User talk:Viriditas/Archive 20

Felix
Given the drama that user has managed to stir up, it would probably be best to find some telling diff's that will help pin down your theory about him being a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a theory; they are the same user. I compared all of their talk page comments. The parenthetical numbering, the case, slashies, choice of words, spelling errors, etc.  It is one user. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of mentioning this to the admin Jmh649, who closed the most recent ANI brouhaha about that user. The checkuser didn't find them to be socks, but it is kind of odd that once Berber was blocked, Felix immediately turned up and started commenting (that was a few days ago). Given the user's penchant for distorting the facts, socking wouldn't surprise me, as it would fit the pattern. But he'll raise holy hell unless you can present a pretty good case. You might want to consider discussing this privately with your most trusted admin, so that you don't give the game away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, the CU found that they geolocated to the same area, but were made from separate accounts. Berber1's excuse on the CU page is a dead giveaway that he's Felix.  Did you see the strange uppercase of "Current Events"?  Felix does the same thing with certain words, and the phrasing is all Felix's.  No offense to MuZemike, I'm sure he does a great job, but this CU needs to be opened again and a more experienced admin needs to look at it. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * During the original sock investigation I noticed - but did not bring up as I was not permitted - that the user in question made several very anti-Qadaffi statements. Since my obviously pro-Qadaffi proclivities have been raised repeatedly I would hope evidence that disinclines the sock conclusion is considered, as opposed to cherry-picked examples. I immediately turned-up and started commenting because ... MY BLOCK HAD BEEN LIFTED! Sheesh. Felixhonecker (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some diffs would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Felix, the good hand bad hand sock strategy is older than coal. Your comment is downright embarrassing. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. So if there is a similarity in editing style it's evidence of a sock, if there's difference in editing style it's still evidence of a sock. Either way you get me blocked as soon as you can shop around to find someone willing to axe me after an "offline" investigation. Why are you people doing this to me? What did I do to you? Felixhonecker (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Berber's very first edit (and his IP's also) indicates defense of the current flag, which squares with Felix's stance and would seem to contradict the claim that Berber is anti-Qadaffi. Felix had been blocked at 17:47 on the 25th. The Berber1 account was created at 00:41 of the 27th and made its first entry at 00:54. Berber was blocked on 20:14 of the 27th and made its last entry at 20:21. Felix turned up again at 00:09 of the 28th, after having been silent since the 25th. That was not coincident with Felix being unblocked, as he was not unblocked until 01:08 of the 1st. The IP, which Berber1 admitted to using, made its first entry on the 24th and its last on the 28th. It tried to lay some pre-emptive groundwork that, to me, indicated that more socks could be expected: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of this is simply not true and has already been dismissed in open forum. Now I have to repeat it in this private court. It is not true that I tried to lay "preemptive groundwork." I stated that - regarding geolocation - many editors of Libya would probably be found to gelocate to the same area since the area in question was to the Libyan expatriate community as Miami was to the Cuban expatriate community. Please provide a link to the diffs so people can see what I am saying is true. I have already corrected you on this three times. I don't understand why you keep repeating this mistruth. Please don't do this to me.
 * I was the one who revealed my IP, not the other user Berber. Please. If you are going to seek to get me blocked for the rest of my life, provide facts. Please check your facts. Please provide a link to the diffs so people can see what I am saying is true. This is my entire ability to participate in Wikipedia you are tossing about with mixed facts and half-truths. Why are you doing this to me?
 * There are at least 6 active editors - of 9 total active editors - in the Libya entry currently defending the green flag in that entry. This is evidence of socking? Please don't block me forever due to an edit dispute you had with me. Why are you doing this to me? Felixhonecker (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was your IP, not Berber's. Speaking of that flag, why is the rebel flag even posted on the Libya article? Or has it been removed by now? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am right about that, I'm also right about having already once corrected you via the "threatening to sock" issue. Why would you say that didn't happen? I'm looking for the diffs right now but I have so little time and what little time I have to enjoy Wikipedia I've spent defending myself against a string of complaints all for the same issue. Please give me a few minutes to prove this before you ban me for life. As for the rebel flag, the rebel flag was removed from Libya twice by me and thirteen times by other editors. It is the subject of an intense dispute involving 9 different editors at the moment. The user of which I'm supposedly a sock was a drive-by Green Flag supporter - one of countless numbers, active and inactive - and none of them my socks.Felixhonecker (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Found it. Bugs (above) accused me of "threatening to sock." He laid this charge on me once before and I corrected him so he knows it is false. Yet he has charged me with it a second time, knowing it is inaccurate information. How can he do that to me? Why can he file endless complaints against me with information I can prove he knows is wrong, bu knowing that, eventually, I'll get tired of defending myself and one will stick? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=416505239#Extreme_WP:CIVIL_in_Libya_Entry) - scroll down to where he says "Here,[24] and on his talk page,[25] Felix appears to be ..." PLEASE I don't have time to go through this again every single day like clockwork. How can I get Bugs to stop? Felixhonecker (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, what should I believe? You, or your own words? As regards Libya, I see that Obama is calling for Qadaffi to step down. Mubarak did. Will Qadaffi do so also? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to discuss Libya here since I'd like to keep this focused on preventing me from being banned for life as a result of your 19th (not hyperbole, I've been counting) complaint about me in 4 days, none of which have yet to be upheld. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement on the SPI page reads like laying groundwork to expect more socks. You've been advised to focus on editing. Take that advice and you'll be fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NO IT DOES NOT. DO NOT SPREAD LIES ABOUT ME. PLEASE. I'm sorry if I'm upset, however, if the same user had filed 19 complaints - all dismissed - against you in 4 days without repercussions you would be at your wits end, too. I came to Wikipedia to edit entries, not defend myself from a user who has an axe to grind. This is my exact statement that you linked to:
 * I will just note that the one entry of overlap that has caused this inquiry - Libya - will likely be getting a lot of users from this geolocation in the coming days and weeks as it is to the Libyan community in the U.S. as Miami is to the Cuban community. I defer any additional comments until the investigation is complete, however, felt it was necessary to note that for the benefit of the next sockpuppet complaint that is filed in regard to this entry.
 * This is not "threatening to sock" this is simply noting that a lot of Libyans live in the same west coast US city just like a lot of Cubans live in Miami. If you geolocate all the editors of Libya you'll find a lot of overlap. It's abundantly clear what I was saying. I can't do this anymore. Please leave me alone. Please stop lobbying people to block me for matters that were decided a week ago. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, it does. It's how I read it. You may have meant it innocently. But it's how I read it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No reasonable person would read it that way. The fact that this entire witch hunt is occurring in userspace instead of ANI probably evidences that more than anything else. I'm done. Do whatever the frack you like. It's clear no one is going to stop your one-man inquisition. Goodbye. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "No reasonable person...?" Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I'm done being your doormat. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your extreme overreactions are getting a bit annoying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Filing 19 complaints against me in 4 days - all for the same thing that has already been adjudicated - is rather more annoying, I assure you. How you're getting away with this without any kind of admin intervention I don't know. I don't care. I'm not willing to play court every single day anymore. I'm going to get blocked on complaint 24 or 25 or 26 when I don't show up to defend myself. I've come to accept it. *shrug*Felixhonecker (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not "filed" 19 complaints. More hype and overreaction on your part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh God, you have too. I've been counting. Any admin who reads this, feel free to contact me for diffs. I'm done with Bugs. I can't do it anymore. Felixhonecker (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead and find 19 separate entries that I've started on WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you filed 19 complaints in ANI. I was referencing the sum total of your aggressive lobbying of admins against me across the whole spectrum of WP. I have to defend myself against these as much as any others so, for me, they are functionally identical. I don't know what you want out of me. I'm just afraid I can't help you. I've promised you I'll quite Wikipedia if you'll stop disrupting everyone lobbying to get me kicked off. That's the best I can do. Felixhonecker (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to quit wikipedia, I want you to focus on editing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hard to do when I'm having multiple, daily complaints filed against me for things that were decided by multiple admins a week ago but one user is demanding and yelling be reopened. Hard to do when I'm on my third sock charges in 4 days, after the first two were dismissed. Hard to do when a user is flooding my Talk page so much that admins have to be brought in to ask him to stop. Please just stop. Stop. Just choose to walk away. I was happy and content when we were in our separate corners. Now five hours have been wasted because you insisted on finding ways of continuing to interact with me after you'd been banned from my Talk page; by flooding trumped charges like a third sock complaint in 4 days. This is so silly it's unbelievable. Please. Grow up. (P.S. I have to do off-wiki things for the next few hours. I would ask you not lobby additional admins to have me blocked, or open new hearings against me, until I've had a chance to return. Then this whole circus can start over. Lucky me.) Felixhonecker (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Felix, for the record, could you affirm or deny that Berber1 is your account? Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) Felix, there is no need for the circus to restart. Simply take this page off your watchlist and stop editing here. You will regain some credit by showing restraint (or continue to lose it by extending this thread...) Bugs and Viriditas - for goodness sake, lay off. Put up or shut up. Either make a formal complaint or say nothing. You two don't have to manage Felix single-handed - in fact it would be better if you did not try to manage him at all, because it is only adding to the wikidrama. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  08:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is fairly obvious that Felix and Berber1 are the same person. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me how they are different. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With the heat getting hotter, he has disappeared. Make of that what you will. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaron Lanier
Your more concise wording is helpful, as is your updating the facts, all of which I have been happy to retain. But Jaron Lanier himself in his own book is the source for the former filmmaking claim. And you should not delete sources you see as relatively poor, but rather find better ones. I'll take this opportunity to formally warn you not to violate wp:3rr. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No secondary source, only your interpretation of a primary. That is not good enough for a lead section of a BLP which is supposed to summarize the most significant elements of the article.  Lanier is only known as a "filmmaker" by Wikipedia editors, and that's not good enough. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AN3
A complaint has been filed at WP:AN3. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

