to make one I like--may the thought count! Very best to you. Yopienso (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy! May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go. -- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Strained yogurt/yoghurt move

Why the sudden move? Was there some discussion I missed? I reverted until we find the consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you neither read my edit summary nor my talk page comment, and instead blanket reverted my page move. How odd. As I previously wrote, the article was moved without consensus by SSR and I restored the stable version per talk. It's surprising that I have had to repeat this statement three times. Do you always revert first and ask questions later? Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I did look at your comments and at the history, but the move you're complaining about was simply reverting an undiscussed move from a few days before. Where are you getting your idea of stability? Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

— ΛΧΣ²¹ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays, Viriditas :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw?

I think this will go nowhere and just be used as cannon fodder in the future. That Belchfire supports it means they know they aren't going to be tied to it (or is sure it will be dismissed). And the new account has made no edits so there is no there there. Insomesia (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Butterbumps hasn't edited Wikipedia. The user created an account to abuse the Wikipedia email subsystem. One can register an account only to contact other Wikipedians through the email feature without ever making a single edit. I thought that was clear in the report. That's generally described as disruptive behavior. As for Belchfire, I'm not sure what to say. The user compare report shows very odd behavior between Acoma Magic and himself, and I agree that it looks like they are different users, however per WP:MEAT, two users acting in tandem can be treated as one user. I will leave it to the CU to decide what to do. I'm not too worried abut it being used against me. I've had successful CU and failures. It's part of the process. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent explanation. Maybe I didn't read it clearly enough that Butter was about the email system. There does seem to be a lot of "interesting" tag team activities seemingly devoted to vexing LGBT subjects but I'm not that good of sleuth. Carry on! Insomesia (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Burrito

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Burrito. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Viriditas: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 03:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks

Thanks for letting him know. I just realized I had reverted him 3x!! Holy moly. What was I thinking? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, but it looks like you were reverting vandalism or a hoax. Happy new year! Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

True. I guess if I'd ended up in the hoosegow, I could have gotten off on that technicality.

And happy new year to you too. Of course, we haven't had ours yet. This year is year of the hamster! Yay! Finally! As you know, the new system is: bat, penguin, lamprey, camel, hamster, narwhal, dinosaur, hairless cat, inchworm, tapir, wookie, and taxi driver. It's all about the merchandising. The lamprey lunchbox/thermos set is going to be huge! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

George Lucas, is that you? What have you done with Anna? Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Brownie Mary GA begun

Just wanted to let you know I've begun the GA review of Brownie Mary. A few points need your attention when you have a chance. Thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry you've had such a long wait for a review on this one. I'll try to make the review itself snappy. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Take your time. And feel free to slash and burn. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

In your 21:06 edit you use the es, 'Don't mislead the reader' to justify removing two parentheses: "Noteworthy prosecutions by her office include those of Tarek Mehanna (ending in conviction) and Aaron Swartz (committed suicide prior to trial)." (emphasis mine). In what way did you find those to be misleading? I added that text because I thought it added clarity to the article (at least the version at the time). While I don't think they necessarily need to be there, I am puzzled why you find them "misleading" and would like to understand why. Could you clarify? Thanks! jhawkinson (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely misleading, whether you did it intentionally or not. The Ortiz article is currently a magnet for misguided individuals who blame her for Swartz's death and have attempted to skirt our BLP policy every way possible. Associating "notable prosecutions by her office" with one conviction and one suicide is entirely inaccurate and misleading. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Viriditas.

I'm sorry to say your answer confuses me. When I ask, "why is it misleading?", heading back "it's misleading" is not very helpful to me — I didn't understand your thinking and your answer doesn't help me to understand it. (You actually said "it's entirely misleading," but that is nearly the same.) My question for you is why do you think it is misleading?

Typically when we talk about a "prosecution" in common parlance, it implies a "successful prosecution" and certainly a "complete prosecution." Swartz's prosecution was not complete, of course, because he died before it even reached the trial stage (what many would consider the "prosecution proper"). So I think it's problematic for the article to talk about it as a "noteworthy prosecution" without explaining that it really doesn't qualify for what most people consider to be a prosecution. Once we're saying that about Swartz, of course, for parallelism it's easy to justify clarity on Mehanna. So, again, what do you think is misleading? In particular, what is misleading about the association between "notable prosecutions" and 1 conviction and 1 suicide? I just don't understand your answer, so if you could use more words that would be great. Thanks! jhawkinson (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a misleading false equivalence. A conviction is not equivalent to a suicide nor was it the intended result. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I agree, a conviction is not equivalent to a suicide! A suicide was not the intended result. How does the construct above lead you to either conclusion? The simplified grammars are "prosecution of Mehanna (ending in conviction)" and "prosecution of Swartz (committed suicide prior to trial)" where is the purported equivalence? Are you parsing the sentence some other way? I would appreciate it if you could take the time to give a slightly more detailed answer to my question. I've invested some time trying to understand your position (unsuccessflly) and in how to query you about it reasonably... Thank you! jhawkinson (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is misleading to the reader as it can give the false impression that a conviction (desired result) was equivalent to a suicide (not the desired result). This is very simple to understand. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Err...ok. I'm skeptical that it would confuse any native speakers of English, but if you think the parenthesis implies equivalence, then the correct thing to do is to substitute a form that does not imply equivalence, rather than removing clarificatory information. Please do so in the future. I'll look at re-adding the text in a way that does not have the suggestion of equivalence, but since the suggestion was so weak, I'm not sure how to meet that standard. If you have suggested wording, that would be great. jhawkinson (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dance

