User talk:Viriditas/Archive 23

Aniru Conteh GA review
Hi, Viriditas. I've started the GA review with a few questions before the main work. Please respond at Talk:Aniru Conteh/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will get to it ASAP. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of taking on this review and would prefer to continue on from where Philcha left off instead of starting a new one. He is a very thorough reviewer so I have no problems accepting his comments and concentrating on the sections he missed. If this is acceptable to you let me know. Regards AIR corn (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for taking on the review. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Left a review. It looks good and is very close to passing, if it wasn't for an image I was unsure of and the question mark over the number of sons I would have. AIR corn (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will have it done by today. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Image information, description and license updated.
 * Catholic Missionary Hospital changed to Panguma Catholic Hospital.
 * "There" removed from "Early life, education, and teaching" section.
 * CDC "left" changed to "closed" in the lead section.
 * Family members moved to Early Life with numbers in note with sources.
 * Added "the government of" to "Sierra Leone began the process of rebuilding the country".
 * Add shortcut to lead for legacy section with relevant footnotes to lives saved.
 * I believe that covers everything. If I missed something, please let me know.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, happy to grant good article status. Congratulations. AIR corn (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sarek
Thanks for the correction. From now on I will referm to him as a he. I id not know, I hadn't scouted around his user page. If I do not know the gender of someone I automatically use her/she just as generic pronouns. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate
There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. As you took part in previous related discussions on this matter, I am informing you of the current discussion. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 15:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Leary
Do you have a reliable source that clarifies that he said "Internet is the LSD of the 90s"? All sources I read that were listed on that page and others related to Leary show that he actually said "PC is the LSD of the 90s." Laval (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The source that you cited says Time magazine said he said it, they don't actually show he said it. I'm going to track down the Time source. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Listomania
I appreciate the thanks (it's always nice to be appreciated). I did create the article (I was very surprised to find that one did not exist at the time). I would love to expand it get it up to GA or FA status, but I really have no time these days thanks to a very busy personal and professional life. Also, I had a very difficult time finding any sources that discussed this issue in depth so I'm not sure I can easily find anything else to contribute to the article. Why do you ask if I had plans on expanding it? Remember (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked because I like to see articles reach their full potential and editors receive the recognition they deserve. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Licensing of File:Symphony of Science.jpg
Could you clarify how you know that this image is GFDL? Looking at the source website, I see the statement about "free" you mention, but no evidence that it's specifically CC3 (more to the point, I don't see evidence that the intent is really more free than just "no cost to use"). DMacks (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Barbara Neely.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Barbara Neely.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Symphony of Science.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Symphony of Science.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:OccupyUCD3.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OccupyUCD3.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. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Childhood's end
In the Prologue, the launch which is about to happen is supposed to occur 30 years after 1945. Which puts it not at the end of the 20th. Though "mid" is clearly wrong too... Sorry about that.CyrilleDunant (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked back in February ...
Hi Viriditas, I've literally only just read your comment "…but if anyone decides to start an RFC on this user and is able to certify it with two users who have tried and failed to resolve this problem, please contact me so that I can participate. This behavior should not be tolerated from anyone. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)" here. I have no idea whether you;ve already seen this, and in any event things seem to have improved a bit, I'm just letting you know it's there. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 17:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for thinking of me. I will definitely comment on the RfC.  This sounds similar to the User:TreasuryTag case. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I really do wish I could just sprinkle some kind of pixie-dust across the 'pedia and increase the kindness quotient by about 75% all the way across! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Following up on the same theme I discussed on the RfC: "Think what a better world it would be if we all—the whole world—had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to cleanup their own mess." Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
DGaw (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

vital articles
love the comment at user:TCO. i see he pointed you to WikiProject Vital Articles. i don't know how much time i can give to it, but if you want to collaborate on a vital article let me know. i agree with the comments at TCO, that vital is a drama pot. it requires deep understanding of a vital concept, synthesis, exposition, and then defend from pov people. no wonder everyone walks away.  Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your contributions reflect an interest in art. Are you thinking of an art-related vital article we should work on? Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i got roped into it by User:SarahStierch. History of art needs help, maybe we can get her or User:Jgmikulay to help. Janson is the standard text. i'll see if i can do a shelf check. i see User:Pedanti is editing there, maybe we can collaborate. i may be sidetracked for a while by the AAA editathon coming up.  Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 14:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
DGaw (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
In case you didn't notice, Climatic Research Unit email controversy is under a WP:1RR restriction, which means an editor may not make a change that undoes another editor's actions more than once in a 24 hour period. It looks like you are already in violation of this, so please be more careful.--Taylornate (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in no such violation. If you feel that I am, go ahead and report me. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Occupy UC Davi
We don't remove templates or information in template because we personally disagree with them. I've reverted your edits. You are welcome to use the talk page and present your case for removing them there. Please make sure you use sources that support your POV. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is on the talkpage please comment there. Youreallycan (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A reminder from three days ago - diff - Youreallycan (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you differentiate between attacking your position and attacking you? Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas<->Samcashion
Hey, I'd just like to thank you for the warm welcome. I may end up taking you up on the offer to ask some questions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcashion (talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask whatever you like! Please expect a bit of a delay, as I'm on and off. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mea Culpa
Yes, now I look closer I can see the confusion was my fault. Apologies for being a dick. :o Spartaz Humbug! 11:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is anyone's fault. I just dislike bureaucracy. :) Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sicko British National Health Service.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sicko British National Health Service.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. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dub side.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dub side.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Dark City
As you have done a lot of editing on this article in the recent past, I invite you to add your tuppence worth to a discussion about which actors to list in the lede and infobox. Your opinion would be appreciated. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 22:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you attempted to boldly update the infobox instructions and the MOS? Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. But, there is a discussion at the Wikiproject Film talk page, if you would like to take part.  Do you think MOS needs to be updated? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  18:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion shows that an update is needed. I don't understand why you disagree with Ring Cinema.  Are you reading his comments correctly, or am I misreading yours? Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Selena Gomez
Hi vriditas i dont know u persoanally but if u think selena gomez should be mentoined in justin bieber portal contact me.(Muks (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I do think she deserves to be mentioned, however, Wikipedia is very dysfunctional at the moment. I've tried raising this on the noticeboards and I received no response. I'm not sure what we can do at this point. Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Vulpes
Bit offtopic for the CRU hack article talk, but thought Fox news might interest you.... dave souza, talk 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I heard the BBC coverage of this earlier. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