wp:an3
Be aware I have filed a wp:an3 complaint for your violation of wp:3rr.

I suggest that you consider that you misunderstand wp:blp. The policy specifically endorses the use of biographical material written by the subject himself:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject"

Note that the source is not self published - but is published by edge magazine.

Even if it were a self published statement, it does not violate the policy that:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if— it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I suggest you reverse your own fourth reversion on the article and suggest the verbiage you want to address the material on the talk page. If you reverse the edit I will happily withdraw the an3 complaint.μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but you are mistaken. You are interpreting a self-published, primary source (interview) about the subject, and that is not only forbidden, it is expressly not allowed in this case, as the subject has complained about this continued misrepresentation both on Wikipedia and in the article in question.  You appear to be disruptively trying to ruffle the feathers of the BLP by obnoxiously interpreting an interview as an ironic response to the BLP's concerns.  There isn't a single reliable secondary source that supports your edits, and you are engaging in the worst form of editing.  You need to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Steyn
Thank you for the link; would you have any observations to make at Talk:Mark Steyn? CJCurrie (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I most certainly do, however, my participation there could be construed as wikihounding, so I've declined at this time. Perhaps I might comment here, on this page, later tonight.  I'll contact you if I do. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on astrobiology
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

User:Berber1
Your placement of the sock tag is nothing short of trolling/harassment. The user was cleared at Sockpuppet_investigations/Felixhonecker/Archive. Based on the note you placed on User talk:Berber1, its clear you don't like the outcome, but the outcome is clear. Please do not replace the tag. Doing so would be disruptive and potentially grounds for being blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In order for trolling or harassment to have occurred, I would have had to have been involved in this situation in some way; I was not, not in the slightest. I saw the report on ANI and added the tag after personally reviewing every single one of the contributions of the user and comparing it to the other account.  They were virtually the same, both in unique vocabulary, spelling, use of strange upper case letters, colloquial language, etc.  Because of this, it is unlikely they are two separate accounts, but more likely the same.  Before adding the tag to the user page, I reviewed the SPI which did not come to a definitive conclusion about the two accounts.  Furthermore, one of the accounts made several claims on the SPI that raised serious red flags about their status as a singular account.  Why was the tag removed?  Please note, the sockpuppet template says very specifically, An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet...  It does not say a checkuser or an admin, it says an editor. Viriditas (talk)

The waves
Stay high. Hang on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for good thoughts, Anna. Everything is OK now, aside from minor flooding and property damage.  Our thoughts are with the Japanese and the search for their loved ones. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Neurolaw
Thanks for helping out with the neurolaw page. In case you don't already know from my talk page, I'm working on developing the page as part of a Neuroscience class at Boston College. My group members and I are new to Wikipedia and although we have read a lot of the how-to guides, still don't know all of the formalities. If you have time, please continue to make edits as you see fit. Our professor encouraged us to reach out to the Wikipedia community as we work on this assignment. Thanks! Pathyland (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, and welcome! Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusive fitness, evolutionary psychology and refutation: wither falsifiability?
hi Viriditas. I'm trying to contribute a small, verifiable and important edit to the evolutionary psychology article, but it keeps being shot down by Leadwind. I have outlined my justification on the EP talk page, and a discussion is starting there. I would really appreciate it if you could add your opinion to the discussion. Many thanks Maximilianholland (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Montreal street name page moves
Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

List of missing treasure
What should I do with this? I don't have the heart to speedy it. It gets a couple of hundred visits a day, but it's rubbish. Your always-valuable suggestions are most welcome. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak, I think there is room for expansion and narrowing of scope. You still haven't added Confederate gold. Then again, you could redirect it to Antiquities trade and clean your hands. :) Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Scope. I think you hit the nail on the head. A catch-all title is what I seek.


