User talk:Viriditas/Archive 29

Most excellent
Appreciation for the help at Medical cannabis. The lede had been attacked, apparently, by someone very keen on getting the US government's perspective laid out in great detail. The lede often leans heavily toward US-perspective. I'm sure you don't need my warning. I find that getting global information is very difficult, in my filter bubble, so I have a difficult time remedying this.  petrarchan47  t  c   06:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medical cannabis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vaporizer (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) 09:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis
Viriditas, I am here to ask you a favor. As a long-time established user, I know that you know how to use an article talk page effectively, and that you know that accusing others (particularly others who are using sources correctly) of pushing a POV creates unnecessary personalization and a battleground on talk. You also know better than to edit war. I have started multiple discussions, including one for an interim compromise so that work can continue, and you have failed to respond on those sections, while several times making unfounded statements about other editors' motives. There is a good deal of work to be done in that suite of articles, and how long it takes to get it done will depend on how constructively the talk page is used. It would be most helpful if you would show your best work in there, avoid implications about other editors' motives, and avoid long posts to talk that don't directly address sources and article improvement. Looking forward to productive work, regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"A rather old piece"
Hi there, V. I wanted to get your thoughts on the research regarding cannabis, and what constitutes "too old to use". See this thread for an example. Is there some arbitrary date that constitutes "too old"? This has been my main problem with being allowed to participate in the MMJ/Project Medicine project. I feel as if I can't get a handle on what is required to take part in the editing process suddenly, as the bar for what's required for refs seems to change. IOW, I haven't yet had someone from PM agree "great find! let's add it!". It's 100% of the time wrong for varying reasons.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be easier if we just cut to the chase. What is the source (copy it here) and what do you want to do with it? Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so it really is a case-by-case basis, for the most part. I've decided against the study in question, but this is the larger picture I was searching for, thanks.  petrarchan47  t  c   00:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me run another idea by you, if that's OK. The Project Medicine is a pretty small group, but even if it weren't, it should have oversight: a group who would review for NPOV, or at least respond to requests for review by editors working on affected pages. I see two problems: the PM has too much influence/power in the hands of too few. A larger group would likely by more diversified in terms of knowledge base, belief systems, etc. But even a larger group should have oversight. I wonder too if it had occurred to anyone that one type of medicine is being over-represented whilst other types aren't represented at all. Herbal medicine, for example, gets a very negative response from a couple active in PM. I'm just noticing this stuff, so bear with me as ideas form. They may not be very clear just yet.  petrarchan47  t  c   00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would stick to dealing with articles at this point. It's not going to help you improve a topic area complaining about a project.  I know this from experience because every admin and their brother went out of their way to protect the sockpuppet armies and POV pushers on WikiProject Conservatism, even though the group had no clear scope and appeared to have been run by a paid operative which skewed articles towards the right and went on and on about God, Guns, and Gynophobia all day and night.  In the end, nothing changed.  So your concern about the project will come to nothing. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Political movements tend to attract passionate editors. I would be wary of saying that an editor were paid, because somebody with a burning Truth in their heart will work harder to spread that Truth than any salaried employee. Hence our various problems with nationalism and caste &c. bobrayner (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In what appears to be much more than a coincidence, the group appeared to be running the same or similar PSYOP script as the Heritage Foundation operatives, who btw, successfully split up the Republican Party and are responsible for their demise. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chain Reaction (sculpture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intifada (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) 09:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello User:Viriditas, Your recent edit on Schiz. page was interesting to read regarding another editor there who was also expressing political and social views on different wikipages. Last week he reversed an edit on the Abortion wikipage when a documented edit from New York magazine was placed there announcing that Women who plan their pregnancy in advance are twice as likely to bring their child to birth. The edit was blocked. What were the other pages where you saw similar activity by this editor? BillMoyers (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is much bigger than a single editor. If you can find me a diff (the edit link) showing the edit on the Abortion page, I may (or may not) be able to help you. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Viriditas, In the edit history for Abortion the edit is under my username posted at 00:17 9Dec2013. The text was: "This report was partially updated with statistics from the United States reported in the 18 November 2013 issue of New York magazine by Meaghan Winter titled, "One in Three Women Has an Abortion by the Age of 45." ," etc. BillMoyers (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I took a look. It looks like you were using this source, which might not be terribly appropriate for this particular article.  Another user said it would make more sense for an Abortion in the United States article, but again, you will run into WP:MEDRS.  If you are still interested in arguing for using this source, then be specific about what you want it to say in a specific article, and paraphrase very closely to the original source.  Another editor took issue with your paraphrasing. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Viriditas; Thanks for glancing at it. The magazine edit had 3 opposed on a 1RR wikipage which is generally untenable to pursue. My concern was really a different one. Your comment on Talk:Schiz was the following; "Jmh649 and others appear to be continuing their anti-cannabis campaign across the Wikipedia by injecting undue weight and bias wherever they can. I'm not the least surprised. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)" If this is placed next to his comment made to me reversing a fairly mild statistic on the Talk:Abort page, where the revert message used against my edit was "burn with fire," then this suggests anti-abortion. The picture is then one of anti-canna and anti-abortion, which then suggests a larger picture. Can you confirm any of the other "bias wherever" you mentioned through your experience? BillMoyers (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting point, however, I tend to disagree with it because the editors who reverted you appeared to have good reasons (I touched upon them above). As I said before, if you are still interested in arguing along this line with this source, then be specific about what you want it to say in a specific article (not the general article), and paraphrase very closely to the original source. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Viriditas; My only interest at this point is in the question of systemic bias suggested by your comment "bias wherever" about him/her. If this was just "huffing-and-puffing" during heated Talk page discussion then it can be left at that. If you know of other places where that person was anti-canna and anti-abortion, etc., then it would be useful to hear more about what you were referring to. BillMoyers (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Our Fragile Intellect