Thanks very much for the barnstar. I wrote that article years ago, I was just curious what made you run across it? --Elonka 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw the link on hula. Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Talk:Lahaina Banyan Court Park/GA1

When you get a chance, I've reviewed this; not much to fix. Wizardman 19:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look later. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods

Hi Viriditas, would you be willing to put the above on your watchlist? The reason I ask is that the marketing manager of the company (User:Kkirkham) has been on the talk page since June, asking editors to remove reliably sourced material, and so far three of them have done as she has asked (mainly The Four Deuces and Doc Tropics). Latest post about it here. I don't have any great interest in this article, yet I find myself alone in restoring the sources, and almost alone on the talk page arguing against their removal. If you'd be willing to help keep an eye on it, it would be very much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look later. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I briefly reviewed the discussion and added the article to my watchlist. The editors appear to be ignorant of WP:NPOV and this seems to be the root of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I agree that that's the problem. They seem to believe that if 90 percent of the sources say X, but the company and a journalist sympathetic to it say not-X, both views must be presented equally, or even that the non-company view should be removed. It's quiet at the moment, but if it starts up again it would be helpful if you could comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do. BTW, I believe that companies like Smithfield will not exist in 30 years. As tissue engineering advances, it will be more profitable to produce artificial meat than to actually raise and slaughter animals. People will look back at the 20th century in complete disbelief, much as we do today on topics like racism, slavery, suffrage, etc. "Animals were once raised solely for their meat? Crazy!" Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that people will look back on this with disbelief, but I wish I shared your view about that taking 30 years. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Riane Eisler's Page

Dear Editor,

As suggested by Odysseus1479 on Dec 29, 2012, I have pasted my proposed edits into my sandbox. I request that you please look at them and tell me if there is anything not acceptable. As I wrote previously, the existing contains inaccurate information and is in dire need of updating. There was an issue of conflict of interest and I do have a connection with Riane Eisler but this is why I know her work and can contribute accurate information.

Please let me know, after you have read my proposed corrections and updates, if it is OK and how we can get it posted.

Thank you so much. I look forward to hearing from you.

David loye (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

On moved and deleted CUCAS from Wikipedia

Hi Editor, This is Sue, from CUCAS (China’s University and College Admission System). I am writing on “moved and deleted the page CUCAS” from Wikipedia in September 2011. According to the related information, we guess you maybe have some misunderstanding on us. CUCAS is an official organization providing application services across a range of subject areas and modes of study for China's universities and colleges. We aim to help international students make informed choices about higher education in China, guiding them through the application process. CUCAS is an online platform authorized by China’s universities to directly receive international applications to study in China. We have established cooperative relationship with more than 200 universities and colleges, although they may not mention our corporative relationship on their website or supply link to our site, we have obtained certificates of authentication from them. In addition, although some universities has established their own application system, offering application forms and publicizing some related information, lots of international students are still not satisfied with them, because mostly the information on university’s webpage is not updated in time and students could not get more help from them. We can help them in a better way by offering special fast application channel, latest application as well as extra services including following up application results, booking accommodation and airport pick-up service. The fact proved that we have exerted a deep influence on international students who want to study in China, both the students and universities are satisfied with our service and help. We need to publicize our organization and let more students know about our service in order to further and better help the students who want to study in China. So it is very important for us to making use of the platform of WIKIPEDIA and list CUCAS (China’s University and College Admission System) on it. Based on the above-mentioned explanation and our actual demand, we earnestly need to know what kind of information and content can be accepted in order to keep our CUCAS (China’s University and College Admission System) article on WIKIPEDIA. I am looking forward to your early reply ASAP. Sincerely yours, Sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.114.50.52 (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at David loye's talk page.
Message added 00:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replying to a request for help using {{help me}} -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 00:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Kurt Elling's Page

Copied from Kurt Elling Talk page, because I'm not sure what the proper protocol or Wikipedia etiquette is for contacting you or Gareth E Kegg:

Would someone who is a Wikipedia editor and knowledgeable about Kurt Elling's work -- such as Viriditas or Gareth E Kegg -- please create a new page/article for Kurt's 2012 album, "1619 Broadway - The Brill Building Project"? There is a link for it in his list of Grammy nominations, but the page does not yet exist. I'm not skilled enough with Wikipedia to know how to create the templates for such a page, but I would be happy to fill it out with any information you don't have easily on hand. The 55th Grammy Awards are Sunday, February 10, 2013 and "1619 Broadway" is up for the Grammy for Best Vocal Jazz Album. It would be great to have this page created before the Awards, if possible. (BTW, every one of Kurt's ten albums has been Grammy nominated, a streak unequalled in Grammy history, as far as we can ascertain.) You can find some information about "1619 Broadway" here: http://kurtelling.com/music/1619_broadway/ Please let me know how I can help. Thank you! Awakentech (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Virditas! Awakentech (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Awakentech (talk)

Don't thank me! That was Gareth E Kegg.  :) Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV/N

FYI: Left a comment for you here. Good luck getting anywhere with that! Location (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - I have moved your comment

On ani, I split out the discussion by editor; I moved your support for a topic ban for Malke 2010[7] but left your comment about North8000 alone, as it was unclear to me what you view is. If I have erred in doing so, I apologize; please feel free to move it back or strike it. KillerChihuahua 17:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Collapse

I responded on my talk page. I don't feel so strongly about displaying WikiProjects that I would be offended if my edit were reverted, but I am an advocate for displaying a list of associated WikiProjects on an article's talk page. It is not as though the list is so long that is disturbs the talk page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides, the number of banners at the top of the page will be reduced once the "Article History" banner removes the DYK banner and the GAN banner. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The only point of the banners is to categorize and assess the topic. The display is mostly unnecessary and takes up too much room. I will not revert you, however, as I respect your preference. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi Viriditas, there is an argument at Medical cannabis talk page I am unfamiliar with: if another talk page has supposedly reached some consensus, it translates to related pages. I don't see any consensus at the related page as stated in MC talk, but don't see how that would hold sway over this article anyway. The content in question was removed and replaced with a lengthy discussion that doesn't seem appropriate for the section, but rather like spam. Could you take a closer look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.45.208 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look on Monday (HST). Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Message

Replied at User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Makers 20:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Ricketts

Replied at User talk:Dleit Ḵaa#Ed Ricketts. Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hey Viriditas, I know we disagreed on some aspects of it, but I was glad to see Brownie Mary made it the rest of the way to Good Article status. Thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful review...and for the brownie. I hope they aren't "magical"! Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to try it and find out ... just don't plan to drive a car right after ... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Shaik Mydeen

• Shaik Mydeen (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Would it be reasonable for me to move his userpage to his sandbox or at least add {{userpage}}? He's never edited, and is really using Wikipedia to webhost a promotional fake article.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I just decided to do it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad it worked out. Sorry, I wasn't available. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Viriditas. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Tea Party movement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1082 words and 25 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 04:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism

Hi there. Thanks for alerting me to the existence of this astonishing WikiProject, of which I was unaware until just now. My first reaction is to recoil, having looked into the site and its membership list. It seems to me to violate the basic tenets of NPOV in a most flagrant manner. If there is a "liberal" counterpart (I suspect there is somewhere) then I feel the same way about it as well. Talk about battleground mentality! Jusdafax 06:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Task force Science fiction for wiki project novels

Excuse me, my name is Liberalufp and I will be the new coordinator of the task force. With me as coordinator things will be very different, for one the task force at the moment is run down and only has 10 members. In effort to make this task force a major success and living up to its goals, I will be taking the reins and will be requesting for each one of you to do your assignment I will be assigning you and message me on my talk page when it is done. If you wish not to do the assignment let me know. I am sorry if this is harsh and tyrannical but we have over 4,000 articles that need taking care of. Everything is optional and do not feel pressured. If you have any objections or Questions please message me on my talk page.--Liberalufp (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered users can't participate in RfA

I suggest you expand "WP:BENEFITS" section: "Vote in Arbitration Committee elections and Wikimedia Board elections." with RfA. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Turns out the discrimination is a social limitation not a benefit from making an account. It is the wrong guideline. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've at least temporarily restored one of your deletions