 * Antiquities trade? Redirect? I'd rather an alternative.


 * Confederate gold. I will add it.


 * Thanks for the input. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom case
I am concerned that you might have interpreted my comments as criticism of you or of your intentions. Although I do not share your view, I just want to make sure you know that I respect your intentions. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ANSO
Don't know if you've seen any of these or if they're of any real help :/ 2010 ANSO/NNOA joint conference
 * http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=53912 June 9, 2010
 * http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=54681 July 15, 2010
 * http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=54994 July 29, 2010
 * http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=55055 August 2, 2010

2011 annual conference, San Antonio Dru of Id (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.uscg.mil/civilian/events.asp May 2-6, 2011

Japanese Problem
Just noticed that has replaced the Japanese Problem article with a redirect to 1920 Politics (Hawaii) (diff). I don't know Hawaiian history, and seeing that you've collaborated with Hawaii Samurai in the past I wonder if you could just check the redirect (and loss of earlier content) is OK. Thanks in advance - Pointillist (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

response
Its shit, besides I a trying to consolidate it into the 1920s Politics (I apparently ran across the term, but people who called it that are probably all dead by now) and I apparently had so much overlap of information I am trying to sort it out. I also cut-out the Strike of 1920 and put it in its own article. Sorry for the drastic move Hawaii Samurai (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you Viriditas for your benign approach to a fraught issue. Wikipedia seriously needs more background sanity like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC?
I'm thinking we need to file an RFC on User:Damiens.rf, he's been disrupting WP for a very long time and has not responded to helpful advice, criticism, warnings or even blocks. Personally, I've had it with him after his last escapade. Let me know if you think we should file an RFC or ARBCOM case. Dreadstar ☥  23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Count me in as a co-certifier for an RFC. I'll be busy for the next two hours, but I might be available later. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. I probably won't be able to get to it till next week, RL seems to have its own agenda.. :)  Dreadstar  ☥  23:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A Milestone

 * Congratulations from me too!! Rare indeed is a contributor with 100,000 edits who still has all his marbles. Stay productive. Stay sane. Stay out of trouble. Stay in Barcelona. It's lovely this time of year. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much!
Thank you for your patience and assistance. I'm still learning a lot about Wikipedia but your input was invaluable. I wonder if I am out of the woods yet? :) Grahamludlowca (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Considering your article was just tagged as a potential COI, I would suggest making an effort to continue improving it, formatting the filmography, expanding the prose, etc. If you are feeling confident, you might consider filing a COI report on yourself over at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, and explain that you would like to do everything possible to improve the subject and remove the maintenance tag, and you are willing to help out in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

1920 Politics
Sorry I was a little locked-up. This subject 1920 Politics is a bit vague and it is difficult to find related information I noticed it mentioned in Shoal of Time and a more elaborated history was in the book Cane Fire but neither give it a name the only name a came across for this movement was 1920 Politics from a quote by William F. Quinn. Hawaii Samurai (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for uploading yet another image. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Assure me that I'm wrong
Hi Viriditas - I thought I'd drop you this message as I found this edit to be a little accusatory. Especially with the edit summary "Merchants of Doubt". Now, I'm probably wrong, but it seems like you are accusing me of being an SPA.

Would you be good enough to assure me that I'm wrong on that count? best --Thepm (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not in a position to tell you what to think. Your interpretation of my comments is yours alone. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but here's a suggestion.


 * Lot's of folks in the climate change area become overly sensitive. It's really tricky to avoid offending people. There's a long history of disputes spiraling out of control. There's a long history of valuable editors being sanctioned or of leaving the project. Any article that is even peripherally related to climate change is a really good place to assume good faith, avoid personal comments and generally be even more civil than you would normally be. Best of luck. --Thepm (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

assumptions about motivations etc.
Hi Viriditas, I should like to advise that I am finding your personal attacks and repeated public assertions about what you think are the hidden motives of others  unhelpful. As you may know, I actually believe in free speech and thus will never try to silence you or any other another editor by making threats under Wikipedia's various thought and behaviour control policies (AGF, NPA etc), but at the same time I really don't think these statements you are making are in any way helpful to you or anyone else. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have the wrong talk page. I have not made any personal attacks or discussed any "hidden motives of others".  In fact, looking at the talk page in question, that is exactly what you have done, over and over again.  Please report yourself to an administrator immediately. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again...
Hi Viriditas, can you take a look at these editors before this matter gets out-of-hand again? It looks like GoldDragon may be back with a new account, Rembember Charlie, which I have suspected for awhile now, but didn't mention since he wasn't using the GoldDragon account anymore, and except for a couple of warnings, he was bahaving himself. However, the IP that was reverting GoldDragons edits has now discovered this new account, and the edit wars have started up again. The IP has posted stats on GoldDragons talk page, trying to link both Remember Charlie and an IPto GoldDragon. I really don't want to get back into all this again, but I thought you might be interested, since you were one of the editors involved in GoldDragons block a few months ago. Like I said above, Remember Charlie was being constructive until the IP emerged on the scene. I do have one concern in regards to the account, Remember Charlie made his first edit on January 25, which I belive was during GoldDragons extended block for sockpuppetry. Any advice on what can be done? Cmr08 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing he can be blocked for is block evasion because it looks like he dropped the old account. He made around 40 or so edits while he was blocked, so he should be taken to task for that.  However, someone like this is likely to have created more accounts during this time, so you might want to look for them first, in which case we can get all of them blocked. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm going to reopen the old SPI and ask for a block. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. Thanks for your help. I just posted a message at the investigation page, listing another IP that I suspect is also GoldDragon, as the edits, articles, and time frame are all to obvious to think otherwise. What gets me, is that he's now accusing that other IP stalking him as being a sockpuppet, and states in that investigation, that if he removed a fact tag, it was in error. Go figure. Cmr08 (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing my edit on the sockpuppet investigation page. I didn't realize what I had done until now. Cmr08 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi, Viriditas. I don't normally issue 'talkbacks', but I thought you might have given up on the watchlist since I've been slow to reply on my talk. Cheers, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peace symbols
I was interested in your comment on the discussion page that the dove as a symbol of peace, or the dove and olive branch, was associated with Augustine of Hippo, who was influenced by Plotinus. I have done a lot of work on this article and have not yet come across any reference either to Augustine or Plotinus in this connection, and I would be interested to see what information you have.