POWER GLOVE
Hey Vriditas. It's Sam, you welcomed me back to Wikipedia a month or so ago. I am wondering whether these certain music blogs are considered usable sources on Wikipedia. I want to do the following:

• Create a disambiguation page for "power glove" and "powerglove." There is the original article about the device, and then the one without the spaces is about a band. There's another band with the same name, but with a space between the words. This is one that does not have a Wikipedia page yet, but are becoming quite notable due to their cult following and recent song in a movie.

• Create a page for the band POWER GLOVE. (and I also want to mention they shouldn't be confused with the band Powerglove, on both bands' pages)

However, I am not sure whether these sources are considered usable:

http://mpmsoundtracks.blogspot.com/2011/05/powerglove-returns-with-telecom-lets.html (by the way, to avoid confusion, please know this article erroneously refers to POWER GLOVE as Powerglove, but they are talking about POWER GLOVE)

http://r-massive.cellarseer.com/power-glove-so-bad-ep/

http://www.powergloveaudio.com/

A Power Glove song appeared in Hobo With a Shotgun, but they don't mention it on the movie's official website, so I can't use them as a source. Could you help me with these problems?

Thanks regardless! Samcashion (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, but I'm on my cell and won't be home for several hours. I will get to it then if you haven't already figured it out. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Circball
FYI. Looks like Circball draft has been abandoned. You're welcome to adopt/contribute to the article for further improvement, since you've indicated on the original editor's talkpage that you're willing to help. Thanks. PinasIto (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

templating the newbies
Hi Viriditas, on the issue of templating the newbies, you are right, and I'm looking to reduce my templating myself (still looking how I can still use the awesome power of Twinkle, while still doing all user warnings and notifications manually, but I'll get there). However, i don't think the AfD is the appropriate venue to further that discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * O crap, can't template newbies, can't template regulars, and can't stop pests from templating articles :-/  dave souza, talk 00:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Don't template the newbies
A tag has been placed on Don't template the newbies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Randies
V, I know it must be frustrating dealing with Randies, but please be careful in what you say. There are people waiting to use your words against you to trip you up or get you sanctioned for "battlefield" conduct (a notoriously elastic concept). Just please stay calm and if you're going to make accusations against people, please only do so if you've got an absolutely rock-solid basis - and evidence - to support it. Prioryman (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

mssg
Please excuse and delete these notices if you are watching my page. Djathink imacowboy  00:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I sound a bit harsh over at ANI, I appreciate the messages and assistance. You are a good guide in any event, even if we disagreed about the talk page issue. It is small potatoes, if I may mix a metaphor with yours. Cheers once again, V. Djathink  imacowboy  00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted you to see this. It was an attempt to get informal help (from User:Kuru) which of course went utterly ignored. You may delete this at your convenience. Please do look at it; in spite of some harshness, do you still think I should have acted more like water?:

QUOTE: "Sorry, I wondered if you could help. I think I contacted another editor about this, but I just can't find out who it might have been. "Boredom is Wikipedia's secret weapon." Though seemingly out of context, it does highlight exactly the attitude taken by certain editors who want to own the article. Whilst they cannot effect any blocks (even though one is an admin), they do their best with a knee-jerk approach to reverting any edits they didn't make. They also refuse discussion, thus attempting to trick editors into violating 3RR, yet they themselves are engaged in edit warring during the course of it. Is this ossification? Will you look at it for me? Djathink  imacowboy  22:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You ought to know the history of the issue, see if you are willing to assist. I first went to this article to see what info I could find; the grammar was horrific so I first edited. A few unreasonable additions drew attention to me, but I have no issue with those. Then I saw the thing was a horrific mess and edited again. If you will examine the remainder of the history you'll see what transpired, and I suggest reading the talk page. Then there was the meddling of a vigilant editor, from whom I assume good faith here and here. Hope this helps give you a taste of what is occurring. Djathink  imacowboy  23:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really need help. We have a problem at Pope Joan. These edits (later{ and earlier) show a proclivity to edit warring and article ownership. Editor was warned here. I'd just like the editing to disengage from warring and go back to a reasonable state. Please notify me at my talk page if you cannot assist, because I need some support in this. Djathink  imacowboy  02:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate you did not wish to assist. This issue has been raised ANI. You of course are not involved or named. Djathink  imacowboy  21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)}}"-CLOSE QUOTE -From
 * I do wish to assist. However, I have been offline and I have only just returned. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, V., that mention about not assisting is part of the quote, not aimed at you but directed at Kuru. See the quotation marks? Now: Thank you, V. Do you know the genuine Buddhist teaching is that compassion does not mean automatically putting up with people's crap? ;) Well, I've thrown up my hands at the ANI, conceded the futility of it... but I came right out to say I believe no one cares about the genuine underlying editing principle at stake here. I thought that place was the place to raise issues like this, issues of one or two bossy editors thinking only they can dictate what gets into an article and what does not. So I've conceded the entire point, but one thing I will not do is simply excuse the arrogant, presumptuous behaviour. Because, if it can be stopped here and now, they won't do it to others, you see? I have no genuine ego to bruise; I only think Wikibullies want stopping. Djathink imacowboy  (yell)  10:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult, but sometimes it is best to excuse bad behavior. This is what WP:IPAT is all about. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Hi, Viriditas, wishing you a happy and prosperous 2012! It's a chilly 10 below here (Farhenheit). Sorry I'm not clever enough to know how to make you a template. Best wishes! Yopienso (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

An article of interest?
I'm not posting this at the article talk page, because I don't see anything in it worth adding tot he article, but I thought you'd be interested in reading it, if you haven't seen it already NYT New Speculation-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  13:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

pictures from Space.com
Hey Viriditas. I wanted to improve this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_INfrared_Exoplanet_Spectroscopy_Survey_Explorer by putting a picture from here http://i.space.com/images/i/14403/original/finesse-alien-planet-atmosphere-telescope.jpg?1326212857

Their policy for putting pictures up is on here http://www.techmedianetwork.com/using-our-content.html However, it deviates from our protocol. What should I do? Samcashion (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; I was offline. A few things:
 * When you want to link directly to an article, use two left and right brackets like this— Fast INfrared Exoplanet Spectroscopy Survey Explorer —which produces this link: Fast INfrared Exoplanet Spectroscopy Survey Explorer.
 * You can also use the brackets to shorten a URL. Instead of http://i.space.com/images/i/14403/original/finesse-alien-planet-atmosphere-telescope.jpg?1326212857, you can do this or this,
 * Good work creating Fast INfrared Exoplanet Spectroscopy Survey Explorer. That's what we call a future-class article.  Unfortunately, there is a bit of crystal-balling involved here, which means it may not be suitable for a stand-alone article just yet. This is because it is still in the conceptual/proposal stage and won't have a green light until February 2013.  One way to get around this is to redirect the stub you've created to a more complete and established subject that could conceivably contain a short list of these proposals.  When I have some more time later, I'll see if I can help you find a more suitable redirect.  That way if the mission is finally chosen in 2013, you can remove the redirect. (You can ignore this because it seems the project allows for the creation of proposed spacecraft articles, however, other projects might not allow articles on such proposals)
 * Because the proposed subject might not be suitable for a standalone article, it would be difficult to argue for keeping a fair use image at this time. However, it appears that these types of proposed spacecraft articles are acceptable (or tolerated).  I can't access the image or website containing the image right now, but I'll try again later.
 * Each WikiProject treats future-class stubs differently. I'm not certain what the criteria is for stubs located in  Category:Proposed spacecraft so I will have to ask WikiProject Spaceflight
 * Looking at Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets might help.
 * More later, and keep up the great work. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I was editing the article, I didn't create it. However, it's nice to know that information. thanks! Samcashion (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clearing that up. I was finally able to access the image and site page.  The image is credited to "NASA/JPL-Caltech", which I believe falls under the public domain.  Do you know how to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons?  They have a specific tag for such images, the PD-USGov-NASA tag. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't I not upload it now, though? Because the article shouldn't exist independently, I mean. Glad to know which license to use though. Samcashion (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point. Have you searched for more sources?  It might require a bit of research. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending Foresight and Futures Studies Project Proposal
As an individual involved with a key page in Futures Studies (namely Futures Studies itself), I thought it appropriate to notify you of a new Foresight and Futures Studies Project Proposal being undertaken. I look forward to any discussion you might have on this subject. John b cassel (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. I'm more than happy to contribute. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I can see you're already discussing the now accepted project Futures Studies, so thanks. :-) John b cassel (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Appreciated the smile, thank you. Back 'atcha. Petersontinam (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!
ralphamale (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot
I'm going to try and restart this old project, and your comments would be highly appreciated. Thanks =), Res Mar 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try and help out and/or comment in the next 24-48 hours. One thing I noticed right away was that the lead image was a bit strange. Shouldn't you have a hotspot image in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Avenue's commented on that, and I've changed the lead image. Res Mar 02:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check on citation 52, Clague & Dalrymple (1987) "Geologic evolution". Is this the same or different paper as this one? Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found the answer. It is the same paper, but an abridged version.  Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bump =) Res Mar 03:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I probably won't have time for a day or two. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edison
I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that this editor might return to making productive contributions to this encyclopedia. I agree that much of the editor's recent behavior has appeared childish, and that the comparison to segregationists blocking the schoolhouse door was particularly inept. Let's assume good faith, though, and encourage positive contributions going forward. Best regards.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also find his approach unhelpful (and frankly not the standard of conduct I would hope to see in a long-time admin), but the best thing to do is ignore it. In cases like this the more anyone presses, the harder the other person is going to dig in their heels. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lahaina Banyan Court Park
Hello! Your submission of Lahaina Banyan Court Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Queen's Retreat
Do you know anything about the The Queen's Retreat in Maunawili, otherwise known as the estate of the Boyd family? I am confused about the date of the house since it state it is from the 1860s but then it says that it has plumbing and electricity and then it says it has been destroyed and only the Kakalia house remain. Do you know anything about this and also about the current conservation/restoration effort on it, post-2005.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. Thanks for contacting me. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the expert on this subject is Dr. Paul Brennann of the Kailua Historical Society. You can call or e-mail him here.  There really is no better source on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lahaina Banyan Court Park
Orlady (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Ann Dunham
Ref my comment here, do you have access to the original yearbook? The odds this had a proper notice and was renewed in 1988 is extremely low. If we could confirm, we could get a better copy and upload to commons.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pre-1963 as it is, you're probably right, and it is likely PD. Only way to know for sure is to find a copy. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion
Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
See Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

