User talk:FourViolas/Archive 1

Asexuality article
I reverted you here and here for a valid reason. Tumblr is not a WP:Reliable source; stop adding it to the Asexuality article. Also do not change words that are supported by the text to neologisms; per WP:Neologism, Wikipedia does not take kindly to neologisms. If you continue to edit the Asexuality article WP:Disruptively, engaging in WP:Edit warring or not, you will be WP:Blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Very sorry indeed; no offense intended. Thanks for fixing the article, and for letting me know Tumblr isn't kosher; I'll see if I can find a third-party peer-reviewed.
 * If Bogaert uses the antonym "sexuals" (I don't know if he does, I don't have access to the study), of course we should use it in that paragraph too. I'm a little surprised WP considers "allosexual" a neologism, even though it's been used in peer-reviewed papers since at least 2000, and has spawned derivative terms like "allonormativity", but the MoS definition is clearly on your side.
 * Again, sorry, and thanks for being patient with a new Wikipedian. FourViolas (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I know that I'm replying late to the above and to this, but because I often deal with WP:Sockpuppets, I am often wary of newly registered editors who show inside knowledge of editing Wikipedia; to very experienced Wikipedia editors such as myself, your contributions show you not to be completely new to editing Wikipedia. They do show you to be somewhat new, however, like the Asexuality article matter. I also tend to be wary of WP:Activism editors; see what I stated here. Do try not to take a WP:Activism approach with your editing. As for what you stated above, I appreciate that you stopped adding the material, reverted yourself here, read the guidelines and perhaps the policies, and that you want to improve on your Wikipedia editing. I know that I came off a little harsh above, but an editor who keeps reverting without valid cause can be frustrating, and I wanted you to immediately get the point regarding Wikipedia's sourcing standards.


 * Since I currently have your user page/talk page on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need for you to let me know on my talk page that you have replied here at your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks again. I'm not a SP (I promise), although I'm flattered you think my copy-paste-tweak skills amount to "inside knowledge". I'm just a rookie who wanted to know what "allonormative" meant and was annoyed WP wouldn't tell me. Your appropriate scolding prompted me to do a lot of homework on WP's intent and policies. On reflection, I'm glad to know WP is defended against well-meaning but over-bold editors as well as vandals and axe-grinders. FourViolas (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not any "copy-paste-tweak skills" that caused me to tag you in my mind as someone who has edited Wikipedia before editing as FourViolas, whether you are a WP:Sockpuppet or not. It's the fact that you signed your username in your first edit to a talk page, something that the vast majority of WP:Newbies don't initially do unless they are a WP:Student editor, you referred to the WP:MOS in this edit (how would you know that something is "un-MoSsy" at that point?), and, in this edit, you used "copyedit" terminology. It's simply highly unlikely that someone who is completely new to editing Wikipedia would edit in those ways. But whatever the case, you have been editing in a WP:Good-faith manner, and there is no need to explain yourself to me on whether you edited Wikipedia for some time as an IP address or otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL, and regarding this, I did think you were giving me too much credit with the "coaching" bit. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can see how you'd think that. All I did was read through the MoS and policies (obviously not carefully enough) when I joined, and I'm still getting the hang of signing.
 * Sorry about that—I probably should have followed procedure, but it was a minor reconsideration and would have looked passive-aggressive if struck through.
 * Thanks for your dedication, vigilance, and AGF! FourViolas (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Tweaking your comments after someone has replied to them is fine (I do that often), as long as the tweaking doesn't take the replies out of context. Anyway, good luck with editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Name-calling incident
ok thank you im sorry about what happend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerwiki14 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

who asked you fourviolas
pinethicket has had some disagreement with my edits its between him and me so keep your big nose out of my business you Christian scum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.47.54 (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In case anyone has a burning desire to see uninteresting vandalism, the above is i/r/t [|a repeated-blanking incident] on Human Evolution.FourViolas (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

My article
I was working on my article, sorry for posting it in the wrong place.

But why did you delete it? At least you saved the code? I need it. Fox of Foxes 00:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesusDrog (talk • contribs)
 * See your talk page. FourViolas (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you
thank you for your comment, logic dictates your opinion is as important as anyones ( on a side note apparently Mali has gotten into the act. Besides the 4-6 deaths now there are 39 suspected cases (its where it says "telecharger" in the middle its in French). It looks like this has no end in sight. good luck--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bien sûr, merci pour votre volontarisme formidable. WP is lucky to have you!
 * This outbreak is disheartening in many ways, from the developed world's short-sighted neglect over the past few decades to our present selfish hysteria ("Africa, whatever, as long as it doesn't come here"). I'm glad we have good editors spending good info one click from the main page. Best wishes for friendly editing, FourViolas (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

 * Thank you! Glad to see you're still around and doing good work. FourViolas (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Giordano Dance Chicago) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Giordano Dance Chicago, FourViolas!

Wikipedia editor LowLevel73 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Good job!"

To reply, leave a comment on LowLevel73's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding Talk:Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, you're certainly right about WP:OR - thanks for removing that information.

I also noticed your SAT 2400 userbox. I was a 2400 scorer myself back in high school - I think it was the first year that it was out of 2400 and not 1600. :D  Λυδ α  cιτγ  05:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm enjoying the experience! I'm impressed by how quickly that article has come together, but kind of nervous about how immediately it's being put in the international eye.


 * Well, I guess now we know we're both three SDs above the median at a bizarre little set of brain games. ;) There's a "Perfect 2400" ubx, too, but I thought that would be too obnoxious.


 * Have a great day! FourViolas (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Redaction at Talk:Incest
Hi FourViolas, just to let you know that I redacted White male, possibly armed's first post at Talk:Incest and subsequently had to revision delete all subsequent posts up until my revert in order to hide its defamatory content. Since this contained a post by you I just wanted to explain that it wasn't because of the content of your post, but because the revision still contained White male's edit. Sorry if you already realised this, just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't removing your edit for no reason. Cheers, Sam Walton (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your diligence! Glad to see you're making good use of your new tools. Happy {subst:midwinter festival of your choice}! FourViolas (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Somatics
 * added links pointing to Spiritual, Mental, Physical, Frederick Alexander and European

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Useful next projects
Hi FourViolas. It's nice to meet you too, and kudos for your good work on Somatics! Regarding your query about useful next projects, there are so many opportunities! Lately I've been focused on making ballet understandable to the masses by explaining things in layman's terms and adding images (e.g., pas de deux, glossary of ballet). I failed miserably, however, in my attempts to do this with Vaganova method which, according to sources, is either a dance style or a training system. Obviously it cannot be both at the same time and therefore must have two distinct meanings, but I've been unable to make this clear in the article in an uncontroversial way. If this is of interest to you, it could be a useful next project. Best regards, Lambtron (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Lambtron!
 * I'll have to keep thinking about it, but I don't really feel like the Vaganova article presents a problem. Although this probably isn't very apparent to non-dancers, I think it can be both a style and a pedagogy. Teaching dance isn't like teaching calculus, where you can explain in different ways but will always end up with the same set of theorems; it's fuzzy and slippery and complicated, and each training system has idiosyncrasies which will show on its students. For example, Vaganova students usually hold their center of gravity all but behind a stable position (to ensure activation of their core muscles), and that has a detectable effect on how pirouettes, for example, are executed.
 * Does that make sense? I'm trying to say that it's a training style, because it's a set of exercises and technical specifications which can guide a student from novice to professional, but it also counts as a performance style because a trained eye can tell a Vaganova dancer from a Cecchetti. FourViolas (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply, FourViolas. What you say is insightful and makes sense, but it doesn't offer relief from what troubles me about the article: Sources define "Vaganova method" as either a style or a pedagogy, whereas the article defines it as some sort of homogenous "style-pedagogy". A dancer can learn and perform Vaganova style without ever having been exposed to the Vaganova training system. A teacher may employ the Vaganova training method to teach the Vaganova style to dancers. It seems obvious that the training method and performance method are merely cousins -- two different meanings of "Vaganova method" that could (and probably should) be discussed in separate paragraphs. Sorry for venting on you; I'm just frustrated because I've been told more than once that the article is fine as is because style and pedagogy are a single, inseparable topic, as evidenced by a litany of disconnected facts that don't really support that hypothesis. Lambtron (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean. I agree that it's possible for a dancer to perform Vaganovistically without having gone through classical Vaganova training, and the article should definitely reflect that—if and when we can find a RS. (Dance scholarship is, alas, so spotty that it's hard to avoid WP:OR when editing in this area—most of my work on Somatics is flirting with originality, although I think I dug up good sources for most of it.) Here's an idea: could you find a review which mentions, say, a Mariinsky soloist not trained at the Vaganova Ballet Academy, and expresses admiration for their mastery of Vaganovan performance style despite their lack of V training? That would probably be enough to justify a clarification of the distinction.
 * Thanks again for your prolific and valuable contributions! FourViolas (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your advice,I was just somehow angry about the user "Mys 721tx" who put a "Nominated for deletion" on the site of "International Ecological Safety Collaborative Organization",which I edited. He just had some debate with me on Wikipedia Chinese and forbade me to edit by using his authority on wikipedia Chinese, so that he came to Wikipedia English, try to delete this related site I edited.