As far as I have been able to discover, the dove and olive branch as a symbol of peace was first used by Christians in Rome from about the 3rd century. They combined the symbol of the Holy Spirit as a dove, derived from the Gospels, with the symbol of the olive branch current as a peace symbol in the pagan world. The symbol is not, as you say correctly, derived from the dove and olive leaf in the story of of Noah. Far from symbolising peace in that narrative, the olive leaf brought by the dove is regarded in rabbinic exegesis as symbolic of bitterness. Christians included the symbol in early images of Noah, and at some stage it was read back into Genesis. This reading back may have occurred only in oral tradition and its origins may not be recorded.

As I have not been able to find any reference to the dove and olive branch as a peace symbol at any time between the 4th and the 18th centuries, a source in Augustine would be helpful. Marshall46 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have Googled first. I found it in Christian Doctrine and added it to the article.  Marshall46 (talk)

Hainan Island topographical map for deletion
I just don't understand. The rationale makes not a shred of sense to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't want editors to categorize local copies of images from Commons. If you want to categorize a local copy, you have to upload it to Wikipedia and use a KeepLocal tag, but even then, you will get obsessive compulsive editors with nothing better to do in their lives trying to delete it.  About a year ago or so, I had two fair use images that were used appropriately and with great care in an article on The Prestige (film) deleted because the editors voting to delete simply didn't understand the topic. You'll run across a lot of nonsense here; best to let it go and move on. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean the image will be deleted? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was deleted. The image on Commons was not.  See also: Wikimedia_Commons.  I don't agree with it, and neither do many others.  It is helpful and informative to be able to traverse Wikipedia categories that include articles and images, however in this twisted mindset, you can only do so if the image is uploaded to Wikipedia and not Commons.  Like many things here, it makes no sense whatsoever and defeats the purpose of browsing categories.  Actually, you'll find that many people who work on categories here are the worst offenders, often destroying its usability to the point where the category system no longer works.  Similarly, the people who spend most of their time wonking with policy create idealistic rules that don't work and make it more difficult to write articles.  You'll often find basic concepts like "check this source to make sure the facts are reported correctly in the article" distorted into garbage like "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  This is why it is important to keep the KISS principle in mind at all times. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. But for me, Commons is the real bugger. It's sooooo 27B Stroke 6. I've really tried to understand the license stuff, but I can't. From now on I'm going to upload everything with:


 * "SA Creative Commons No-Derivatives 3.0 by GNU/wildebeast copyleft Free Documentation (GFDL) in-yer-ear copyright LGPLv2.1 unattributed CC-BY-BDSM-4.0 Share-alike, thar-she-blows license".


 * Let 'em chew on that!


 * I don't even understand why some images are at Wikipedia and some at Wikicommons.


 * So, there are now probably about a dozen Hainan map images. Should there be a category for them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is; I created it after you originally added the red link. Go to village pump and discuss the issue. There are many who will support you.  User:Timeshifter comes to mind. Try contacting him. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry Viriditas, you must think I'm a complete ninny. I'm so confused. Before I start any village pump discussion, I should know what's going on. I don't.


 * The topomap is found at this url, which is Wikipedia.
 * A box on that page says "...This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons...".
 * At the bottom, I see the cat "Hainan".
 * At commons, the images that match Hainan do not include the topomap, nor does the map appear Category:Maps of Hainan, or anywhere.


 * What gives? I just don't get it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The image is centrally stored in the Commons repository. When you link to it above, you are actually pointing to the Commons image, not a local copy.  The category I created, Category:Maps of Hainan is currently empty and on Wikipedia, so you must be looking at either an older version of the page in your cache or most likely, at the version (and category) on Commons, not Wikipedia.  It occurs to me that the reason you probably added the category was because you thought you were on Commons.  The bottom line is that a decision was made not to use local categorization.  The last good argument I could find in favor of it was in 2007. FYI...I just added the category on Commons, not Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will read the above again several times until it makes sense. As for the last good argument link: I'm lost. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FinanceGuy222/Amway
thank you. I gave up editing on WP a year ago due to the exhaustion of having to deal with guys like this. Unfortunately he's not the only one :( --Insider201283 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the uploads
Thanks yet again for the uploads. Sorry I forgot the "newer version" link. I was in a hurry. Please feel free to wait weeks for another editor to come along. I've very grateful, but I don't want to burden you.

I looked over the piece in your sandbox and noticed you were actively on it. I didn't want to step on your toes, so I started a fraudster bit. I will put that into the mainspace soon. I don't know what's wrong with me lately.

Triva: In Haikou, there is a population of about one million or so. Each hears a motorcycle alarm about 50 times a day. That's 50 million unpleasant experiences per day, all to deter about 7 attempted thefts. I think I'm going batty, and will have to move out of the centre. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine you are a burden to anyone. I sympathize with your noise pollution issues. Noise-cancelling headphones may or may not provide some relief.  You can also create quiet areas in your home and/or work areas with white noise devices, apps, and even tingshas and meditation bells.  I have noticed a dramatic increase of noise pollution in Hawaii in the last ten years, and I'm really surprised that exhaust tips are even legal.  Large,  off-road tires with giant standing surf racks in the backs of lifted trucks with exhaust tips on the end of their pipes make for one of the noisiest machines on the road, rumbling through neighborhoods, waking people up at all hours of the night.  Did I mention the loud stereo and thumping bass line coming out of their closed windows, shaking the bedroom windows of hundreds of houses?  I think these people inhabit a world where quiet, the absence of noise, scares them.  This is the type of person who turns on a television because they are afraid of listening to the quiet of the day or night, of even being alone with their own thoughts.  I'm guessing hormones have a lot to do with it too. :-) Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the soothing words. I use a huge fan that blocks some of the noise. But still, the noise comes in. It's never-ending.