The article Our Fragile Intellect has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Proposed for deletion per WP:COATRACK and the general tendency on Wikipedia to not have stand-alone Wikipedia articles on minor primary research studies that are themselves not reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Our Fragile Intellect for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Our Fragile Intellect is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Our Fragile Intellect until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Teflon mind
Hello, Viridtas. You created a redirect from Teflon mind to Marsha M. Linehan in 2011. As far as I can see, the words "teflon" or "teflon mind" did not appear on the page at that time, and they don't appear there now. Is there a reason for the redirect, and should the term be mentioned in the article? Cnilep (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Teflon mind is currently an untargeted redirect to Marsha M. Linehan. The term "teflon mind" was created by Linehan. but it refers to an aspect of mindfulness contained within her technique of dialectical behavior therapy, which is where it should redirect. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of the term at 'Dialectal behavior therapy', and I retargeted the redirect to the section '"What" skills'. There are probably better solutions, but this might do for now. Thanks for your help, Cnilep (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chain Reaction (sculpture)
Hello! Your submission of Chain Reaction (sculpture) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! — Maile (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish to thank you again
Hello Viriditas. I want you to know I have often remembered the abundantly kind sentiments you saw fitting to post unto me. I am certain I can never accurately express my gratitude; coupling the limits of language and my own imperfect skill. I can however, reiterate my thanks; imperfectly—entrusting your prowess in reading comprehension. Today seems a good day for it; so I thank you again—and wish the best for you; as I often do, and will often do time and again. Be well my friend, and enjoy peace.—John Cline (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Your Christmas gift is on its way... Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

the pizza image
I was not trying to push it. I honestly believe it is of better quality and has a more convincingly looking pizza on it. There's no meat substitutes on it, just tomato sauce, spinach, and imitation cheese. I filed for Quality Image status to get an idea where the bar is and where people think that it falls short of the epectations.--Foerster (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a silly question, but not very serious either.
How would one make an image gallery centered?  petrarchan47  t  c   04:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 *   See Gallery. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Danke.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (I saw the Wiki page on galleries - the markup in their examples looks nothing like the one I'm dealing with.)  petrarchan47  t  c   21:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I pasted the   to the beginning of the markup, then added "}}" at the end for good measure. Nothing happened. Maybe you could share with me exactly WTF I am to do with these characters meant to center things, yes?    petrarchan47  t  c   21:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a snippet of template code. You're not supposed to paste it anywhere.  To see an example of how to use the align=center parameter, all you have to do is visit the template link.  That's why I wrote see Gallery.  Template documentation always gives you examples of how to use it. It's listed as an optional parameter. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I just added gallery mode=packed as you weren't using the gallery template.  See Help:Gallery tag for a different implementation.  My mistake. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe next time I refer to myself as computer-illiterate, you won't correct me ;)   petrarchan47  t  c   05:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589394755 your edit] to Chain Reaction (sculpture) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * and the secret history of Chain Reaction]. Which Way L.A.? KCRW; Pike, I. 2013, October [http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2013/oct/06/art-goodbye-chain-reaction/ Goodbye, "