I don't have time to play games. Why are you provoking this issue by restoring the redirect? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've explained on the talk page. You're using archaic sources to push a POV.  This is a common tactic of POV pushers, which is why we use the most current sources to make controversial claims.  Feel free to go to the library (or use online tools) to perform current research on the topic.  The claims you are making about modern science are from 1916.  You can't be serious. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have applied the sources appropriately, where do you get this idea that I am making claims about modern scince. The claims you have cited are attributed to Howard Warren, as they should be. I am taking this issue to Wikiquette to have you polity undo your redirect. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "Wikiquette", this has to do with the RS or NPOV noticeboard, and you've been asked to take your concerns there several times now. Is English not your native language?  I ask, because you show no sign of understanding any part of the discussion we have had.  The article on purpose is about philosophy not science, however you do not seem to understand the difference.  As it stands, you have selectively chosen to use sources in a way that pushes your POV about the notion of purpose.  If you want to retain the article or an article on the subject, you will need to find and consult at least one current source on the subject, and try to use that as a starting point.  So far, our discussion shows that you don't understand this process.  Feel free to consult other current tertiary sources for guidance.  We have already established consensus for a redirect because your past attempts at writing this article have failed, according to the community.  I seriously recommend that you start with the most current and reputable encyclopedia on philosophy, and go from there.  You might want to look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for some ideas.  However, the problem is that you don't appear to be genuinely interested in writing about the topic of purpose in philosophy at all, but rather in pushing your own personal POV about purpose by selectively misusing sources.  You need to stop doing that and rely exclusively on the guidance of sources about the subject.  Please note as an example, that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has no entry on purpose.  My understanding (and this has been evidently challenged by other editors on the purpose talk page) is that Stanford, like most other current tertiary sources, treats the discussion of purpose as a subtopic of teleology.   Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please undo your redirect. It is disrupting the article progress. Wikiquette_assistance. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you are still having difficulty reading. As I said above, my choice for a redirect is teleology, not intention.  The redirect you are disputing was chosen as one possible redirect of many by a consensus of Wikipedians.  You are free to start a new discussion or to take into account any of the suggestions I have left you here and on the article talk page, all of which you have apparently ignored and continue to avoid addressing.   Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The good folks at the noticeboards might appreciate having an non-redirected article for their consideration. Your keeping the redirect intact is not helping the situation, please undo your redirect. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been here long enough to know how diffs work. You don't need me to revert anything.  Please use the page history diffs to make your case.  Please also stop using this talk page to discuss it.   Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Kirk
I do apologize and hope my mistake didn't cause you any angst. I chose to review your article because I know a bit about Robert Kirk and was surprised to think we didn't have anything about him before.