 * I can't imagine Hawaii being noisy. Your state ought to stop the vehicles? It's just not fair. It would certainly be illegal to shine spotlights in your window or throw stinkbombs through your door. Why loud noise entering your home is allowed is beyond me?


 * Here, hormones might be part of it, but I think it's mostly the absence of consideration toward others. They just don't treat each other well at all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And sorry again for the lack of input on Changing Lives Through Literature and for being so daft about the commons thing. I guess you've figured out that I've been avoiding all things that require thought and attention. I'm working to address the noise matter. Until then, I'm brainless. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion
I noticed your suggestion at the edit warring noticeboard regarding the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia article. I have tried to implement it on the article. Thank you for the trouble you took to look at the situation. --John (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jacqueline Berger
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
Viriditas, your edit at Climategate diff has this summary:

"Rv. POV tags are not used to indicate that a lead section represents sourced content. This is explained in detail on the talk page. We don't cite controversial primary source material without secondary. Youv'e been here long enough to know that"

However, what you actually did was reinsert controversial material that I recently removed, arguably violating the 1RR rule. Perhaps this was inadvertent. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can show me where I made two reverts? Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And your explanation for your misleading edit summary is?? --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not made any misleading edit summary. If you had bothered to look, you would have noticed that the character count is at its maximum limit.  Count it. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Apollo13
Are you interested in looking at a situation on Apollo 13? Editor Tdadamemd is renewing an effort he dropped a year ago to remove all mention of any "explosion" from the article. Seems to me he's 1. Pushing a POV, and 2. Using a primary source to support his argument for WP:TRUTH. I'm not requesting your involvement there, although of course you're welcome, but asking if I'm off base here. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look and get back to you. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like my page stalker got to it before me. :-) Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * T'was me. I've been stalking your climate thingy too. What a mess. Reminiscent of the dog meat fiasco. Might I humbly suggest that you request a summary of objections in short, concise points. That talk page is turning into a phone book, and the lede is giving everyone a migraine. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Do you get migraines?  That might explain our discussion about hyperacusis. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks, Anna, I believe I have enough ground to stand on to simply revert. My lingering questions about using primary sources remain, however. This is a bone of contention at the "climate thingy," too. For example, AFIK a report--not the raw data--by the Gallup Poll is a secondary source: They're analyzing the scene for us. It's not about them, but about a second party, in this case the impact of Climategate on the public's opinion of not only climate change but of the scientific community itself. Anyway. Oh, Viriditas, will you be releasing your birth certificate? :)Yopienso (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: I never get headaches. I'm just very sensitive to noise.


 * Yopienso: My pleasure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Help?
Minor PITA, but someone with what I consider an overly restrictive sense of fair use wants to delete the photos of Russell and Sigurd Varian at Varian Associates. Seems to me the easiest way to salvage the images is to put them into biographies of each individual, or maybe a combined article. Seeing as how you were helpful with John Osborne Varian, would you be interested in helping me bulk out a couple of quick bios on these two in order to save the work later of re-locating and re-uploading the photos? Thanks! I think the links are currently redirects. Russell Varian and Sigurd Varian. Montanabw (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Follow up: Created Russell and Sigurd Varian as a bio with the intent that it can be spun off into separate articles once people have enough material on each to warrant doing so. I mostly just cribbed stuff already in WP in other articles. Montanabw (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help, but keep in mind, it won't qualify for DYK if most of the text comes from other articles. Sometimes it is best to completely rewrite it. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL! I wrote that eight hours ago when I was still under the illusion that I could do a mere "hit and run" article. Um, I've done quite a bit more since... eep!  Take a peek. I'd sure welcome comment and additional material!  I now think the article can probably stay as a single piece and not be split, as most of the brothers' careers were linked pretty closely.  Would love to find more personal data, though probably would need to either buy Dorothy Varian's book or go visit Stanford U, which is not something I could easily do, living over a thousand miles away...  Montanabw (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Lolo Soetoro Ann Dunham Maya Soetoro-Ng Barack Obama.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lolo Soetoro Ann Dunham Maya Soetoro-Ng Barack Obama.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Surviving Against the Odds.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Surviving Against the Odds.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Lolo Soetoro Ann Dunham Maya Soetoro-Ng Barack Obama.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lolo Soetoro Ann Dunham Maya Soetoro-Ng Barack Obama.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Surviving Against the Odds.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Surviving Against the Odds.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Khat
I finally visited commons and saw your message. Health in Somalia was redlink so I swapped in Culture of Somalia. I'm not sure if I should have removed the redlink. The others, Somalia in the 1990s and Catha edulis seem fine to me. I can't think of any others. Thanks again for doing that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. Good work and nice photos!! Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Aggressive talk at Climategate
Viriditas: I'm not the only editor who's noticed you are sometimes over the bounds for WP:etiquette here. People do get carried away in the heat of argument. Best in those cases to sit on a hot reply overnight -- or so I've found, since I get hot too.

Please recall that ArbCom has shown little tolerance for disruption at Climate Change pages. Word to the wise. I'll look for the "Cool Heads" template and repost that, to remind others. We really, really don't want the Climate Wars refought. No one doubts your sincerity, just your execution. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: forgot to add, if you will remove the veiled threat to Arthur, I will remove my (distasteful) note at Climategate talk. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk)
 * Sorry, I call them like I see them. When I see prevarication on the talk page, I'm going to point it out. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Strawberry rhubarb pie
Hello Stalky McStalkerson. :) A few things to deface your talk page:


 * Thanks for the { { Commonscat|Strawberry-rhubarb pies } } ) thingy.
 * Should I move the page to the hyphenated Strawberry-rhubarb pie?
 * I haven't forgotten about your drawing. It is now summer, and so I hope I will be inspired.
 * Thanks for recommending me for the Ambassador program. It's been fun. And it's turned me on to IRC, which I use constantly for on-the-spot advice. It's a hugely valuble resource.
 * Still no word on the Credo Reference thing, but I guess you know that.
 * Does this page move make sense?
 * I hope I wasn't out of line posting on the climate page. I really still don't know what's going on. I just thought it my duty to try to nudge the matter toward a resolution.
 * Thanks for keeping an eye on what I'm doing. I do appreciate it. I still feel rather new here, and am not always certain if my judgment is correct. Please, feel free to tell me anytime I could be handling something better. Your views are always welcome and very valuable to me.
 * There was one more thing, but I can't remember. It will come to me the instant I click save.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, another SRP fan(s). If either of you are ever in Santa Fe, the SRP at Harry's Roadhouse (baked by Mrs Harry, ims) is heavenly. Order early, it goes fast!