I've at least temporarily restored your deletion of the 'External links' section of Simulated Reality, for reasons detailed here, in case you wish to discuss the matter there. However, as mentioned there, please note that the rules seemingly give you the whip hand when it comes to deleting any individual links you don't like (indeed you can delete each of them if you feel that way inclined). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad you spend your time restoring trivia, "in popular culture" sections, and lists of links to external websites instead of actually improving the article. This is why we can't have nice things. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I now think I've bitten off more than I want to chew with this article. I may or may not eventually make a lengthy suggestion on how I think this article and the related Simulation Hypothesis article might be changed, but I'm not sure I want to put in the time and effort needed to even produce such a suggestion, let alone try to get it implemented. Meanwhile please feel free to reverse my changes by deleting the Popular Culture and/or External Links sections and/or transferring their contents to the Simulation Hypothesis article and/or the Simulated Reality in Fiction article. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need two separate articles on the topic? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I really want to discuss anything to do with Simulated Reality any further, but in reply to your question, we actually already have 3 articles, and may need 3 or even more. As I already told User:Lordvolton at the end of my first of two posts to Talk:Simulated_reality#Simulated_reality_in_fiction, "... in general I think that this entire article needs to be split into two articles, an important one on the philosophy and its implications for everything from history to science to religion, and a technical one (and in my view a largely irrelevant one) on the science (or perhaps that should be quasi-science - pseudo-science seems far too harsh unless you're a hardline Popperian, which I'm not), but that's another day's work and I'll hopefully eventually detail it in a new Talk section." I suppose I should add that the technical stuff seems both irrelevant and off-putting to a reader like me. Lordvolton pointed out that a second article (Simulation Hypothesis) already existed, and said that merger proposals had been rejected in the past. I'm not clear (and I doubt if many others are either, since it's not explained anywhere in the articles) whether that split is for my suggested reason of technical science v non-technical philosophy, or for some other reasons (as seems probable). Such other reasons might well mean that at least 3 articles are needed. Or rather at least 4 articles, as there is already a third article (Simulated reality in fiction), which may well be best left separate, because at first glance it seems to be full of items which seem to have only the loosest connection to Simulated Reality, but which probably can't easily be cleaned up, as any attempt to do so would probably involve amateur editors like me in a losing battle against commercial vested interests who can probably afford to bring far too much editorial firepower to bear in defence of their free advertisements for their products (though WP:AGF would probably make it illegal for us to even try to spell out our suspicions that that was what was happening). But even without this additional problem of commercial vested interests, the science v philosophy v other unknown reasons seems far too daunting a task for me to want to remain involved (as I've already said in my last post to you "I now think I've bitten off more than I want to chew with this article") - indeed I probably shouldn't really be taking part in this conversation with you, as it's a bit of a distraction from other things I might more usefully be doing on subjects that have nothing to do with Simulated Reality. All the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I still see the topic as a unified whole; the other subtopics may or may not be appropriately split out into daughter articles and replaced with summary style paragraphs. In which case, we are still left with a single article about the topic. I'm curious, what kind of "commercial vested interests" could there be on this subject? Are you serious? The merger proposals were wrongly rejected, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Parent-daughter articles is one option, but another option is to just link the articles in or before their lead paragraphs, and I have no desire to get involved in a discussion of the merits of each option even though I would go for the latter if it were up to me, which it isn't.

Seriously, in my previous post I already answered your question regarding "commercial vested interests" before you even asked it, when I said that the Simulated reality in fiction article looks like a whole load of free advertisements for products (books, movies, etc) many of which seem to have at best a minimal relationship to Simulated Reality. But I'm not sufficiently interested in the question to care whether this appearance of free advertising is the reality, or just an accidental illusion, or a bit of both (which would be my normal guess in such cases, mixing the contributions of disinterested editors and those of commercially motivated ones in unknown and probably unknowable proportions). OK, I've wasted enough time on this already, as I am now saying for the 4th time in this conversation. Please don't ask me any more questions as I have no desire to waste any more of my time on replying to them. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

response to message

I am not forcing anyone but merely coordinating by suggesting people things to do. By "assignments" I mean they are things they agree to do, and since they agree they are "forcing" themselves not me.--Liberalufp (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you've received good feedback from at least three users (check the replies on other talk pages where you left messages) explaining how they feel about your approach. Unless you can show that you understand what these users are saying and integrate their responses into a new approach that is changed by their feedback. then you will fail at your task. Please try to put your mind in the minds of other people. Your response indicates that you cannot understand the problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: Liberalufp, I was very surprised to see your latest comments on Doctorxgc's page showing that you did not understand any of the feedback you received by other users including myself. I will need to repeat myself with stronger language: please do not assign any editors any assignments of any kind. If you don't know why, then re-read the comments other editors have left in response to your messages. Do not respond here unless you have shown some kind of understanding about the problem. I'm afraid that if you persist in this behavior, there may be additional problems for you. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Peace Maker Barnstar
	Your thoughtful words on Til Eulenspiegel's talk page was a nice way to try to restore harmony in a difficult situation. Nicely done, Viriditas. - MrX 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope everything works out for the best. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2013 (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. Memills (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Makers