Your article is truly fine work. - PKM (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thank you. Perhaps this is an added opportunity, as I'm sure the article could benefit from your critical approach and expertise.  I see we also share quite a number of interests, from fashion to SoCal, to everything in between, and it would be a real pleasure to work with you in the future.  Your interests in SoCal and fashion brings me back full circle, strangely enough, as this all started with my research into the Dunites (see also User:Viriditas/Dunites) of San Luis Obispo County, which eventually led me to Ella Young,  and now Kirk. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just drawing your attention to this, Viriditas. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm aware of it. Have you listened to their audio interviews?  It's really amazing; it's almost like taking a time machine.  Wild stuff. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange stuff, the Dunites. Glad we're cool (and surprised we haven't crossed paths before!) - PKM (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FOX News
Just left a comment on Blueboar's talk page and saw your remark regarding this. Just out of curiosity, can you find at least one WP:RS that directly refutes that article? I couldn't. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. I think I have to pass on this.  When I go on a Fox News bender, it usually lasts several weeks, and I really need to focus on other things right now.  But please keep me in mind. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The FOX article cites NASA, Daily Mail, Met Office and NOAA as their sources. Overall, they agree with the article you claim they "rewrote to suit their POV". Just food for thought: calling FOX news alone unreliable is POV by itself. No news agency is really neutral, but FOX seem to be constantly on the cross, which has been becoming a bit of a pet peeve of mine lately. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No disrespect intended, but when you drink that much Kool-Aid, you tend to see the world through a Kool-Aid-haze. I will agree with you, however, that the major media in the United States is pretty bad all around. But, I'm sorry to say, Fox News  is not a news organization.  WMC said it way better than me: when you see something reported on Fox News, that's a good indicator that it isn't true, so in a way, Fox is doing us a favor, as anything they report as true can safely be considered false. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kool-Aid-haze? You mean like "all conservatives are stone-age creationist retards that can't be trusted to turn on a light switch, let alone dispense useful information"?
 * WMC who?
 * "Fox news is not a news organization" is a highly controversial statement that needs multiple WP:RS.
 * "The major media in the United States is pretty bad all around" – yeah, there's bad, and there's good. Everyone is opinionated; however, it is a common fallacy to assume that those who think like you are the most neutral. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, I really don't want to go on this bender now, and if you are interested, these questions have already been answered on WMC's talk page. You know very well who WMC is, so I won't play your little game.  In any case, I happen to know from personal experience, that the average person does not give a damn about political parties, and I think they do more harm than good and act as a distraction from the real issues facing our world today.  The left-right, liberal-conservative dynamic is an intentional form of societal control meant to divide people and to lessen their power as individuals.  It's a transparent attempt to weaken democracy, to disempower, dehumanize, and denigrate everything that is decent about what we are and what we were meant to be, and has no real benefit.  Real people, not cardboard cartoon cutouts, have values that are composed of left and right elements, liberal and conservative aspects.  The realized human being embraces this fact, and seeks to integrate both and recognize their roles.  Issues, not parties, evidence based decision making, not ideology, is what is important in 2012.  I realize that this paradigm change will not come overnight, but come it will.  On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des idées. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "You know very well who WMC is, so I won't play your little game"... what a load of pretentious crap. Why would I ask you who WMC was if I already knew? I've just looked at your last 2,000 edits and haven't found that person's talk page yet; but redirects me to, is that who you are referring to? Please act appropriately and answer my question. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Kirk (folklorist)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 1f6dc607c8e67284cae6ed2c7117edc5
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hello my friend
I wrote the below stuff yesterday. I will add a few items:


 * Thanks for the (attempted) help with the images. I guess TUSC is having issues.
 * So, now I know you stalk my talk and my userpage!! Hahahaha. Actually, I just did an accidental rollback too. :)

From yesterdayish:

Long time. Well, a couple of days. But before that, quite a while. In point form:


 * 1) You may have noticed that I can upload images now. Not sure if it's the new wizard interface, or just the ever-changing firewall rules here. I'm pleased, though not sure how long it will last.
 * 2) I got a crappy camera, as you probably know.
 * 3) I want to make Hawaiian beetle articles. I'm looking into it. If you know of any, let me know. (Check your shoulder!)
 * 4) I like your views on avoiding sections and lists. I also like my views on using sections and lists. I have no idea anymore.
 * 5) Now that I have a camera, do you have suggestions on the sorts of images that would help counter the systemic bias problem? I've been taking images of objects. But, I want to do other things, like processes such as making tofu. What am I missing that's right under my...nostrils. Like pictures of nostrils, for example.
 * 6) My English is going down the drain from living here so long. It used to be so good.
 * 7) I've decided not to go for the big admin thing, at least for a year or way, way more. I just think it would spoil the experience, and thrust me into unpleasant areas. I like the rogue thing. Joining groups bogs things down for me. Helping seems most efficient when done rogue-style.
 * 8) Per my comments way back when, I asked a friend to help contact the San Fransisco parrot people for article images. No luck so far.
 * 9) I will rewatch the wonderful Transcendent Man. I haven't forgotten.
 * 10) Did you ever watch Standing in the Shadows of Motown I recommended? Very good.
 * 11) I will do the ogg video thing, in particular for Chinese fitness dancing.
 * 12) See Happy People: A Year in the Taiga. It's sooooo good: 11/10. The doggies! The lovely doggies!
 * 13) The requested images thing is working out. I am quite pleased with the results, and all terribly proud of myself. :)
 * 14) Thanks again for the advice on image placement. I am reviewing and revising.

And so, how's by you?

All the best, as usual.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Anna. Always good to hear from you. I'll check out those films you recommend.  No need to rewatch Transcendent Man, as it is a pretty silly film, but well done.  I'm very interested in collaborating on a Hawaiian beetle article with you.  Can you find one that has lots of sources? Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that maybe we should just work on a top level article, such as Hawaiian beetles. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe Flora of Hawaii and Fauna of Hawaii should come first. Even dorky Canada has Flora of Canada and Fauna of Canada. And this isn't a province or state thing. Hawaii is distinct, and such main articles seem like the next step in terms of expansion. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait. I should check first. I always post then check later. Maybe these exist. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, What am I missing? I see Outline of Hawaii -- huge -- and I see flora and fauna of Hawaii as a one paragraph section in Hawaii. What gives? I must be missing a huge bunch of articles here.