 * Anna, if I may intrude, your presence & common-sense questions at Climategate were most welcome! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm suddenly starving.


 * Thank you Tillman.
 * Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories
Do you think the article will stand? I really just made it because I know there are a lot of people who will want to dump info into Wikipedia about this in the coming weeks. I didn't want them to put it in the wrong place and have it simply deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know why you made it. Whether it will stand or not, we will see. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll bite. Why did I make it? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You just said why you made it, silly. I'm just saying you don't have to justify yourself.  In other words, I understand. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Should I be feeling guilty for dragging all that energy away from the mainspace? Please tell me somebody else would have started that exact same article within the month.

I think my fling with such articles is over. Pies. Yes, pies and tree species and lakes. It's safe there, and so peaceful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You and your spring flings! :) :) Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern
Mind WP:BAIT. I think the tactic is fairly clear: provoke through BLP violations, using terms like "warmist," etc. while remaining superficially civil, then run to mommy when the target has had enough and makes the desired reaction. The only way to win is not to play the game. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak
Hi, thank you for your review and pass of The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak! The changes you made were most constructive. Lampman (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image uploads
Thank you once again. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review for the Glass Bees
Hi Viriditas,

I'm glad someone from the SF task force is reviewing The Glass Bees for GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to your comments and suggestions for improvement. Enjoy! Sindinero (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Thanks for your careful review and helpful comments. We'll be working on improving the article - if we don't make the seven day deadline, I'll renominate it once I feel it's addressed your concerns. As far as the cover image goes, I had the same question you did, and posted my question on wikimedia commons. Here is the answer I got when I tried to delete the image I had uploaded to wm commons so that I could upload it directly to WP under fair use rationale. Sindinero (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll note that in the review. Can you make an effort to cut the plot section in half?  That would go a long way towards helping out.  We can extend the deadline, but the plot section is much too long. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I'll be working on that over the course of this week. Sindinero (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I just wanted to confirm that we can extend the deadline for the GA review for The Glass Bees.  I'm pretty busy in the non-wiki world this week, and could use the extra time.  Would that be possible?  Thanks, Sindinero (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two weeks is fair, and should give me time to fix the issues you identified. Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

like your heart
Hey, I like the beating heart and special message you have at the top of your page. Editors should remember that more. I say, edit unto others as you would have them edit unto you. Leadwind (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Climategate talk page
Viriditas, I'm sorry you don't find my talk posts as responsive as you would like. I'm traveling, and moving, so my net access, and Wikipedia volunteer time, are both sporadic and limited.

Could you please tone down your talk page posts? I'm not the only editor who finds your repetitious "wall of text" responses very difficult to parse, and your general tone seems unnecessarily harsh and uncollegial to me. Could you please try to be more concise -- and polite?

For instance, I find it unhelpful to repeatedly present sources such as "The name [Climategate] refers to the immense conspiracy theory...." -- from a seemingly-obscure op-ed that's not available online for third-party verification -- as a RS to support your controversial "global warming conspiracy" lede proposal. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete, when you refer to a source, please name and link it. From what I can gather, you are referring to a feature story about information and transparency in climate science published by a trade journal.  It is neither obscure nor an op-ed as you claim, and various versions of it (HTML, PDF) are widely available online if you know how to do basic research.  One of the major problems we keep having is that we are neither speaking the same language nor are we on the same page in terms of identifying and evaluating sources.  Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Can you please post the link to this article? If you have it up, I didn't see it. If this is your primary source, I think you need to cite it. Better yet, propose a section in the article itself. Last I looked, there were just two refs to conspiracy in the article, neither supporting your lede proposal.


 * Alex gets a little carried away, but he's right: "conspiracy theory" isn't neutral language, and you will need extraordinarily strong RS support to have it stand. I haven't seen that yet. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't post a link to it, Tillman, because that would be a violation of copyright. Please see: Identifying copyrights in links. I'm finishing up several GA reviews and a GA submission right now.  I've added dozens of "extraordinarily strong RS" to the talk page for review, sources that Alex admits refusing to even acknowledge.  That kind of behavior is just odd and I'm not sure why you are asking me post the sources again, after I've already done so.  Please review the entire thread and its subsequent discussion.  If there is some question that the most serious allegations did not amount to a global warming conspiracy theory, I would like to see your sources.  Otherwise, I have already shown on the talk page, that the primary, secondary, and tertiary sources all agree that it is classified as a conspiracy theory.  I don't understand why you are saying this is in dispute.  If you have studied the sources and are knowledgeable about the topic, you would understand that the global warming conspiracy theory is not just common, but represents the fundamental claim supporting "climategate".  As far as I can tell, you, Alex and Arthur are making nothing but objections to stall for time, time for what, I don't know, but you are stalling.  There are outstanding requests for collaboration on the talk page, with Alex and Arthur adamantly refusing to participate, except and only to revert and post objections after objections on the talk page.  This appears to be a solid case of disruption and tendentious editing.  You need to review the sources first or ask questions about them.  Please do not keep asking me to add them.  "Conspiracy theory" is most certainly neutral language when it is used to describe a concept like global warming conspiracy theory, a real and commonly used allegation that says scientists are colluding to manipulate data and promote global warming.  That's what the entire topic is about, and for you, Alex and Arthur to claim that its not, even when we have sources saying it is, shows a disconnect that cannot be resolved on this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [e/c] I see that you (or someone) has modified the "global warming conspiracy" language, for the better, but it remains uncited. I realize this is a work in progress, but you really do need to cite your claims, and not just on the talk page. As you have noted, the lede should summarize the article, not introduce new topics. At present, the only mention of "Global warming conspiracy theory" is at the See also, which will hardly support putting this in the lede.


 * If you can't link to a copy of your primary source, I think you will have a problem convincing other editors of the validity of this source. I think you'd have to grant that immense conspiracy theory doesn't sound promising for a sober news artcle.