Are the 4 in the table at User:Viriditas/sandbox still to do? Sorry to vanish like that. I'd just had enough of the blocks. It seems better now, but who knows for how long? I tried to get photos where missing but had no luck. I will continue to try, but am not hopeful. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries and no hurry. If you can figure out how to improve the article, by all means go ahead. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:San_Francisco_burrito#Requested_move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:San_Francisco_burrito#Requested_move. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

Viriditas, congratulations on making this, which one of the most concise, thorough, and well-formatted requests for checkuser that I've seen in a long time. Have you ever considered helping clerk at SPI? You'd definitely be a big help there, as there are a lot of clueless people that have no idea about how simple it actually is provide evidence for a checkuser request; they instead post massive walls of text with no diffs then seem confused when their request is declined. Anyway, thank you.--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. However, for a multitude of reasons, I'm more interested in remaining a content editor. Or, at the very least, trying to be one! :) Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a more important role, in many ways. Enjoy. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Maintenance tagging

I responded to your request for an example on my talk page. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OGBraniff again?

Could be a coincidence http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mendoza2909 In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lampenstein Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Analysis

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents I did an analysis and confirmed your claims (to anybody reading this and thinking I have a bias, I would have posted my analysis just the same if it had shown the claims to be bogus -- I have no dog in this fight). Apparently, this is an area where people form impressions from one or two diffs and sometimes get it wrong. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you need confirmation on anything else. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Resuscitating WikiProject Astronomy

WikiProject Astronomy is currently hanging by a thread, not doing much of anything. Of course, the talk page does get posted on a few times a week, but most work by members of the project is in the form of individual or (rarely) small-group crusades to improve articles, or rapid spurts of article creation by, again, individual users without the overall involvement of the broader project. Is there any way we could change this?

WikiProject Military history seems to be one of the most successful WikiProjects, and having read the archive pages for the space projects reorganization in 2010 that there was a plan to integrate us, WikiProject Solar System and WikiProject Spaceflight into one megaproject. This seems like a good idea, and should be done along with major outreach to Wikipedians to increase the cohesiveness of the combined project. In the end, though, is it possible to bring WikiProject Astronomy back to life? Wer900 • talk 04:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. Given the scope of the universe/multiverse, anything is possible. The only constraints are time, money, and lifespan. Oh, and cranberry crumb cake. Mustn't forget that. If you've ever had fresh cranberry crumb cake, you'll know what I mean. And yes, it is better than sex. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Walter de Brouwer

Hi! That bio has been shaped by friends of the subject. The last clean version was here. I am no longer editing that article. Feel free to review and make changes as needed, but prepare for some resistance. Jokestress (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew something was fishy. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Wer900's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I added some comments again on my talk page in response to your post, so you should read them. Wer900 • talk 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I added more comments to the discussion. Perhaps you should watchlist my talkpage, and I yours. Wer900 • talk 01:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages

In the sake of everyone getting along, I would like to point out that this sort of thing is not very helpful. Surely this sort of thing can be discussed on the article talk pages if there are any specific issues. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you. I view my comment as very helpful as it a) contacted the user in a polite manner and informed them that they should not be editing pages where I am active per recent discussion and b) informed that they are welcome to discuss their changes on the talk page. Exactly what part of my comments don't you find "helpful"? The user was asked not to follow me around and has not stopped with the behavior. I am required to attempt to contact the user and communicate with the user in order to "help" them understand the problem. You are free to escalate this to ANI. I would do it myself but I am busy at work. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

To answer the question you posed to me on my talk page, I will say that it is the community of content-builders who will guard the guards themselves, just as in a normal democracy. The elected assembly, content review committee, and admin review committee will be much more easily guarded by means of regular democratic election as opposed to our failed model of "consensus", which skews power enormously to those who have the capacity to engage in endless debates and edit wars rather than help to construct the encyclopedia. Consensus works on a small scale, and most decisions will continue to be local, but for encyclopedia-wide issues I think that democracy is the only way to fairly represent all members of the encyclopedia in guarding the guards themselves.

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Wer900 • talk 16:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston_Marathon_bombings#Suspects_background