If you have the authority on wikipedia English, plaease help me to check this site, Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny Young (talk • contribs) 21:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, User:Donny Young! Let's see what I can do for you. I'm very sorry if you feel upset about User:Mys 721tx; I don't know enough Chinese to understand your talk page in detail, but copyright violations must be treated carefully because Wikipedia can't afford to hire lawyers to defend it in case it gets sued.


 * I think it would be against the WP:Canvassing policy for me to contribute to the deletion discussion, but I'll give you the best advice I can. The standard you have to meet is the general notability guideline: has the topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? That is, has any source known to maintain good standards of accuracy given it more than a passing mention? If you can show this to be true, you're allowed to use the organization's own information for the bulk of the article, as you already have. The article appears to be well-written, other than its lack of references to independent reliable sources to indicate notability.


 * Thank you, and welcome! On WP, please place new messages below older ones, and sign your name by typing " ~ " at the end. FourViolas (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanls. Werong wiki; should have been cywiki! 2.26.199.223 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh! Thank you for your contributions. I failed to recognize your edit summary as Welsh, so I didn't understand what you were trying to do. Cael diwrnod gwych! FourViolas (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Aishah Rahman
Hi I am Aishah's daughter and I wanted to update her page as she passed on Dec. 29th 2014. The on-line NY Times obit is coming out tomorrow. Can I add the source then?

Rubesy (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry for your loss. Your mother seems to have been a wonderful person.
 * Yes, the NYT is an excellent source. You can use the news-citing template surrounded by " " to place it in the article after the information it substantiates. The obituary will probably be a good source for other information, such as her awards and biography, and the following sources are also reliable enough: the Times review of "Chewed Water", her entry in the Concise Oxford Companion to African American Literature, and this snippet from the Gettysburg College News.
 * One last note: WP users can be mistrustful of, or even unkind to, editors who have a direct personal interest in a topic they edit. We don't want Wikipedia to sound like advertising. However, if you keep close to what the sources say and avoid promotional language (as you have been—good job!), you shouldn't have any problems.
 * Please let me know if I can help with anything else. I might take a look at the article later and tweak it a little. Again, I extend my sympathies to you and your family. FourViolas (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Cannon
Harrias talk 03:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you from User:Infan8
Thank you very much for your lovely and warm welcome message on my talk page; I really appreciate it Infan8 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, Infan8! You're already doing great work as what we call a "WikiGnome" in an area which needs people like you. Articles related to popular culture often receive help from users who have more enthusiasm than respect for the finer points of our style guide, so it's great that you're helping to polish things up. You might be interested in joining a topic-specific group, such as WikiProject Hip Hop, for to-do suggestions.
 * Again, welcome, and please do talk to me if you have any questions or concerns. Happy editing! FourViolas (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's like you know me too well yeah I'm interested in that WikiProject Hip Hop; thanks for passing it on to me; how do I sign up for it? Infan8 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks—I just glanced through your contributions. WP:WikiProjects are pretty informal: you can "join" just by working from WP:HH's to-do list or talking with other members on its talk page. If you create a user page, you can add " " to display a userbox to make your affiliation known. FourViolas (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Mary Cannon
Excellent work. I took the liberty of adding categories - please add any more you see fit.

By the by, the viola is probably my favorite of the string family. Beautiful instrument...grossly misunderstood and sadly underutilized. (I really can't think of any concertos for it that I enjoy, save possibly one.)

Keep up the good work, and happy editing!-- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm flattered—I'm new to WP, but had already noticed your prolificacy and celebrity. I thought I'd forgotten something, but I didn't know what; those categories look great.


 * There are a decent number of Baroque and early-Classical viola concertos (Telemann, Stamitz, Hoffmeister), but then there's a dreary, violin-dominated drought until 20th-century composers like Hindemith start taking the viola seriously again. If your tastes fall in the Romantic interlude, there are practically no concertos, although I can point you to some lovely viola-solo works like the Bruch Romanze and Glazunov elegy.


 * Thanks for your kind words! FourViolas (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. Thank you for yours as well.  (I'm a celebrity?  Get me out of ...er, who knew? :-) )


 * I must confess to not being a big fan of Hindemith in general. (Too prickly for me, I'm afraid.)  I'm a Romantic at heart, and I do love some neo-Romantic stuff as well.  The one contemporary concerto I rather like is by Paul Schoenfield - it's available on Naxos, if you ever want to give it a listen.  And I'd forgotten, but there's an excellent pair of sonatas by Lino Liviabella that I discovered on a disc with some Nino Rota - gorgeous pieces, well-worth a look if you know someone who's looking for obscure rep to perform.  I'm not sure if scores are available online, but at least there are recordings... -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hindemith certainly is prickly. I've always thought his music sounds unappetizing on recordings, but uncurls to reveal a surprisingly tender, fuzzy underbelly in concert.


 * Thanks for telling me about those wonderful pieces! The Liviabella sonate made my day. You might be interested in an album I was given recently, English Music for Viola, on which Paul Coletti plays Clarke, Britten's Elegy, Vaughan Williams' Romance, and some rarer works. FourViolas (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oooooooh, the Clarke. How could I forget that one?  It's one of my favorite twentieth-century chamber works.  And I do love Hyperion - I shall have to look for it.


 * I have developed, of late, an interest in twentieth-century Italian instrumental music, orchestral and chamber, and have found quite a bit available on recordings. The Liviabella is from Tactus, which does fine work in that arena.  (Lots of Italian salon music, too - I have a number of their discs.)  I'm waiting on a couple of things from Naxos as part of my after-Christmas present - the complete chamber works of Respighi and Riccardo Pick-Mangiagalli, about whom I know very little.  We'll see how those turn out... -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

May I echo the words of Ser Amantio and thank you for your excellent work. It is a pleasure to see a user whose first biography on WP is as good as that – certainly it is much better than my first efforts. Did you know that you can add articles to more than one WikiProject? I have added the Biography and Pyschology projects and added assessments on the talk page; while shorter than many C class articles, it is well sourced etc. so in my opinion it merits it.

Have you considered nominating the article for Did you know? This is a good way to get more people, readers and editors alike, to see it, and with a "hook" like did you know that Mary Cannon's research group found that one-fifth of Irish 11- to 13-year-olds have experienced "auditory hallucinations"?, I think it would be successful.

Also, as a viola player, I'm glad to meet some other people who actually appreciate it :) BethNaught (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate your help. I wouldn't have known to add those WProjects or nominate it at DYK. I gave the nomination a try to see what happens.


 * Maybe we should get together in an Evil Viola Cabal, and replace all biographies of living violinists with violin jokes! (Kidding, of course.) Thanks again! FourViolas (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help and suggestions! The DYK certainly did attract eyes, and some useful tweaks, too. On to the next scientist! FourViolas (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Play on, play on!