 * Oh, and again, see Happy People: A Year in the Taiga now now now now! It's sooo nice. I think I want to live there. Except that it's too cold and it would make my skin look old. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And why isn't Outline of Hawaii to be found in Template:Hawaii??? This is on your watch! Don't make me have to come over there, young man. But I do hear it's lovely this time of year. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anna, when you have time, would you be able to help me organize these tasks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii? Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Do you mean the list entitled "To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii:"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean a new thread where we can invite others to contribute. Sorry for the confusion. :) Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'll take a look. But, I just realized that I ought to pay some attention to the Hainan Island vs Province thing. The article is in an unacceptable state, and I'm trying to figure out what to do. 60 watchers and nobody is speaking up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in no hurry! Anytime this week is good. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhhh! Really?? Panic is setting in! You know how easily I panic when there's time pressure. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I should have said anytime this century.  How's that? :) Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Milky Way
Hi,

Did you fully address the citation issues on Milky Way that you said you were working on in February 2011? I left a note on Talk:Milky Way and may try to address this myself if it hasn't already been done. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 23:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. Thanks for letting me know. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked. The issues were not addressed. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose DRN thread
Hello Viriditas, this is just a message to say that the thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard about the redirect of purpose is stalled, essentially waiting for you to comment. If you have the time, could you can hop over there and tell us what you think about the latest posts there? Thanks —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been away; taking a look now. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Please see diff. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not good enough. You've made a mistake, and you need to correct it.  More on your user talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited The Californian Ideology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dotcom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
FYI, please see: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

mail
Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

from rkmlai
I appreciate the prompt to produce the Lundberg v. County of Humboldt article and appreciate your further contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lundberg_v._County_of_Humboldt&action=history. In response to your question "Thank you so much. You seem very familiar, have you and I interacted in the past?" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rkmlai&oldid=464927837. In receiving that question, I knew we had interacted before and indeed found (today, though I had appreciated receiving it then) you had left me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rkmlai&oldid=276150032#Breathing_space

Thanks rkmlai (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob)". Thank you. -- В и к и  T   00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that is hardly going to help anything. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The thread was dead the second after Wikiwind posted it to AN. The reason I added it to 3RR was as a draft, to get comments from people involved in the relevant dispute so that I could formulate and develop it. And, I wasn't going to post it until after the three-day holiday weekend, and I was surprised to find that Wikiwind had already done so.  The entire United States is on vacation, so this is hardly the time to solicit feedback on a topic ban from the most active members of the community.  And in case you haven't figured it out by now, that's the real reason Youreallycan edit warred on the article.  He gamed article protection because he knew he couldn't request it with any reasonable justification, so he edit warred and the article was protected, which will cover the entire three-day weekend when most editors won't be around to watch it. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're responding to with that post. My link is to your post where you describe another editor as "ignorant" -- please don't do that no matter how true it seems.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment of your time to explain the problem. Ignorant is defined as "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general". Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've explained via email. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, got it. Unfortunately, I say what I mean. I'm not a lawyer for a reason. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"The entire United States is on vacation" - Can I quote this as a reason not to show up for work tomorrow? (You vastly overestimate how many people actually get the day off.) :) Lady  of  Shalott  05:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed by this edit of yours. As far as I'm concerned, I don't intend to pursue this issue; however, next time you have doubts regarding an admin action of mine, just ask on my talk page. Do not assume bad faith of me and then proceed to make a personal attack. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The protection rationale was totally gamed to coincide with the the three-day holiday weekend in the states". See my comment up above dated 12:00.  Your name isn't mentioned anywhere. "He gamed article protection because he knew he couldn't request it with any reasonable justification, so he edit warred and the article was protected, which will cover the entire three-day weekend when most editors won't be around to watch it." That refers to YRC, not you.  And the hypothetical collusion refers to multiple editors who edit warred to game protection.  The only person who mentioned your name was Lionel. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the way you intended your comment, then I apologise for my earlier post. However, please note that the collusion part of your comment could reasonably be construed as referring to me as I was the protecting admin. That said, since you've clarified the meaning of your post, I'm satisfied. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It was probably the wrong word.  My apologies. Viriditas (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to split Jeremy Bamber
Exok objects to the closure of the discussion about whether to split Jeremy Bamber into two articles — one about the murders and one a biography. He has requested that I make a formal proposal to split the articles on the talk page. I'm very sorry to ask this, but it would be appreciated if everyone who commented at the BLPN here could offer their opinion again at Talk:Jeremy_Bamber. (Also, for some reason, that link isn't going directly to the subsection, so please scroll up a little to find it.) Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Urgently needed expertise
Done. :) SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Religious big bang article
Um, that's a University website edited by Edward L. Wright - maybe you want to reconsider your tag? Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to say "verify source". Instead, it came out as "verify credibility", which displays "unreliable source".  The statement tagged is, "Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory." This statement is ambiguous (some, others) and does not accurately represent the context (false equivalence) and specific examples cited by the source; it is more of an unattributed interpretation of the section about science and creationism.  When we are dealing with controversial articles, it's best to use explicit claims made by published sources, not interpretations of web pages.  I'm sure Wright's website is accurate, but that does not mean it was used appropriately in this article. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes much mores sense! Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your incorrect accusations of plagiarism at Big Bang
In the edit summaries of your recent edits at Big Bang you have twice accused other editors of plagiarism. This is a serious accusation, even when hidden in an edit summary. I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word here. Plagiarism is defined as misappropriating someone else's thoughts or ideas and representing them as your own. As the sentence you removed was attributed to R.J. Russell's book "Cosmology: from alpha to omega", it cannot possibly be plagiarism. At worst, it was using a phrase from the book without identifying it as a direct quote - an error which I have now fixed. You may wish to consider apologising to the other editors concerned. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. On Wikipedia, plagiarism is clearly defined. At  Plagiarism, we can identify plagiarism when an editor copies "from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution".  To quote from the guideline, "Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as his own, but it is still regarded as plagiarism, because the source's words were used without in-text attribution."  If that's not making sense to you, feel free to ask questions or consult the guideline.  The plagiarized text in question has at least two versions, including
 * "Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation.'"