Ha ha. I messed up your clean talk page. Shouldn't it be Suspects' with an apostrophe? I'm too chicken to change it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Don't be chicken. Be bold, like a Moose. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it's fixed now. And moose (sometimes plural "moeuse") are not bold, nor clever. If you spook one in the woods near a city, they sometimes run in a panic looking straight ahead, right into the city, and right through it in a straight line out the other side. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on them. There's some ET somewhere complaining about how stupid we are as well. It's all a matter of perspective. And just to give you some perspective on how large the universe is, astronomer Caleb Scharf writes that if we could distribute all of the stars to every human being that has ever lived (~100 billion or so) each of us would get 10 billion stars! Think about that for a moment. In the end, our ability to comprehend the universe isn't all that different from a moose. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally say the same thing to friends. They often reply "...But we don't know if there's life out there...", to which I reply "Duh! Do you know how big it is out there?!?! Maroon! " Plus, so many lifeforms must have gotten started before us, and we all see what evolution does for I.Q. points. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me, can you see the night sky in Hainan or is there too much light pollution? As you know my biggest pet peeves are noise and light pollution. Sometimes when I'm in a strange mood, I think about what would happen if I just wrote about those two subjects and nothing else. :) Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In Haikou we can see many stars. Even 20 min out of the city and we can see Milky Way. It's wonderful. Because of light and air pollution, hundreds of millions of kids in China have never seen a star. Can you see stars at night? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Great article about Pattycake, it's nice to have a (referenced) social perspective when talking about zoo animals. Hope you'll be taking it through a WP:GAN! Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Obviously, it's a work in progress, and there's a lot more on the way. If you know of any images, please feel free to add them. There are quite a number on commons, but I'm not sure if Pattycake appears in any of them. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Technical 13's talk page.
Message added 13:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Technical 13 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sexism on Wikipedia

Hi Viriditas, I would really appreciate it if you would reconsider your support of Betty Logan. His comment about images of "pretty women with huge jugs" not being a problem – posted on Talk:List of vegetarians in response to a concern about them, and repeated at WP:AN – is sexist and undermining. It's baiting of the worst kind, because if you rise to it, he succeeds, and if you don't it looks as though that kind of comment doesn't matter.

It isn't fair to expect women editors to put up with it when they're trying to make a serious point, and to have respected editors like yourself support him, without commenting on that remark (again, giving the impression that it doesn't matter and we should just suck it up), is very discouraging. It would help a lot if editors would make clear that that kind of response is never acceptable, regardless of any other issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that Betty Logan is not a woman? You are cherry picking her words to make her sound sexist. When I read her arguments in context, I don't see anything sexist at all. PETA is widely known for publishing images of women without any clothes, so I find this discussion somewhat strange. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen no indication that he is. Betty Logan is a character from a film, so I assume that's where the name comes from (though that's just my assumption). If you look at his early edits, he focused on snooker and beer, and reverted to restore an image of a woman's genitals. Add the "huge jugs" and similar comments, and they seem unlikely to come from a woman, though anything's possible. Still, that comment is problematic regardless of who posted it. And I don't know what this has to do with PETA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As you know, PETA works on anti-fur and vegan awareness campaigns that make use of semi-nude or scantily clad women, and the ads often highlight their sexuality in an attempt to make AR/veganism "sexy" (for one of many, many examples, see this) As a result, in the U.S. there is a direct association between the image of a sexy, scantily clad woman and vegan awareness. While this may be "sexist", it is part of mainstream vegan marketing by vegan-outreach organizations. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, PETA does that to be outrageous, but that has nothing to do with List of vegetarians, and even at her most outrageous you'll never hear Ingrid Newkirk talking about women with huge jugs. It is that comment that I'm talking about, posted in response to a concern. It's important to understand the effect comments like that have on discourse, and how they make the recipient of the remark feel (not to mention other readers in future). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The video of Alicia Silverstone that I linked above shows her naked (from the backside) and YouTube was concerned about it enough to impose content and age-restriction. Personally, as a man (and I need to say that to put the discussion in context) I don't find it outrageous, I find it beautiful. And the video argues (for the sake of argument, not based on any evidence) that this beauty is the result of a vegan diet. More recently, researchers have investigated this kind of beauty in some depth and they have discovered that all of us, man or woman, are hardwired for it. That sounds like a simple statement, but it is actually quite complex and comes into play in every aspect of our lives, from architecture to food, from consumerism to finding a mate. I think where the line gets crossed is when a man or a woman is objectified for their beauty, and their beauty becomes a commodity that narrows the full range of their individuality. In many respects, this kind of sexism is identical to speciesism; this is exactly what happens to animals who are seen as food objects, their personhood and their individualism is denied. So I'm afraid that the link to sexism in this context is somewhat muddled by various factors. First, when asked, Betty claims she is a woman. Second, through various interactions with Betty over the years, I never got the impression she was a man. Third, while her wording was less than ideal and could easily be misinterpreted, I don't think she is a sexist. I do think, however, that the notion of anatomical beauty and vegan diets is connected in the minds of the public due to the vegan outreach campaigns, so it is natural to link the two together, even if it is not an ideal match. Your concerns about sexism are of course valid, but we also have to admit that the sexism is deeply embedded by vegan organizations themselves (which is entirely possible and "normal" considering how sexualized the topic has become and how advertising and marketing uses the female form to sell products and ideas) and that it is not out of the ordinary for an editor on Wikipedia to choose to use an image of a sexy vegan to make this point. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This mixes up several issues. First, I've never seen Betty Logan say he is a woman; he has said on AN that he has never said one way or the other. If he is giving people the impression that he's a woman and isn't, and is posting (what I regard as) sexist material and comments, and having other editors support him because they think he's a woman, that's very problematic. And I have to be honest with you, I am seconds away from retiring over this. The only reason I haven't posted the tag is that I don't want to look foolish in 24 hours in case I regret it. But seriously, why would any woman want to put up with this?