 * Wow, thank you so much! Can I keep them? All right, just the viola then? Strads aren't meant to live behind glass, you know... FourViolas (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

About editing Katie F.
Sorry if my editing was disturbing, but I was trying to add this show I saw her guest star in and it wasn't listed on the television, I'm also new at this, so I couldn't find out where to put it. I left to got to the bathroom, with my laptop still open and my 14 year old sister got a hold of it. I'm sorry I toke all the things she edited off there a few minutes after.


 * Sincerly,
 * Mikayla ♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikayla xoxo (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mikayla! welcome to WIkipedia. I've answered you on your talk page. Hope I've helped, feel free to ask if you have any other questions. Welcome! FourViolas (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Political Party AKP
I'm Turkish and I made the changes.Sorry for bad sarcasm but Neo-Ottomanism is not an ideology of party,you can add Islamic Democracy as an ideology of party.Like Egemen Bağış,Pro-Western figures of party said that they're Islamic Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.226.96 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted these edits, in which you claimed the party was led by "Squirrel", called Recep Tayyip Erdogan an emperor, and listed "Cleptocracy" as one of the party's ideologies. These changes did not adhere to our policy on neutral point of view, and are therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Several of your other edits similarly changed sourced material to unsourced characterizations, and I reverted those too. . Wikipedia is not a platform for disseminating your opinion. FourViolas (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wednesday
I believe that my edit is constructive. I added "sometimes referred to as hump day". It's not a sexual reference. However, someone reverted my edit and assumed it was vandalism because of my other edits. Don't people trust that others can change, or is this a objective system. If so, I understand. However, the user who reverted the change probably doesn't know that [Wednesday is hump day. Wiki even redirects "hump day" to Wednesday, so why not add that it's referred to as hump day. Cluebot needs to be fixed or whoever reverted the change needs to know that hump day is Wednesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareals Nanen (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mareals Nanen! Is your IP address 168.8.249.236? Welcome, glad you've created an account.
 * I agree that your edition was not vandalism. It was automatically reverted by User:ClueBot NG because "hump" often is a sexual reference and Cluebot, bless its heart, is a computer program. However, the information is already in the article, properly sourced, in the cultural usage section, so you don't need to add it to the lead paragraph. FourViolas (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

May we recommend...


Enjoy! EEng (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC) In all seriousness, let me suggest you remove. Where you're going that will do you no good, at best.
 * Lionel_de_Jersey_Harvard
 * John_Harvard_(statue)
 * Widener_Library
 * Eleanor_Elkins_Widener
 * History_and_traditions_of_Harvard_commencements
 * Phineas Gage


 * Thanks for the fascinating reading! Methinks I detect your handwriting in the brackets of the s and -s very classy.
 * As for that, I avoid mentioning it IRL, but wanted to establish a pre-packaged reputation when I learned how little patience WP can have for clueless newbies. I let it slip during a campus visit and was disappointed to find that people care more about 2380 vs. 2390 than at schools with larger $$\sigma^2$$ (resizing), so I'll probably take your advice before doxing myself to school friends. FourViolas (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we meet post-matriculation please let's just speak English. BTW I forgot Sacred Cod. EEng (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Love the choice of image.

Blanking of Prosper Masquelier
Hello. I just wanted to delete this article because it has nothing to do on Wikipedia, this guy is not notable, even in his own country (France). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.2.53.215 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 February 2015
 * Thanks for your help, IP! Article deletion is often contentious, so we have a deletion policy to make things feel more calm and fair. Please read through it, as well as the notability guidelines for people. If you still think M. Masquelier's article should be deleted (I would agree with you), you can start a deletion discussion to reach consensus at WP:Articles for deletion. Good luck, feel free to contact me if you want help! FourViolas (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC) On Wikipedia, we like to be able to keep track of who said what when. In order to do that, we automatically sign all talk page posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) after each comment. Try to remember to do so.
 * I proposed the deletion of the article as requested, but someone removed the tag. Now I want to follow the AFD process but it reads on the dedicated page that I must have an account to complete it... I'm not a registered user, as you can see... Can you help me please? --109.2.53.215 (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your efforts. I'm sorry to tell you that I no longer feel I can support this article's deletion. I found the old discussion about it, which seemed to be talking about a different, better article; I've found and restored that version (feel free to check it out), and I believe it meets English Wikipedia's inclusion standard. If you disagree, you can always sign up and propose it, but I recommend you don't. The article will very probably be kept, and since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we have plenty of room for this kind of thing without crowding out the information you or I want to be able to find here. Good luck with other Wiki-endeavors! I'd be happy to try to help with anything else you need. FourViolas (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you [for welcoming dance IP]
Thank you for your kind welcoming message. Following our chat (under another ip address - sorry) on the project pages about Dance theater, I couldn't help wondering whether one way to help rejuvenate Project Dance might actually be to merge it with Project Theatre. Just a passing thought... Best, 86.134.202.242 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg You're welcome! (You can always WP:Register an account, you know...)
 * Your suggestion is very possibly correct, but I don't want to support it because it has a sinister echo of the current situation of dance in academia (it's usually a minor tucked away in the Music or Theater departments). I strongly believe Dance is an artistic discipline as worthy of respect as Music or Theatre or Literature, and I'd hate to see it subsumed by another temporal art form. That said, it's a great idea to piggyback by notifying those WikiProjects when there are goings-on of common interest. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning our little project
Heya FV, I just wanted to let you know that Concert dance hasn't left my mind! It's just a very intimidating upgrade with my sporadic time, so I've been putting it off in favour of smaller issues (though, truth be told, some of them ended up being as involved at the revision itself would have been!). But I still have the sources and hope to get to it soon. Sorry I've broken our stride a little.  S n o w  talk 11:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, although it's nice to hear from you. I'm waiting on some interlibrary-loan sources, although I've also been intimidated. I think it'll be better once we're working together. Looking forward to getting started! I'll try to make that series box in the next day or so.
 * BTW, I just welcomed a very promising newbie with an invitation to join our task force. FourViolas (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the wonderful things about where you're going is you'll almost never have to wait for ILL . EEng (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't I know it—I can't wait! Although it fails my first test. Hope it's not an omen. FourViolas (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt they'd order it for you. In the meantime: . EEng (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great! We should start by helping them improve the sources for Meg Stuart (youtube). Honestly a little...shall we say avant-garde/abstract for my taste, but seems high profile enough something must be out there.  S n o w   -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles-  15:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well this one looked promising at first, until you read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page: "Posts by "DanceLand" are typically news announcements released by dance companies and related professionals for publication on sites like ours. Therefore we don't credit them to individuals on staff." Most every other hit seems to be either a blog, some professional/promotional account attached to her or the (dance) company "Damaged Goods", or some combination thereof.  I'm not seeing anything of a quality of the one NY Times piece that is already referenced in our article, so I guess that will have to do for now.  It's worth noting that the Times editorial does reference her as having been something of a "fixture" in New York at one time.  Are you familiar?  S n o w   -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles-  15:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am now! I found a few good sources, and worked them in without changing the content much. I might do so soon, as it's currently heavy on lists of non-bluelinked European artists, but at least now it's sourced and has up-to-date awards. I like to think of this kind of austerely avant-garde dance as staking out territory for more palatable art to come. :) FourViolas (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Oh, and I put up some kind of proof-of-concept dance box in my sandbox. Feel free to change it. FourViolas (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warm introduction. I would be happy to collaborate or help out with developing pages for other choreographers, especially people who fall into this contemporary European concert dance category, cause I dig the stuff. Your cynicism can level me out. Also, the Meg Stuart page looks good. Poetzinger (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Future curious people thank you.
 * And don't think I'm old and crabby—I like experimental dance as much as the next person. I'm into Judson (Rainer and CI), and more contemporarily Heidi Henderson and Camille A. Brown (usually). I will confess to heckling at St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery once or twice, though. FourViolas (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi
i am a close friend of piero scaruffi and have personally had an intimate sexual relationship with him. please discontinue my deletion of him that he has, himself, approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.228.38 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP! Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry I removed your characterization of Scaruffi as "homosexual". It's just that Wikipedia has strict rules about how to add potentially controversial information to biographies of living persons. It's nothing personal, but I don't have any way of confirming that you are who you say you are, and if you happen to be deceiving us Mr. Scaruffi might be very upset indeed.