 * Again, I have little time and access at present, so I'm a bit behind the curve, sorry. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not uncited, not in the slightest. In fact, reference 1 mentions conspiracy by name and reference 2 mentions collusion; reference 3 describes conspiracy and reference 5 mentions conspiracy.  There are many more in the article and on the talk page.  You know this.  If you are challenging the claim, then your challenge has already been met.  I have linked to many sources on the talk page, so your claim above is simply ridiculous, as in the cases where I can't link due to copyright reasons, I have provided the full text of the statement and the citation so that others can verify it.  I do not understand the nature of your challenge to this material.  Your doubt as to the importance and validity of the neutrality of a statement like immense conspiracy theory is refuted by more than a dozen sources on the talk page and by our very own historian of science, Spencer R. Weart, who recognizes the "immensity" of the conspiracy claims and observes that it is totally unprecedented in the history of science.  I would like to see an actual challenge from you, rather than a disregard of the sources. Do you acknowledge that global warming conspiracy theory exists and is real?  If so, what makes it different than these allegations, even though we have sources like Newsweek calling it a global warming conspiracy theory?  Please answer the question.  How is it different? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservative activist groups
According to a May 6, 2011 article on the GOPUSA website, a conservative activist group whose mission is to "spread the conservative message throughout America", "the ClimateGate scandal exposed the dishonesty and manipulation of data by key scientists who are among the leading proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)". That sounds a lot like the message we keep hearing on this talk page. Even though nine separate investigations have cleared the scientists and have upheld the science, we still have editors on this page promoting what appears to be a specific activist message. Is this just a coincidence? Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

CRU email controversy
Can you take two weeks off from this article please? It might not be entirely your fault that the general conduct (with persistent IDHT, battlefield conduct, etc.) has deteriorated, but I feel that unfortunately, you have played a fair role in it. This message is also being posted on the talk pages of Alexh and Pete Tillman. NW ( Talk ) 15:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to take two weeks off from the article. I am surprised, however, that you did not make the same request of User:Arthur Rubin who has been tag teaming and edit warring without providing adequate responses to questions about his edits on the talk page. Is there a reason you did not ask him to take a break as well? Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An oversight on my part. NW ( Talk ) 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Amaranthus brownii/GA1
Leave me a message on my talk page when you feel you have responded to my comments, and I'll give it another run through. Take as long as you need- the article's a solid one, and I can see you're doing good work, so I am not going to fail it in a hurry :) J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, now is good. I think I addressed the major issues.  If there is something really minor you think needs changing, feel free to modify the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a second look. I should have it done by later today, I hope. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dark City
Hello, Viriditas! Hope you are doing well. I saw that you were reviewing Dark City as a Good Article. I did some of the work on it but felt that it still had a way to go. I have a sub-page here with additional references: User:Erik/Dark City. I'm not sure if I'll ever "finish" it since I am too busy IRL. If you want, I can place the references on the talk page like I've done with some other articles. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Look what I found
Hi, Viriditas, I was watching a couple of GoldDragons favourite articles to see if he was up to his old tricks again, and look what I found. This account, Demon Hill was created on April 26, one day after the Remember Charlie account was blocked. I looked through the edits and found them to look alot like the edits made with the other accounts. According to the stats of the account, Demon Hill has edited 25 different articles, and according to this 17 of them are articles that GoldDragon edited. I'm starting to think there's no way to stop him, he'll just keep editing with an account until we catch him and then create a new one and start all over again. You may also want to keep an eye on this IP. This was the IP mentioned by GoldDragons IP stalker during the RememberCharlie investigation as another account GoldDragon may have been using. This may be hard to prove since it looks like an IP from a bank, probably someone editing from work, but since it's still editing articles, it may be worth a look. Cmr08 (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not had a chance to look into this yet. Will do so later today. Viriditas (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. It looks like the same user, but the edits appear to be constructive.  Have you observed any problems with this user? Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On closer look at the edits, it appears that he's behaving himself with this account, I just wasn't sure about how previous blocks are handled. At the top of GoldDragons contribution page, it reads "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite" Does this mean that the user can't create other accounts, or does it just mean that he can't edit with that account? For the most part, his edits are usually constructive, it's only when his IP stalker finds him and starts reverting his edits that the problems start. I have no problem giving the guy the benefit of the doubt as long as he behaves, but what's wikipedia's stand on this? Cmr08 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, normally we would reopen the report and ask for a CU or a block based on bad behavior. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE EXPLAIN
Could you please explain why my entry to Arthur Rubin was removed by you? I thought that that was Arthur Rubin page where people can ask questions and politely makes comments to his own comments and have some interaction. I was not aware that anybody can remove entries since that is his page. Honestly I am confused and perhaps you can help me to understand. Thanks. 123reuss (talk)123reuss123reuss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Here is some helpful advice: next time you add a comment to Arthur Rubin's talk page, make it brief and to the point; write it in your own words (don't add entire quotes from other discussions into your prose); and don't comment on the person you are addressing. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. How many lines are we allowed. I just made one with 12 lines. 123reuss (talk)123reuss123reuss (talk) May 22, 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
 * We usually go by words, not lines, but there is no recommended limit (but there should be). Your comment is much improved. Thanks for taking the time to rewrite it. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Glass Bees - GA hold status?
Just curious how this review is going, and its current status? I could do a tad bit of copyediting here and there, if that would help out, but probably defer to the major stuff to the nominator(s). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Glass Bees
 * Please jump right in. The nominator requested extra time since they were busy, and I gave them two additional weeks.  If you can help out, that's great. Viriditas (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I started on a little bit of copyediting here and there. I will defer to the GA nominator(s) to address the rest of the outstanding GA Hold issues. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to let you know that I've started serious revision of the article on The Glass Bees and will be working on the themes section, the plot summary, and the lead over the weekend. I think I should be able to make the suggested changes by Tuesday, if that works for you. Thanks again for your feedback and patience. Sindinero (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC
I hope you don't mind a little canvassing. One of Wikipedia's best sentences is under threat at Talk:David Icke (Boxcar Willie etc). :) Plus, the same person wants to remove the anti-Semitism from the lead. Any input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfC is unintelligible to uninvolved editors. I've asked for the current RfC to be closed and a new one opened. I've also notified the editor who opened it. I've looked for guidance on how to compose good RfC statements for content disputes, and I could not find one.  For some reason, I thought we had several essays that discussed this in the past, but I could be wrong.  Because you enjoy writing about the philosophy of policies and guidelines, I was wondering if you might consider revising the Requests for comment page. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments there. I tried to clarify the RfC page a little; see here. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm out the door, but from what I just saw, it looks great.  BTW, did you see this article in Reuters yesterday?  I hope you have a box of tissues nearby... :) Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a brilliant story! Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Environmentalism. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding Please take a look at this discussion and see if user Viriditas did not adhere to WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL during the discussion which I have chosen to extricate myself from. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Antwerp Diamond Heist
Talk:Antwerp Diamond Heist: Do I really have to? Aarrrrggghh. The refs aren't bare. They all look like normal refs in the ref section. Filling them in will take bloody hours. I have to go to each url and find author and date, right? Then sort through the whole article to remove "bot generated blah blah". I will clearly go insane if I have to do that. Does DYK really need better than reflinks results? I've done tons of DYK's with refs done by reflinks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird. I can help when I get home in a few hours. It's weird that it's being held up for this reason.  Have you opened a discussion on the DYK talk page (not the nom page)? Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't but I will. I'm not sure if a rep of DYK is holding it up, if whether or not it's being held up at all, or if this is just a personal opinion of how the refs should look. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the post. Materialscientist fixed the refs, and recommended this tool for Google Books. Wonderful! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see everything worked out! Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And thank you for your help! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm heartbroken. http://reftag.appspot.com/ worked twice, and now is blocked, even with a proxy. I hope it returns. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A few of my favourite things: Avocado and lime
Several times, per your request, I've tried to make a nice green picture for your userpage. But, because so much time had gone by, it had to be really good. So there was pressure. I'm not good with pressure. Ask that guy in the submarine. I was blue. And the nausea, and the pinging and the bolts blowing inward as he had to insanely test the depth to show he was brave. And that horrid red light. And it was claustroph.... Sorry. I digress. Seriously. Can I just give you a simple potted plant? Then, I could give you upgrades as it grows. Would that be okay? I'm asking because it's time to have a lovely cup of tea and make some new paintings for my userpage, with Dr Blofeld lurking somewhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a hybiscus? Blofield is in his underground lair with a cat in his lap cackling like a mad scientist. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A potted plant is fine. Send it my way when you have time.  Thanks.  I hope it can produce fruit, I'm a bit hungry. Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Glass Bees status
Hi Viriditas,