As for "vegan organizations," I'm not sure who you're talking about, apart from PETA (and they mostly promote vegetarianism nowadays). Is there any group other than PETA that does this? But regardless, Wikipedia isn't PETA or America, and we're not here to be outrageous or undermining of women.

The point is that, of 13 images of women on List of vegetarians, 5 are of Playmates, porn stars or similar, and when I expressed concern about that percentage being unrepresentative (to put it mildly), I was told: "[I]f we can show a good looking guy with huge muscles or a pretty woman with huge jugs then why not? It helps demonstrate there are no adverse physical effects of being vegetarian." That is both sexist and facetious. And when the woman recipient objects, she's accused of cherry-picking the remark. So really, to stick around is to be a glutton for punishment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SV, I thought I just explained this up above, but if you like I'll repeat myself. I asked Betty on her talk page if she was a woman, and she said yes. You can go over there right now and read it, it's the last thread at the bottom. And, as for the argument that the image "helps demonstrate there are no adverse physical effects of being vegetarian", that is straight out of PETA. The Alicia Silverstone video page (only one of many on their site) argues just that ("Sexy Hollywood star Alicia Silverstone bares all in PETA’s first-ever naked veggie testimonial PSA. Watch Alicia’s sexy video..I've been vegan for 10 years, and it’s the single-most important and helpful decision I have ever made. Physically, the effect has been amazing. Once I went vegan, I lost the weight I wanted to lose, my nails were stronger, and my skin was glowing. I feel great, and I look better now than I did 11 years ago.") You say it is sexist, and I don't doubt it, but that's how PETA sells veganism and that's how the public knows it, and Betty's argument isn't out of the ordinary but rather part of the mainstream thinking about veganism from vegan organizations. I think you are taking this to a personal level, when we should be more concerned with improving the list. I already asked Betty to back away from it for a year. What kind of outcome are you looking for here? She said she's a woman, and she's argued that she isn't sexist. Is it sexist to portray vegans as beautiful, semi-naked sex objects? Yes, but that's how veganism is marketed to the public. You can't blame Betty for that. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I'm wondering why you're focusing on whether Betty Logan is a woman. The comment is sexist no matter who posted it (women can be sexist too), but if you look at his early edits it would be surprising if he's a woman. And again, what does Wikipedia have to do with PETA or marketing? The only point that matters is that almost half the images of women on List of vegetarians are of porn stars and Playmates. It has nothing to do with nakedness. Are 5 out of every 13 women, porn stars? No. Are 5 out of every 13 female vegetarians, porn stars? No. So why that representation on Wikipedia? Where are the lawyers, doctors, academics, scientists, entrepeneurs?