 * Instead of blindly trusting anonymous contributors, our policy is to provide a citation to a reliable source in order to allow readers to verify that the information they find here is true. If you know of such a source, such as a biography of him in a reputable newspaper which explicitly describes him as "homosexual", that information could be included in a "Personal life" section. (It's not what he's known for, so it doesn't really make sense to add it to the lead paragraph.) If there are only sources which mention particular boyfriends or husbands, it's not appropriate to describe him as "homosexual", because sexuality is so complicated, but the info on his partners may be included if directly referenced. If there are no such sources, please do not add the information to the article. FourViolas (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

College Days
If God loves you he will allow you, during your four years in Cambridge, to become friends with a truly fine man (or woman) like Andrew Gleason. I had the pleasure of lunching with him at Lowell House about three times a week for years. Just knowing him was worth the whole $250,000. EEng (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The privilege of having known such as Gleason is the only kind that matters. I'll be sure to supplicate Her next time I'm in Mem Church. FourViolas (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I had the impression you will matriculate this coming fall. Am I correct in that? EEng (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, although sometimes I try to lest I be written off as another teenage bighead. FourViolas (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend you continue that approach. You're going to have a wonderful four years, but its value is in its effect on you, not on the impression it makes on others. EEng (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very nicely put. I've been collecting quotes to keep me sane, and I'll add that. FourViolas (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Somatics changes
Hello, FourViolas! I made some big changes on the Somatics page - please take a look when you have a chance and let me know what you think. I look forward to seeing what additional edits you may have based on what I've done. There is still a need to flesh out some of the sections where I've just briefly mentioned various modalities. The psychotherapy section in particular; I have seen various suggestions for therapy modalities that could be included and now need to educate myself a bit and see what the sources say. Have a great day!--Karinpower (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great job, thank you! I've never really collaborated in-depth on a written project, and I'm just tickled to see how neatly our thoughts complement each other's. I'll put in some time responding to your latest work; you've added great material, and I can already see some things I'd like to expand. It's exciting to watch the article grow to fill this significant, Wiki-neglected topic! FourViolas (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you [for welcoming Jillsigman]
FourViolas, thank you for your kind welcoming message on my talk page. I am just beginning to navigate WP. Forgive me for any blunders. All best-- Jillsigman (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. You seem to be doing very well already! Any rookie mistakes you may make will be easy to fix (see Help:Reverting), and if anyone gives you a hard time about them tell them I said not to bite the newcomers. FourViolas (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OOPS. I guess I should have left my question for you here... What did I say about blunders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillsigman (talk • contribs) 02:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A Question about Suggested Articles
Hi. Thanks for your encouragement. Definitely a rookie. I have a question for you-- especially given the dance editing project you are part of. Where is the best place to make suggestions about articles that I think should be written (but that I can't necessarily take on myself)? There are many deserving postmodern choreographers that don't have representation on WP and I think it would be good at least to start getting some of the names on a list. Is there already such a list? Or a task page? ...Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillsigman (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There seem to be two lists in place: one general one and one hosted by WikiProject Dance. Both lists have some backlog, but they attract plenty of editors looking for projects. When you add names, it's good to include a one-sentence blurb explaining why it would be cool to write about this person, and links to the best potential sources you can find in a quick search. If you do both, someone (very possibly me) will come across it shortly and decide to take it on. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is great info. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.147.22 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help! Backstage Wikipedia can be complicated.


 * You'll get used to this eventually, but it's helpful to log in before editing; to indent talk page responses by preceding them with one more ":" than the post you're responding to; and to sign each comment with "~" . That way we know who's talking, what they're talking about, and when they said it. It's not a big deal, though, especially with our helpful signature robot around to help. FourViolas (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, WTT, I'm honored! I hope someday I won't have to bother AN/I over things like this, but for now it's great to know help is always near.


 * I actually did have a situation which could use your tact and tools. seems to be an account shared by good-faith experts who have made many helpful edits. They have also contributed an OR essay, Learning-Disadvantage Gap, which can't stay. I explained the situation as well as I could on their talk, but I don't feel capable of using the other tools I havespeedy deletion, AFD, UAAwithout hurting WP's chances of retaining some of these editors. I asked for Audacity's help (he was friendly to me earlier), but that was before I bothered to notice he only checks in every few weeks. You seem perfect for the job, if you want to take it on. FourViolas (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Userfied bio you did now oversighted
You might wish to see this: - I recognise that you meant well, but the bio was inappropriate anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I hope I didn't make the situation too much worse. I've been emailed by another Oversighter and have carefully read over WP:OS and WP:OSFAQ, so I hope to do better next time. FourViolas (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Most editors probably aren't clear on this. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Secret or Not
Hello FourViolas- I am taking you up on your kind offer of assistance.

The article at still links to the rather alarming Secret Society page. Given that Wikipedia has ‘outed’ our true name, the one and only secret that P.E.O. had left, I would like to remove this link and any reference to P.E.O. as a secret society.

The only way to justify the connection to a page including P.E.O. with “The Thuggee … a secret cult of assassins who worshipped the Hindugoddess Kali” would be if our 'secret' was restored and all references our actual name deleted from the P.E.O. article and associated pages.

As amusing as it is to be told that P.E.O. is “… deeply interlinked with the concept of the Mannerbund, the all-male "warrior-band" or "warrior-society" of pre-modern cultures”, this is not even a little bit true.

So I ask your advice: Do I remove the link? Or the name? Or both?

Thanks so much! WestCoastSue (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, you've done a lot of great work on that article! There's a little cleanup left, which I'll get to soon.


 * I think that for now, since reliable sources have described it as "secret", it would be original research and unverifiable to say that it isn't—especially because the "original" meaning is still unclear. Wikipedia and other sources have published several suggested names, but none of them are more than hearsay, and are currently accurately referenced as such. Here's a possible compromise:


 * You can link between Wikipedia pages by simply enclosing the article title in double brackets ( "P.E.O. Sisterhood" looks like "P.E.O. Sisterhood"). You can also display a label other than the actual title by adding it after a vertical bar: "that society" looks like "that society" and links to the same place. Furthermore, you can link to a section within an article with a # symbol: for instance, we're talking about P.E.O. Sisterhood. So, what if we linked to Secret Society (displayed as secret society), because the group was founded as a collegiate organization? That section is not the best-written (feel free to improve it! you certainly have the skills), but it gives a less inaccurate description of the kind of group the P.E.O. seems to be.


 * But either way, I don't think it's so terrible to be put in a broad class with unrelated groups. For example. list of women's organizations includes the Socialist Women's Network, which probably doesn't represent the views of most of your members. Readers should get an accurate idea of the PEO from accurate, reliably sourced, independently verifiable information in its own article; its links are just there for extra background. Readers should be able to deduce that you don't, as an organization, endorse Socialism or assassination just because other groups on other pages do. FourViolas (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for the form notes and for the thoughtful content of your comment. Attributions of P.E.O. as "secret" occurred before 2005. At that time P.E.O. launched the “It’s OK to Talk About P.E.O.” campaign specifically to address the issue of secrecy, which had become a recruiting impediment. The only "secret" we tried to keep was the name. Since, thanks in large part to Wikipedia, that is now public and given all we have done to get out from under this label, it seems grossly unfair to continue to burden us with it.