 * and


 * "Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also embraced the Big Bang as buttressing the classic interpretation of the doctrine of creation."


 * This was also plagiarized in the parent article and removed. The original material, as quoted in the citation and on p. 40 of Russell 2008 reads:


 * "Conservative Protestant circles have also welcomed Big Bang cosmology as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation."


 * This violates our best practices regarding close paraphrasing. In both cases, the editor who added it neglected to note that they were quoting Russell 2008 directly nor did they use in-text attribution.  On Wikipedia, that's considered a form of plagiarism even when a well-placed citation exists.  So, if an editor uses an entire sentence from a book without identifying it as a quote or using in-text attribution, but adds a citation at the end, we still define it as plagiarism. I hope this clears up any further confusion on this matter and that you will stop saying "it's not plagiarism because it is sourced". Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much!
That did take a good part of my day, so thanks so much for the acknowledgement! Aloha, Softlavender (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: A Rose and a Prayer
Hello Viriditas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A Rose and a Prayer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article was nominated for AfD in January 2011, so it's not eligible for speedy deletion or PROD; try another AfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.


 * Occupy movement in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Medford, The Embarcadero, SMU and Tea Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

National Republican Trust
Thanks for your your attention to moving this article. But just as Emily's List PAC article is named Emily's List so too should National Republican Trust PAC should be listed as National Republican Trust if we are to follow prior usage, that is my thought at least. Thanks again for your attention. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Emily's List does not use "Political Action Committee" in the title of their organization, but National Republican Trust Political Action Committee does. However, I have no objection if you want to move the article title. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Straight pride
Take a look, this is not progress, i'm not even sure what to call that. Thanks  J e n <font color="#0F0">o  v <font color="#F0F">a  20 13:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Movement criticism
Hi, thanks for the note on my talk. Im no longer planning to promote the criticism article to mainspace myself, as there was an objection and no recent support. If you're planning to I think that would be good, as we probably still need a little more criticism for NPOV. Id say the article could use an update but otherwise thought the quality was relatively good. If you want to rewrite though, its very unlikely Id object to any changes. Let me know if there's anything further you wanted to discuss. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you were thinking me conservative...
I'm not, just keeping neutrality in the article. I haven't marched, but have attended a few Pride parades, and love the LGBT culture. Though some Gay Pride events do exclude straight people for there sexuality, I was stunned that my girlfriend was turned down as a volunteer at Manchester Pride simple for not being part of the LGBT community. Now, I'm sure that was one particular job in one particular event in one particular place, but she hasn't volunteered for pride since. In any case, I try not to let my personal politics affect my editing. <font color="#000">WormTT &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never was thinking that and I don't know why you are thinking that I was thinking that, so there's no reason to defend yourself from something that I never thought. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad - and apologise for the reaction. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never heard of anyone being refused for not being gay, it's not at all in the spirit of bringing the community together.
 * What was she offering to help out with?  J e <font color="#FF0">n <font color="#0F0">o  v <font color="#F0F">a  20 11:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

 * Thank you; I'm glad to lend a hand. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * aaaahhhhh---can I have one of those!!!! – Lionel (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An olive branch of peace would be more appropriate. However i think you are being sarcastic anyway.  J e <font color="#FF0">n <font color="#0F0">o  v <font color="#F0F">a  20 08:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Schlafly
Dont know if youre still interested but I saw your edit on user talk:Schlafly and I think the NYT was wrong here. Andrew Schlafly uses user:Andysch and never edited the Kansas evolution article. The NYT must have just assumed that user:Schlafly was him and if so they were wrong.  ☮ Soap  ☮  00:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had not considered that. Don't I feel stupid! Thanks a bunch. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dana Loesch 2
What is your current opinion of the article? IMO, there are too many SPS and not enough reliable secondary sources asserting notability. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I hadn't looked at that article in quite a while. So I just pulled up all the sources currently on it, and wow--you're right, the dearth of sources on that is amazing. Basically there's self-published sources, fellow conservative sources, and local softball sources.  I'm not a big fan of tagging, but you're quite correct to have done so in this case.


 * Having said all that, I will say that I now believe her notability is adequate for an article, so I would not support deletion. But how this woman can be on CNN regularly (how often?  I don't know, I don't watch CNN or Fox, I'm a Science Channel/ESPN kind of guy) and not be written about in better sources?  Maybe it's my age and I just don't get the blogosphere.  (Actually, that I don't get the blogosphere is a certainty, not a maybe.  But maybe I don't understand how a person can be famous just due to blogging. ) But here's the upshot, while I'm flattered that an editor who has reached his eleventy-one thousandth edit has approached me for my opinion (for reasons that totally elude me), unfortunately, I don't really have much skin in this article.  Once upon a time I looked it up to learn something, found some stupid editing had been done, and then (in my opinion) fixed it up; but I have so little interest in this woman that it was not until after your post and my subsequent reading of the sources that I learned how to pronounce her last name (I was reading it wrong).