I think I've addressed the major problems with the GB article, and whenever you get a chance, it would be great if you could look it over again and decide whether it qualifies for GA or not. Thanks again for all the help, not to mention the time you've put into this article. Sindinero (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so delinquent about this. I've been busier than I expected, and won't be able to work on it anymore in the next few days. If it's still not good enough to pass, I'll come back to your suggestions later this summer, and once I've fixed things up I'll renominate it. (Looking over the list of suggestions, it seems like everything necessary has been addressed to remove the OR tag from the themes section, no?)
 * thanks again for your help and hard work with this article. Sindinero (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk?
From User_talk:Vsmith ... Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk? User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, this time on User:Talk:Zodon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834) ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 ) and User talk:OhanaUnited ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 ) More ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_Cities_Climate_Leadership_Group&diff=432283159&oldid=432278426 Be aware, there are "mind-readers", and see List_of_administrators/A-F. Given the history (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) will likely attempt Edit warring with me, anything you can do? Also, note this IP User may get knocked off-line ... DDOS? 99.19.43.74 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this. The only thing that will stop Arthur Rubin is Arthur Rubin ver. 2, cloned and decanted from one of his eyelashes.  We'll train it to do everything ver. 1 can't do and then set it loose on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Record Plant
Thanks for the note at Template_talk:Did_you_know. I found support for the word psychedelic. I like your term loft bed which was in the sources but not in the article or hook. I proposed another hook. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Territory of Hawaii name

 * It would be useful if you could copy any relevant comments on this move attempt, from User talk:Anthony Appleyard to Talk:Territory of Hawaii, as it is confusing for a matter to be discussed simultaneously in 2 places. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Long talk
Template:Long talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Drawings
Here are two drawings I made for you. If you don't quite fancy them and don't want to pick one, that's okay. I won't be offended. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Love it! Now, I have to figure out where to put them... Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They are beautiful, Anna. And full of a feeling of viriditas! Sharktopus talk  11:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a temporary user box. We need a more permanent one that people can use to show their appreciation for Anna's work. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info
Thanks for the info about Tikhon Khrennikov ... I had no idea the material was in any way related to the topic ban. Let me know if you think I should revert the changes. --Noleander (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Viriditas for your monitoring of Transcendent Man (film).
Thank you Viriditas for your monitoring of Transcendent Man (film). 99.19.46.246 (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Magpie
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Per your comment on "Casts", could you add some clarity to Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story "Appearances"?
Per your comment on "Casts" (User_talk:Arthur_Rubin), could you add some clarity to Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story "Appearances"? 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gattaca
Hi, thank you for notifying me the change you made for Gattaca. It is customary in wikipedia to discuss the edit in the discussion page so I will explain my edit there. See you there. :) Vapour (talk)

This is how it works!
Re Magpie:

I am coming from a position of having to prove over and over to all comers that Leonardo da Vinci's fame was an out of the ordinary matter. That when we talk about him as one of the most famous artists who ever lived, it is because no-one, not even Michelangelo, approached him for the fascination he held for his public, until the 20th century love-affair with Vincent van Gogh. I have had to justify, over and over, the fact that his situation as an artist was "unique". And that in writing an article about him, the unusual nature of his fame needs to be discussed, just as it ought to be discussed in the case of Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Einstein and a few other individuals whose names are household words. They stepped over some threshold of mere notability and become legends in their lifetime.

Because the Wiki MOS advises against such words as "famous", it becomes impossible to state that Leonardo da Vinci and Elvis Presley had an unprecedented degree of fame, because someone who knows the MOS but has limited understanding of the point you are making deletes the word as soon as you use it, unless you are prepared to defend your case.

Likewise, when discussing the position of St Peter's Basilica in Rome, there are Wiki-purists who want it dealt with as just another church, not "the greatest church in Christendom", not "of stupendous dimensions", etc etc.

An argument has arisen over Sagrada Familia because my description of it indicated that, as a church, its architecture was "unique" and ..... well, I can't remember the adjectives but they came from the major source and were quoted. Promptly deleted, because some argumentative person insisted that the writer was "Non-notable". I ended up dipping out of that one, so that the introduction no longer indicates that La Sagrada Familia is, in fact, one of the most remarkable and extraordinary buildings in the world, I think my words "with no precedent and no direct successor" were deleted. It all ended up a bit like describing the Taj Mahal simply as a large marble mausoleum or the Sydney Opera house as a concert hall complex covered with white tiles.

This is Wikipedia. If you are going to say that "something is considered...." you must be able to back it up by stating who it is that considers it as such. If it is an opinion, you've got to state whose. Even if you are saying that the Mona Lisa is the world's most famous portrait, you have to prove it! Trust me!

Get the best possible direct quote or combination of direct quotes that make the point that you particularly want to make, reference them, and then don't give way.

Amandajm (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)