 * However, I deffer to your choice. secret society it is. The corollary is that we get to keep our secret and I may remove references to The Name, yes? WestCoastSue (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC) WestCoastSue (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. re your 'Socialist' observation- Unfortunately, yes, many of our American sisters, particularly from the Southern States, lack that original Methodist proudly Socialist spirit. P.E.O. is not meant just for other P.E.O.s; It means rather to serve other women who have NOT had our advantages. "Secret" societies seem to be about giving themselves some kind of inside track, the opposite of our philosophy. WestCoastSue (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you actually look at the references, 4. Talking P.E.O.: How does an organization introduce a new identity to the public? By first reassuring itself that “It’s OK” to change. (article by Sheree Clark in Feb./Mar. 2006 issue of Dynamic Graphics magazine) is all about exactly this topic. It is an article by the person hired by P.E.O. to shepherd this change from secret to public. As she says in the article, the organization was committed to becoming public EXCEPT for the name. WestCoastSue (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I appreciate your difficulty. It's non-neutral to remove reliably sourced info (the alleged "real name", or the "secret society" label), but you have maddeningly unverified personal knowledge that the RS are wrong. So I suggest the issue be tackled more directly. This could perhaps be challenged as original research, but what if you said something like,


 * "In 2005, the Sisterhood unveiled a new logo and an “It’s OK to Talk About P.E.O.” campaign, seeking to raise the public profile of the organization while maintaining its traditions of secrecy. Before then, the organization's avoidance of publicity, and the secrecy of their name, caused it to be considered it a "secret society'. "?


 * That makes it clear that RS haven't called it a "secret society" since the campaign, and provides better information in the sources.


 * I'm sorry to hear the spirit of Marxist solidarity is not universal among your membership, although that hardly prevents your doing good work. And I don't think you need to worry about this page scaring people off, now that you've fixed it up so well and removed false, poorly cited rumors. Still, when push comes to shove Wikipedia has to be an encyclopedia with fair, verifiable (even if not perfect) coverage, not a recruiting tool for its subjects. FourViolas (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Right. Journalistic integrity. Got it! And thanks very much for the assistance with refs and for the constructive guidance. I will implement it to the best of my ability. Ciao, Susan WestCoastSue (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Graham technique
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!
Four Violas, can you create a tutorialRead456 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) for me about editing Wikipedia?

Maths
I am not sure that you are interested in maths. Very few of your edits mention the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.27.194 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Math? I like math!Peas345 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I like to honor you for showing me around Wikipedia

Peas345 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) 

Invitation


Hello, FourViolas,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list •  Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter  •   Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I know of another user named Read456, could you please show them around Wikipedia as you did with me?Peas345 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Precious
  good faith to an extreme

Thank you, "endlessly impressed" autodidactive dancing playing and climbing user believing in this project as a "public good" and practicing good faith to an extreme, for quality articles such as Graham technique and Mary Cannon, for reverting nonconstructive edits, "warming up for the big dance party" and hugging trees, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Gerda! I'll have this set in a silver necklace and pass it on to my heirs. I hope you had a wonderful Easter service! FourViolas (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We had three excellent services, the first one sad and expressive, the second full of thanks, the third with a joyful mass which needs an article. Sadness is with me, remembering the death of a precious editor a year ago, another a bit longer (see also), and of a great singer of my voice type, but thanks will win, I am determined ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for all your work! Your content and social work make you a true inspiration: you weave and darn the fabric of Wikipedia. Bon courage; Bach and Jesus have soothed many a weary soul. FourViolas (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at my awesome user page!
FourViolas, please look at my user page. It's really awesome!Peas345 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Also, you can look at Read456's user page if you want.Peas345 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I really truly like your kindness for showing me around Wikipedia.Read456 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate Article
FourViolas, may we edit together on the chocolate article? You can leave anything on my talk page if I did something wrong.Peas345 (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Query
I notice that on your user page you say,
 * I'm comforted to know that a platform like Wikipedia can become a public good, rather than the kind of vitriol-spattered shambles that is so much of the user-generated Internet.

I was just wondering when you think that's going to happen. EEng (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, poor EEng. Have you been making logical inferences from observations again?
 * You should come over to my nice riverside house in Egypt, and I'll explain how nice Wikipedia is over a plate of locally-grown figs.
 * FV: My, how nice Wikipedia is. I just found a cool article on a Wordworth poem!
 * Eeng: Really? There are some days when it just seems like it's going to hell—
 * FV: -o, friend! Nice to see you! Have you done anything to make it easier for more people to gain more and better information today? That's what WP does, you know.
 * Eeng: I wish. I've just been spending so much time trying to talk sense into people at AN/I that I haven't been able to—
 * FV: Wait, what's Anne-slash-eye? Wasn't she a buccaneer?
 * Eeng: WP:AN/I? It's this horrible place where—
 * FV: Look at this pretty picture!
 * Therefore, as a direct result of the above-presented evidence, Wikipedia is a great, friendly, positive place. Q.E.D.
 * Also, sometimes saying nice things changes people's behavior for the better. Not that any Wikipedia users need to improve their behavior. I didn't say that. FourViolas (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wordworth? I'm calling the Dean of Admissions. I suggest you make alternative plans. EEng (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback from EoRdE6!
Forgot to ping you so... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to Nakon's deletion of the article "Learning-Disadvantage Gap"
(Hello Nakon) I consider your deletion of the article “The Learning-Disadvantage Gap” a hasty and inappropriate decision as it was based on a single quote that was taken out of context from a 25 March 2015 talk page response in regards to the proposed deletion of this legitimate and informative article.

Please note in my quote, “The Learning-Disadvantage Gap is a collection of original articles,” of which you focused on; I was referring not to myself but rather to the authors of the two hundred verifiable reference articles.

The seventh paragraph of the same communication went on to address specifically these two hundred references as shown here. Here’s the quote: “[t]he collection of two hundred plus references to the Gap consists of works by the U.S. Department of Education, K-12 teachers, principals, and district superintendents, university professors, and studies, parents and students, civil rights groups, court cases, constitutional attorneys, statistical groups, arts advocacy groups, and more. Just one reference alone includes a list of five hundred university professors who as a group are petitioning the U.S. Department of Education…”

The rest of my quote, “reliable separately published articles not yet compiled in a format easily accessible to the public,” explains that while these independently authored articles are currently and verifiably published and accessible to the public through various online and traditional sources, they are now compiled as a quick-read and convenient WP article.

I'm not making an appealing your decision here, asking only for future editor/administrator fairness and to be judged solely on how well the article itself abides by WP written policies. For all that has been said, I appreciate the opportunity to rewrite the article in our user-sandbox which will hopefully establish itself as a legitimate standalone WP article in the future. Thank you, as well as to Audacity, Four Violas, and others.

JCharlesThompson (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Adminship
Thank you for your lovely words of support over at my RfA. I hope that as an administrator I shall act in such a way that your trust in me has not been misplaced.

Just let me know if you need any rogue violinists blocked. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Teenly pledge
The humbleness in your Teenly pledge paragraph is amazing. We need more of that in the world. Can I take the pledge also? TonyClarke (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you think so, and hope I don't let myself forget it too often. We need more souls like Teenly's in the world, and we need to be careful with them. If you want, you could rephrase the pledge as "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." (I'm an atheist, but a big fan of Jesus.) FourViolas (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Play it again, Sam"
Real establishments!? Can we trust tripadvisor? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * I'll be darned. FourViolas (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sock it to me. EEng (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I went and an IP for chipping in at our fine article on paronomasia, but Martin set me straight. FourViolas (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, puntastic! I can see we'll have some musical fun with your username. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo request letter
Heya Vees. Just got around to tweaking sandboxed request letter. As usual, a couple of days after I said I would -- apologies for that. :) As you'll see, they are mostly just minor stylization changes which you may or may not find clarifying or useful.  The only one element I would be certain to change is that the license need not be CC-BY-SA; any of our free-licensees listed here will do if they are, for whatever reasons, preferable to the copyright holder.  Needless to say, there's nothing wrong with recommending CC-BY-SA 3.0 in particular, as it's straight-forward and the common choice, but for the purpose of the initial correspondence at least, it's good to at least reference the other licenses in passing, so that the image's owner knows they have options.  You have any particular recipients in mind just now? I know this came up first in the context of my MGC suggestion, but maybe you have your eye on other materials as well?  S n o w  let's rap 23:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * High, Rise! Sorry to be out of touch for a while. I recently sent a version of the letter to MGDC and Giordano, and MGDC just said they'd be happy to find one or two photos for us. Yay! I'm responding with gratitude and instructions on how to use the commons:Special:UploadWizard. Pretty much "follow all the instructions, categorize under "Dance technique"". I'll replace my sandbox letter with the one I sent. FourViolas (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure how, exactly, they're supposed to release them. They aren't the actual authors, but clearly have some kind of official authorization to use and distribute the photos. I've asked at Commons:commons:Upload help, and if you have ideas I'd love to hear them. Mustn't keep them waiting! FourViolas (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Got the info, useful for later. I'll put my re:re: email in the sandbox too. FourViolas (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RE: Straight talk
Yes, yes, I've been editing wikis since 2007. I'm not directing my anger at any specific individuals or editors, I'm directing my misanthropy and anger towards humanity as a whole. I don't feel any regret for trying to prevent the animal holocaust/genocide.