The reason is that the article has been put together by men, by the 91 percent, and when one of the 9 percent expresses concern, the response is a sexist remark that other editors defend. Maybe I should just get a sense of humour. Anyway, point is that I finally realize I'm wasting my time on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely support a more equal representation, so count me as a support. However, I think we might be dealing with a bit of selection bias. That is to say, the reason for an unbalanced selection of images might have more to do with the nature of image uploads. In other words, it is likely that we will find more free images of beautiful women available to place in articles than we will attorneys, academics, and scientists. If you would like me to help upload these images, feel free to give me a list. I know User:Anna Frodesiak would also lend a hand as well. Would this help solve part of the problem? Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be very helpful. But please note that attorneys, academics and scientists might be beautiful too; the point is that the images in that article focus on porn stars. And the issue is not just selection bias because of image availability. In three of the cases, there were free photographs available of the same women wearing more or fewer clothes, and in each case the photos with the fewer clothes were chosen. The two lead images used to be Pamela Anderson in a bikini followed by a Playmate of the Year with breasts half exposed. Then further down a model in a bikini top with breasts half exposed, followed by a second Playmate, and then a third, followed by an erotic dancer and porn star. [8] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've identified a problem that should be fixed. Now, how do we go about solving it? From what I understand, Betty told me she is on board with us. Let me know if you need my help or what you need me to do in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Would a change to the image use guidelines help? Perhaps a recommendation as to how to best choose an image? Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The image issue is one problem. The sexist remark and the failure to deal with it is another. Imagine a black editor expressing concern about the portrayal of black people on Wikipedia. In response to his concern, the editor responsible for that portrayal makes a racist remark. The black editor complains, but the racist remark is repeated and defended. "You were just cherry-picking," the complainant is told, "and anyway, the other editor says he is black too, so your complaint doesn't count." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we are all agreed that your concerns about scantily-clad women were valid and have been dealt with or are being dealt with. Betty Logan's original response in full context, does not read as "sexist" to me.[9] Can we agree to disagree? Is it possible for you to entertain the possibility that you may have misinterpreted her comments? The only reason I say this is because I've made similar mistakes in the past, only to review the situation and to say to myself, "what was I thinking?" Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong about that being a sexist response. A woman expresses concern that 5 out of 13 images of women on an article about vegetarianism are of porn stars. The editor who added those images replies that we are simply showing these women scantily clad because they are "at work," and adds: "And if we can show a good looking guy with huge muscles or a pretty woman with huge jugs then why not?" [10] It's a boilerplate sexist response, and I'm no longer willing to perform the daily lobotomy on myself that I normally have to perform just to get through one day on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How is that sexist in its original context? Betty argues that such images were chosen (discrimination by editors) due to theme, balance, context (in situ), selection (bias) and health (veganism is nutritous). Those are solid explanations. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Am I really having to explain why praising "pretty women with huge jugs" is sexist in response to a concern about too many images of porn stars (or in response to anything else)? It's locker room stuff. This blindness is much more upsetting than the original remark, by the way, and it's the reason I know I can't hang around here anymore. The Foundation hopes that having more women editors will get rid of this kind of thing, but in truth it's going to have to happen the other way around. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are reading it entirely wrong. In its full, original context it's an analogy showing that stereotypes of men with big muscles are like women with big breasts. For some reason, you are missing the analogy and reading it literally. Also, knowing that Betty has a huge interest in film, her choice of inflammatory, colorful language appears deliberate, as if to emphasize the conceptual metaphor. Nothing really sexist here. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, I just asked Betty on her talk page to help with this. I hope this gets the ball rolling. It's better to focus on what we can accomplish now rather than dwelling on the past. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have always been in favor of a more representative gallery, but I think we should focus on removing duplication first. We currently have three Playboy Playmates, so we could replace a couple (I suggest keeping the one that was also Miss USA and then you cover the beauty pageant demographic too). We currently have two Chief Rabbis (replace one). We have three female pop singers (replace a couple). We have two straight actresses (the Dutch lady and Julie Christie) so let's replace one. We have a couple of male pop musicians, so lets replace one. That is just at first glance, there may be more overlaps. And those should preferably be replaced by professions, nationalities and ethnicities that are not represented. Eradicate duplication initially because there is an obvious approach, and it that doesn't resolve the issue then we can have a close look. Betty Logan (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Viriditas. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm editing like a maroon

We're sick with bad colds, and I just realized that others in the home are doing dumb things too. Our noodles aren't 100%. I just started Trapdoor spider (disambiguation). I just don't know if it's needed. Is it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that!  :( Stay away from chickens and ducks (bird flu) and drink plenty of hot tea and get some bed rest. As for the Trapdoor spider page, that looks interesting. Check out WP:SETINDEX when you are feeling better. BTW, if I put your name like this (User:Anna Frodesiak) you should get a notification I replied. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I did. I got the little red thing-a-mi-doodle. Nice.

Thanks. I'm pretty sure it isn't bird flu. Then again, the birds are doing dumb things, but then that's normal. I once saw a chicken eat most of a styrofoam take-away container.

I read WP:SETINDEX and think that maybe the dab page isn't needed. Then there's the pesky Trap Door Spiders in the list. But there's a hat for that at the main article. Should I zap the dab page? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a list of Trapdoor spiders, right? And there are five different species that all share the same name? I think that's a set index article, right? I don't think you need to nuke it, but you might need to rename it. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rename it? But there's already the article trapdoor spider. Search says there are lots of families and genera and species that all are called trapdoor spider. I have no clue what to do. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the problem. Have a look at our index article on Anaconda. The problem is that our current article on the Trapdoor spider refers primarily to the Ctenizidae. I see that Liphistiidae, Barychelidae, Cyrtaucheniidae, Idiopidae and Nemesiidae are mentioned in the lead. One solution would be to move Trapdoor spider to Ctenizidae, remove the redirect, and then turn the old page into the set index page. But, I don't know if this is needed or necessary. I would consult with WikiProject Disambiguation and WikiProject Spiders, but it looks like that's what they did with Anaconda. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I just moved it stupidly to List of trapdoor spiders. I'm having competency issues. Plus, I accidentally clicked a spider blog, which triggered the firewall, and now enwp page are getting blocked. I'm making a mess. Would you please help me by doing something with List of trapdoor spiders like reverting or something. I need to collapse or do something that doesn't require my brain. I'm so sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take care of it! Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I've been in denial. I'm sick as a dog. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Get some sleep! And, get better soon. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)