 * If you have any actions you would like me to undertake, I am open to suggestion, but I do so little editing that I may not be the best vehicle for improving this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in general agreement with you. The reason I contacted you was because I saw your comments on the talk page. BTW, I really enjoy your writing style.  Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for your kind (and completely unexpected) words. I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of compliments that I've received for my editing, and none means more to me than that. You made my week. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan
Sorry, no. Would you like to try again in a manner that more closely follows WP:TALK and WP:AGF? --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ronz, your reading comprehension and communication skills need serious, serious work. The reason you are almost always in a dispute with other editors has virtually nothing to do with content and almost everything to do with your bull in a china shop approach to editing. I believe I explained this in full using specific examples on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So your answer is "No." Sorry that you feel that way. If you change your mind, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reply is a perfect demonstration of your failure to communicate effectively. Until you actually read and address what editors write, you're going to keep running into problems.  Further, your unilateral actions and editorial vigilantism is unhelpful and damaging. After all this time, every attempt to discuss with you is still one way and one sided.  Finally, you continue to hide behind the alphabet soup of policies and guidelines and use them against their stated purpose. In summary, you've looked into the abyss and you've become the very thing you're claiming to fight.  It's ironic, isn't it? Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel this way. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Kailua Fort
Hey, Viriditas you wrote an article about Lahaina Fort awhile, I was wondering if you know if the ruins of the Kailua Fort, built by Kuakini, still exist and if there are any images or photographs of it left. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know; but I'll look into it. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I see that you are using Jones (1937) in User:KAVEBEAR/George Luther Kapeau. As you already know, she says twice in her report, that only a pile of rocks remained in the 1930s.  Today, I believe that site is on or near the King Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel.  Comparing Bing's bird's-eye views/Google Maps with Jones's Figure 5 on p. 40 is really disheartening.  There's nothing left except for a recreation of Ahuena. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh so not even a pile of stone remains. Thanks for the help.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If this upsets a haole like myself, I can't imagine what the Hawaiian people must be going through. It was bad enough that a baseball field was built on top of Mokuula.  The cultural insensitivity here is astounding. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wel not if you look at it as restoring a structure of their ancient past, a heiau, versus keeping a pile of rocks to commerorate a European style fort. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Biotherapy
Well spotted! That's the biggest howler I can remember seeing on Wikipedia, and a longstanding one at that. I guess the article should either be rewritten from scratch or speedily deleted. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to deal with it. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pleasure. Goodnight! —MistyMorn (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Could I draw your attention to what I find a rather surprising dispute on this subject from which I'd prefer to back off (I fear I probably wasn't very clever in my initial choice of words). I feel that some sort of invitation for informed third-party comment might help resolve this small matter. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a look. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, —MistyMorn (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on my limited understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, I've now made a simple proposal that I hope may satisfy everyone concerned: basically, that the disputed material should be transferred to a new article titled something like Zootherapy (as rightly recognized, imo, by our friendly "vandals"). Looking forward to reading your view on the talk page, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

Comment at Patrick Ruffini AfD
— Northamerica1000(talk) 06:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Viriditas,

I've uploaded one of the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar regarding source searching for the Patrick Ruffini article. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikimedia US/WALRUS
Hi Viriditas! I'd like to invite you to join Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States (WALRUS) to help represent WikiProject Hawaii and local outreach efforts, and also the wikimediaus-l mailing list. :)--Pharos (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for some further context, we've already had some interest for collaboration from some museums and libraries (WP:GLAM) in Hawaii, and we've been on the lookout for a good local contact.--Pharos (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on Maui, not Oahu, and my time is pretty limited. My Wikipedia time either occurs on my day off, during breaks, while I'm mobile on my iPhone, or late at night when I can't sleep.  I would recommend asking User:Makana Chai, but I don't know if she's currently active or interested.  You may want to ask User:Zora as well. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're mentioned
Hi! You are mentioned in a post that will run on the Wikimedia Foundation blog this week describing some of the editors who signed up for HighBeam accounts and their motivations for doing so. I just wanted to let you know. If you'd rather not be mentioned, please respond below or on my talk page. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"beverage" and introductory sentences
Coffee is usually understood as the beverage. Infact, "plant" would be appended to coffee if where this difference needs to be distinguished.

"popular" is pov and I would not include that word, and it would need to be sourced. I probably does need to be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not shown any understanding of the concerns I expressed on your talk page. Your edits changed a discussion of the beverage coffee to that of the plant.  I have not mentioned the word "popular" so I don't know what you are talking about.  It looks like this will have to go to the noticeboards since it is impossible to have any kind of discussion with you. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review of Dreamtime
Thanks for agreeing to undertake this review! All the best (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC))
 * My pleasure. I hope to have it finished very soon. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

ANI for User Ronz
Concerning a pattern of behavior not suitable for Wikipedia, by a user you've had dealings with, please list examples and join the discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents  D r e a m Focus  22:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps simply copy over your previous comments, and the difs you had collected here   D r e a m Focus  23:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)