Telling me I'll "never be able to achieve my goals here" is inaccurate because Wikipedia is the main source for human knowledge, and by providing information, I strongly believe it is possible to kill old-fashioned ideals and values.

By the way, there IS bias on Wikipedia already. I argue humans are natural herbivores who have been CONDITIONED to be omnivores (despite claims on the meat article that humans are omnivorous, one reference linking to a cheap-ass 90s site). In addition, there NEEDS to be an article on carnism.

At the very least, that's all I wanted to achieve for now. I don't plan on becoming a regular editor, I just wanted to plant the seeds that lead to higher critical thinking. Take care. No hard feelings. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like Carnism is on WP to stay, so thanks for your efforts there! I wish you all the best, and I hope you find happiness and fulfillment in your activism.


 * And just because I'm cooking them in the background atm, here are some nice recipes:  FourViolas (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for your kind words, Rob! FourViolas (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Aquaculture
 * added a link pointing to Hunting and gathering


 * Dance
 * added a link pointing to Symbolic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Veganism edit
You recently reverted a good faith edit that added some duplicate information here:. Are you opposed to me adding back the more minor addition of "some" that was reverted with that? If you are opposed, I'll start a talk page thread, but I figure you probably didn't care about that wording so much as the added sentence that was duplicated. ~ RobTalk 20:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not at all, sorry. Go ahead! FourViolas (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Worth looking at as we clean up Dance
Talk:Outline_of_dance; this article is all kinds of unnecessary and improper under policy. Before I move to have it deleted though, I think we should bolster Dance's coverage of some of the important topics that Outline of dance attempts to address and which are a little lacking on the parent article at present (genre, types of dance with regard to number of participants and partnering elements, ect.).  S n o w  let's rap 02:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will help with that. Thanks for all your professionalisation! I just got depressed when I discovered that simple:dance is somewhat better than ours, but I'll get my spirit back soon. FourViolas (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, not to worry, we'll have it up to snuff in the near future, and it's not going anywhere in the meantime. I'd like to add sections on choreography, training (rolled into the current education section), technique, and varieties. The last would be a basic prose overview of the major groupings of genres with a brief discussion of their histories, not the exhaustive lists others have attempted in the categories and outline articles. I foresee six subsections, each of which would give a brief historical account of the tradition in broad terms and discussion of modern context;  Western classical traditions, Eastern classical traditions, Ballroom, Street, Jazz/Musical Theatre and Folk/Cultural/Ethnic/Regional (or whatever we decide to call it).  The trick will be to keep it as an encyclopedic summary of these groups that is expansive in coverage without detail bloating the article.  Some styles that do not fit cleanly into those categories might still be referenced in passing in the closest fit, but hopefully we don't find them being turned into catch-alls for every little substyle of every major genre.  These would of course merge with whatever content is currently found in the "Dance around the world" section (and I think most of it should remain, though it needs some reworking/re-contextualizing).  S n o w  let's rap 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a great work program. Thanks again for continuing to pick at it. I'm not sure I'd choose those subsections; why do ballroom and jazz have their own, but not modern? How is Western urban street dance not a folk/regional/ethnic tradition? I think (to avoid complaints) it would be safer to go by taxonomy: something like Western classical concert, Eastern classical concert, Contemporary (in the general sense) concert (musical theatre, modern, postmodern, "others"), and Traditional (all kinds of vernacular and social dance, from ring dances to breaking, group and partner together). Other than that, I completely agree with your description of the challenge: there's a gap in the literature between "social vs. concert is a distinction" and "Fokine vs. Petipa is a distinction", and we have to be careful and objective to avoid the soupy jumble of outline or  index. FourViolas (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll probably end up splitting the difference between those two approaches somehow, but there's a few complications to consider. No matter how we break it down, some people are going to gripe that this or that style is underrepresented, but ultimately we have to go with the sources, and the sources generally clump ballet, modern and contemporary as "birds of a feather" within western classical dance.  Of course, modern (style) practitioners felt that their movement was a reaction against the strict norms of classical ballet, and early contemporary pioneers felt they were going farther afield still, and while you and I may agree with those nuances, sourcing them without running afoul of WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT is a serious complication.  Better to stick with the basic facts of the lineage from one to another, which we can source and therefore use a reasonable distinction for the sectioning.  That will also help with the "narrative" of our discussion, giving a historical flow that can be the framework for discussion of how dance has evolved over time.  And because there also sources which attest to the desires of the progenitors of modern styles to set themselves apart from the traditions they came from but partially rejected, we can inject those references to make clear that these are not the same forms of dance, only that they share a common lineage.


 * However, I am aware that, judging from your comments, when you speak of typology that you meant context as much as (or more so than) technique. But even from that angle, I'd say there is a strong argument for giving musical theatre/Broadway/Jazz its own section even if modern and contemporary did not get their own, because musical theatre is a very different context for performance compared against classical dance. Technique may be very different between ballet and modern and contemporary but they are all forms of concert dance and when they are performed, the dance is usually up front and center; it is the reason for the performance, most often.  Musical theater and jazz are generally expected to share the stage with song and vocal acting; they are part of larger, multi-focus performance.  Furthermore, returning to the historical and stylistic side of things, there's the complication that jazz went on to influence pop, which merged with hip-hop to create new wave/commercial....ah, my head is hurting already.


 * And the situation will be even more complicated for the eastern classical section, in that the term is much more of a generic catch-all (there were separate traditions for several different regions -- of which China, India, Persia, and Japan are the best documented, though there are a bevy of others -- which developed much more in isolation when compared against European classical dance, which was comparatively more normalized).  Street is fairly straight-forward because though it is widely diffused globally, the sources again consider it one tradition and its rise in modern times makes the history and transitions/influences pretty well-documented.  Same story for ballroom, which has both a long history and a modern explosion.   The "traditional" styles will be most difficult to justify as a section, since they do not collectively have any kind of shared etymology and vary widely in social and performance context.  The unifying factor here is that they are all small scale styles rooted in a regional culture that did not become breakouts that spawned there own traditions of significant scale and breadth (though some of them have nonetheless gained broad recognition in modern times, such as Irish folk dance.


 * Anyway, by and large I think typology is in fact the absolutely most problematic way to try to arrange this, because there are few broadly-agreed upon principles that "define" a style of movement, and correspondingly weak sourcing. I saw this problem writ large when doing that research for concert dance, and it is massively better covered in sources than any other family.  I think we might ultimately have little choice but to err towards the historical tact, and use the "familial" groupings that I think will be best represented in sourcing. At least, that's my gut instinct at this stage; I'm not married to any one approach though and indeed, operating as I am on two hours of sleep today, I may be second-guessing any of the above!  Ultimately, I think we'll just have to feel it out as we go, and I suspect we'll go through a handful of different layouts before we strike the right balance.


 * In the meantime, tell me which of the following Korean dance images should be the last entry in the gallery for now (at least that I'm likely to add). I think realistically we need to cap it at around 20 images (which we're almost to) and even then, I'd like to move a fourth or more into the article proper as we add more prose to allow for space and context. There's just so much territory to cover, but there's a limit to how much we can shoe-horn in to the article until we've increased the text substantially.  But these are all so good! I'm thinking one of the two right most, though?


 *  S n o w  let's rap 00:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are awesome, thanks! I actually like the first one, as showing traditional costume, props, and a style of turn I've only seen versions of in Eastern European folk dance.


 * I think that we should eventually make our sectioning decisions based on tertiary sources, because secondary sources are just not going to give us explicit guidance on how to compare ballet, kathak, krumping, and tango all at once. But section headings are not what needs doing. You're right on: the important part at this point is to set in and churn out prose. I'm going to set myself goals, something like one SUMMARYSTYLE paragraph on one form every evening, and just build the article up. I think dance could be quite large, with as much general, art-form-wide scholarship as we can find, and then a decent few sentences on every genre with a stub of a critical tradition, from house to Cunningham to cheer. It'll be a job, but if we could get it even to Good status it would be a great step forward for dance on WP.


 * Thanks again! Let's do this. FourViolas (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good plan. In truth, given the scope of the topic, the article could be a good four to five times longer than it presently is without beginning to run afoul of policy vis a vis parent articles and article length.  That said, that's a lot of work, particularly with regard to the sourcing, but, as you say, it won't get done until we dig in. :)  As to the value of following the lead of tertiary sources with regard to section distinctions, I'm inclined to agree, both for the reason you cite and also because such sources are themselves devoted more to an encyclopedic approach.  That being said, I'll also say that I'm guessing those few tertiary sources we find on dance history (or tertiary sources on art more broadly that have overviews of dance) are likely to follow a similar trends to the secondary sources with regard to the history of western dance.  That is to say, I doubt they draw as fine a distinction between ballet and modern/contemporary as primary sources discussing those styles are likely to.  As to the above images, I think I'll add the first to the "Asia" section and some combination of two of the rest to the gallery.   On a related topic, are you married to that Kenya image you added? Any objection to my trying to find an alternate second image of a local African style that presents a less claustrophobic zoom and angle and demonstrates more movement?  S n o w  let's rap 05:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'll hold off on adding the Korean images until we get to discussing the Chinese/Korean traditions within the prose. In the meantime, I've added them to my sandbox, where I will begin stockpiling images that we might wish to use as we expand the article, so we don't end up with an absurdly large gallery in the interim.  Feel free to delete or add content to the sandbox as we progress.   S n o w  let's rap 05:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Any objection to this? I felt like the other image was just a lower-quality variation on the celebratory cultural dance photo we already had in the article, but I agree additional African images are warranted. This one is a good shot, with a particular body focus and tells a very interesting story of a unique dance tradition, so it seemed an ideal replacement. But I don't want to give the impression that I'm getting owney with the images and formatting, so just say the word and I'll stick the other one back in!  S n o w  let's rap 05:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks for doing this deletion stuff
thanks take a kitty thx edit: thanks for reply but i dont knwo how to reply but okay thanks i will check this stuff Ca1ek (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC) 

You seem to have some rogue references at Talk:Carnism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carnism#Proposed_temporary_resolution You seem to have put some references in the above section and they are appearing further down and sound out-of-context. Not sure how to edit that and change it, or they may not have gone rogue, but felt like I should ask. Hope your resolutions reach positive consensus :) Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I put in a template, but apparently it didn't make everything clear. However, it seems like the request I was trying to honor—please silence the discussion so I can work in peace—is not grounded in any kind of policy, so that section probably will be closed soon. Thanks for your help! I know the discussion was not very accessible to new voices, and I appreciate your taking the effort to catch yourself up so you can help out. FourViolas (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Still better than what would have happened if I had tried to do the same XD! Once you realise that they're references for the above section it's pretty clear, just requires that small jump in thinking.
 * Not sure how helpful I've been, but hopefully I've allowed some easier access to the chunks of text called "discussion" for new readers. I kind of just skimmed over most of the discussions to get a general feel, but thank you for appreciation! Hopefully a consensus can be reached about how to proceed about discussion and editing.
 * Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just remember when you get there...
Haters gonna hate. See "Lonely Men". EEng (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Funny you should mention; I just started teaching myself the real alma mater. People who feel wounded usually try to wound in turn, and often attempt to weaponize any personal information they have. As a third party, I suggest you chalk that one up to some combination of a) misjudging the culturally relative offensiveness of discussing others' anuses, and b) overestimating the reassuring effect of a smiley face. FourViolas (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL (and I don't say that often). You're going to fit right in. I gather you're not aware of the real scene of action. EEng (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC) You will email me when you know your plans, won't you?

Apologies!
Apologies for the Ken Penders edit. I was going to come back and add sources, and even though those claims have been made by fans, I wasn't able to find one concrete source to cite, as such were usually just scattered on various message boards/forums. So thank you for undoing it for me! :)

Elec Fan 50.104.19.148 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(PS, I hope I'm doing this right, I've never been on a Talk page before...)

Reference errors on 7 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:Psychology of eating meat page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=675049151 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F675049151%7CDraft:Psychology of eating meat%5D%5D Ask for help])

Undo Changes 8/12
Hi, you undid some edits I made on a page. Would you please let me make these edits? I am making edits for a page called Solid-State Circuits Society. I working in the administrative office for this society. I'd like to add changes so people who are interested in joining the society may do so. All of the edits I made are accurate, and you may cross check them on our official website - http://sscs.ieee.org/. This is very important and these changes that I put in the wikipedia article must be changed. If not, then the page needs to be deleted. Thank you, AbiraSengupta (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)AbiraSenguptaAbiraSengupta (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  but I can tell you, that you have just admitted to being in breach of WP:COI. Please read this and then get back to non-COI editing. FourViolas has already sent you a message on your talk page, here about these edits.
 * Sorry 4V, I was on and thought I'd save you some time. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DrC! tps is sometimes used in these cases.
 * Ahh, was wondering where those were. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * AbiraSengupta, you are actually allowed to edit in areas where you have a professional involvement, but you must do so very carefully. The links on your talk page, particularly the plain and simple conflict of interest guide, have detailed information on how to do so. Please be sure not to copy and paste writing from the official website, because that technically makes Wikipedia commit a breach of copyright. FourViolas (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You
I appreciate the thanks for my lake superior zoo edit, it was nice of you and it makes me feel like I can make more of a difference on here. I just mainly wanted to say hi as I want to get to know some other users. I recently asked a question at the teahouse that I think you could answer in a positive way, the response I got was to get a mentor and take my qquestions to them but that might take a while so if you could answer my question there that was chock full of more questions, I would appreciate it as it seems like you have it down at this point. Thank You. Glacialfrost (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Panathinaikos Coach
Dear Sir, Yiannis Anastasiou thinks he manages Panathinaikos. That sounds much better to me ( Sadly i happen to be a fan of panathinaikos ) .. Hahha :P. Never mind. You re doing a great job btw.. 212.50.111.147 (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the shout-out, ! Good luck for your team tomorrow. If you're interested in sticking around to help, we'd love your assistance either here or on the Greek Wikipedia. FourViolas (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology of eating meat (August 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychology of eating meat and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Psychology_of_eating_meat Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tokyogirl79&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Psychology_of_eating_meat reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Maria Tallchief page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681226728 your edit] caused an archiveurl error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F681226728%7CMaria Tallchief%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology of eating meat (September 26)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychology of eating meat and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Psychology_of_eating_meat Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Psychology_of_eating_meat reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I think psychology of and carnism are distinct, though of course related, just as um, well, psychology of economics is different from ideology of marxism or ideology of capitalism (sorry, best I could come up with offhand). A superficial look at Carnism suggests that a lot of its material belongs in Psychology of, and if that turns out to be most of Carnism, then Carnism might become a section of Psychology of. But for sure Psychology of is an independent, notable topic. EEng (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Talk:Carnism was an extremely contentious place for a while; look through the archives if you dare. Editors there couldn't reach consensus on whether it was okay to treat "Psychology of" as distinct from "Carnism", despite the fact that the piles of sources I gathered at "Psychology of" only once use the word "carnism/carnist", which is of contended neutrality in the first place—it's almost exclusively used by vegans, but that doesn't seem to be convincing evidence of non-neutrality.
 * Ahem. Basically, that talk page is something of an acrimonious mess fueled by a culture war. I was hoping to sidestep the hot air by writing a separate article about the relatively hard science, the psychology part of the supposed psycho-socio-cultural system in question, but apparently that's not going to be an option.
 * At present, though, I really don't have the energy or (especially) the time to negotiate the articles' recombination. SlimVirgin, a participant in the discussion, proposed someday making a Meat eating article to discuss the various scholarly approaches to the phenomenon, including the psychological research and the idea that meat eating is an ideology called "carnism"; that will probably be the best long-term solution, but for now I feel like throwing up my hands and tabling the draft. FourViolas (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Had you considered maybe Psychology of Karnoism - psychological aspects of the use of custard-pie-in-the-face? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC) p.s. I thought your article looked pretty good.
 * In case you don't know, 4V, ME123 is our designated court jester. EEng (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I noticed, although I haven't studied this formally. I think we actually do have an article on Psychology of Karnoism, loosely construed. FourViolas (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "MartinDeville123 set up his Evil Clown service in Lucerne, Switzerland, after being inspired by some of his favourite horror films - possibly including Stephen King It and Killer Klowns from Outer Space": Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

you are accusing me of Synthesis of published material
Now you are getting down to really rubish. I quoted text unchanged, the whole text of article 19, Geneva Convention I in context to soldiers/military and as a second text Article 19 Geneva Convention IV regarding civilian hospitals. In what way did I manage the crime of synthesis? I did not combine text nor sentences, I stated each article as a whole. I rather see you doing the crime of censorship. I have now read quite a few article in newspapers, who curiously always do not state the whole of the article 19 of the Geneva Convention IV.Jochum (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

singular 'they' as epicene pronoun? (from your user page)
Ah, hmmm. 'They' may be gender neutral, and with that denotation I wholly agree. The problem isn't gender-neutrality, it's that 'they' is plural in number. It's used to refer to a singular antecedent in colloquial speech, but in writing, it's still considered bad grammar, by one who doesn't know better. We certainly can't say "They was here." for example, or "it was they", not just grammatically, but assuming an uneducated person did say one, it is factually misleading. Suppose you and another person go into a store, the other person pulls a gun and shoots the proprietor. I tell the police, "They murdered him," referring (as singular 'they') to the other party, but you are also standing there. Not so good, is it? The word 'they' just can't serve all the grammatical uses of he/she/him/her/them/they. We already have the subcultural slang 'sie' and 'hir', particularly as used by transgendered persons. Analogously, we have the barely acceptable title 'Ms.', the marital-status neutral form of Miss/Mrs. Even in scholarly works, like wikipedia, there is often a detectable difference between feminine and masculine intonation and viewpoint. Deliberately disguising one's gender is often ineffectual as well as fatuous. With a little hacking, I can easily find your name, and that would likely tell me your gender if it mattered to me (which it doesn't).Sbalfour (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Robberies aside, what you're saying is just not right. Respected use of they for the singular goes way back. Only comparatively recently have there been attempts to make it a normative no-no. EEng (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks :)
Much appreciated! On another note, how was your first semester at Harvard? I kept meaning to ask in recent months how you were getting on, in some corner of your user pages, but looks like I failed to follow up, even though some part of my brain convinced me I had gotten around to it. :) Anyway, hope all is well. Planning on doing any editing over your first break or is the time (rightly) reserved for loved ones and such?  Well, nevermind in any event: good to have you back.  Best wishes for school and the coming new year!  S n o w  let's rap 00:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contributions! I've been having a wonderful time. I took a fascinating ethics course with Christine Korsgaard, and spent most of the rest of my waking (and sleeping) hours doing math.


 * Now I'm mostly working, art-making, cooking, and so on off-wiki, but I also thought I'd try to publish that draft about meat psych. I forgot to ping you and as prior feeders-back, very sorry for the oversight; you can weigh in at Talk:Carnism if you want. How have you been, what are you working on? FourViolas (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Awesome! I'm glad you're getting on well there! At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what a great opportunity to cultivate your gifts and interests. What manner of math are you currently studying that it's filling all your time, into your dreams?  I've also not had as much time as I'd like for editing; I was hoping to make this last year a real blow out in terms of productivity, but as it's turned out, my career/academic demands have ratcheted up the nines as I move into a new field of inquiry.  Oh well, next year, maybe? :)


 * I'm not super familiar with Dr. Korsgaard's work (although enough to know that you must have had occasion to talk about the meat psychology issues with her), but given her general research interests and her tenure at Harvard, I'm tempted to try to get you to ask her just what exactly happened with Marc Hauser. But that may be a sore point...  S n o w  let's rap 03:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Psychology of eating meat has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Psychology of eating meat. Thanks! Fiddle  Faddle  12:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Psychology of eating meat has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Psychology of eating meat. Thanks! Fiddle  Faddle  17:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Carnism
As you probably gathered, I'm not actually against the idea of carnism (I'm not fully vegetarian, but I'm moving that way, and cook primarily vegetarian at home). It's just that before spinning out meat paradox, the article looked really bad on analysis: lots of material that didn't even mention carnism and so on, which doesn't give a good impression.

But there certainly is a good core to the article. Even if one could possibly cover a lot of this at the book (influence of the book being a valid subject) the revisions over the AfD combined with the spinoff make this article now look quite strong, honestly, and I rather wish things had gone a bit less confrontational before everything got heated up. No matter.

This... may sound weird from someone who just nominated it for deletion, but I could kind of see the cleaned-up article as a Good article with very little more work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think we need a little more in the History section, to give context, but I'm not seeing it in the cut material. What we need is basically something to give context to "In the 1970s traditional views on the moral standing of animals..." The Renan Larue material isn't quite enough. We need a brief analysis of traditional carnist views, not of vegetarian views. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam! I'm really happy to see you optimistic about the article and setting to work. I'm looking forward to seeing it improve. Of course you don't have to be vegetarian or anything to contribute; that's the beauty of WP:V and WP:DUE. All an editor needs is a willingness to find, read and summarize reliable sources.
 * I don't know how to say this, but...several editors at that page, rightly or wrongly, seem to have had their ability to AGF strained somewhat in this area in general. I think it would be a great idea to mention your aspirations for bringing the article to GA, and your willingness to accept the existence of the page, before somebody starts accusing you of trying to "cut the article down to nothing" or "get revenge" or something. I think there's lots of room to move forward, but we may all need to read WP:KEEPCOOL and apply the principle of charity to everyone else's comments. Thanks again for pitching in to improve the article! FourViolas (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isadora Duncan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Duncan. 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) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Salem Shore at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit to 'Veganism'.
Your change of 'bogus' to 'supposed' is a good compromise which, in my opinion, is sufficent to make clear to our readers that veganism is not being seriously proposed by WP as a remedy for anything.

On the other hand the wording, '... proposing a vegan diet as a cure for everything from cancer, asthma and tuberculosis to acne' although intended to be an improvement is not in my opinion sufficently clear. People, especially those hoping for a miracle cure, can still take this literally. Do you have any suggestions for this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, supposed carries a fairly strong connotation of general (if somewhat questioned) acceptance of the thing being proposed. I'd suggest something like
 * became popular in the United States because of the health claims made for it/them, though such claims generally/largely lack scientific [etc etc etc].
 * EEng (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Full context: In the 1830s Sylvester Graham's meatless Graham diet – mostly fruit, vegetables, water, and bread made with stoneground flour – became popular as a supposed health remedy in the United States. I don't think we need to belabor the point that a 200-year-old fad diet is not necessarily medical gospel. FourViolas (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, Mr. Harvard Harvard Smartypants, but I still think supposed doesn't do the trick. EEng (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right; it's wholly inadequate as it stands. It needs an accent grave:

Though many kooky claims 'supposèd' be, Mark well the section heading: History.
 * Run that by WT:MOS, would you? FourViolas (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know vegans ate MOS. Do you like my new template? EEng (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as it isn't reindeer MOS. I do—it's much classier than "/s". FourViolas (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you've made comments regarding Martin Hogbin's edits
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rose (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)