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for the barnstar, JustAMuggle. Try not to worry about BMK too much.  He's been doing this for years, so it's really nothing new. Except for the multiple reverts, you did everything right.  Now that you know about WP:BRD, the next time you encounter him (or anyone else like that) I'm sure you will come out smelling like roses! :) Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey....your page says you are IN Hawaii
Are you on the Big Island or...maybe O‘ahu (how terrible is it that I have to look up the proper spelling of that...when I lived there for 5 years?)

I could use your help if you are on O'ahu. I will message you when I get all my ducks in a row, but if you are not near the capitol I still want your help on some research!

I hope you have not become discouraged from contributing to the Hawaiian Royal Family articles. I have come to see your input as something positive. You're a good egg dude. (You are a dude right? I get that wrong so many times.)--Mark Miller (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Aloha. I am on the island of Maui.  However, I am obsessed with vegetarian manapua (bao) and malasadas, so I am due for a trip to Oahu, the undisputed leader in Hawaiian food. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Luckier than I had thought (you that is) Maui most be a wonderful place to live these days. Although I read that some of the bones of Hawaiian's from the distant past there are starting to show from beach erosion. I will contact you shortly about what I hope you can help with!
 * Beach erosion is a very, very serious problem in Hawaii. One of the poorest decisions the state made was to allow people to build too close to the shoreline, including roads and houses.  Stupid, stupid, stupid. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chain Reaction (sculpture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Ray (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) 09:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas
Hi, I'm User:kevjonesin

I noticed User:John_Reaves mentioned that you had started a sandbox page to re-work the Abby Martin article. He appeared to be extending an open invite to collaborate but I couldn't tell if he was doing so on your behalf or of his own volition. So I thought I'd be polite and touch base here before adding to the sandboxed talk page or encouraging others to weigh in there.

You may find it of interest that a novice editor has started a stub for Breaking the Set. I gave it a little attention but the stub is already getting shaved down to a splinter. I put out a request on Abby's facebook page for help gathering solid references. You may want to consider doing similar for the Abby Martin 'round three'(4?) attempt.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

p.s.— User:LaurentianShield and I have been discussing the Abby Martin situation—and it's implications—a bit on my talk page. Others are welcome to weigh in. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I welcome contributions, but we should be careful to avoid the pitfalls of the previous version.  You might also want to ask Abby if she knows of any coverage in non-English sources, as I predict that is where we will find the most significant coverage, especially in Russian. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Viriditas, I somehow missed your reply earlier. I've since proposed "Perhaps combine Breaking the Set & Abby Martin articles?".


 * Would you like to host a centralized point of discussion on your user space? A section on User_talk:Viriditas/Abby_Martin—or a new subpage thereof. Or perhaps it would be best to link ongoing discussion threads to Talk:Breaking the Set and continue there with a centralized effort? A place to share proposed reference links and links to individual sandbox efforts and relevant talk page threads. A place to 'defrag' the discussion.


 * Would links in Russian be likely to be considered acceptable references for en:Wikipidia? I—for one—don't personally speak Russian. I suspect this might be a challenge for others as well.


 * FWIW, Abby has expressed that personally she would be more interested in seeing info about Breaking the Set available to Wikipedia readers than info specifically about herself. I've asked her and her Facebook page followers to see if they have any qualified references archived. Hopefully they'll reply later today.


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? That's very odd, considering how upset she was that her entry was deleted.  Did she express this sentiment in a public forum? Personally, I think that it was a very bad idea to create a separate article on Breaking the Set because there isn't enough sources to write about it and it will only get redirected back to RT.  Reliable sources can be in any language, so it doesn't matter if they are Russian or not.  While we don't have to have a biography on Abby, there are certainly more sources about her and the show, rather than just the show.  I also find her much more interesting as a person than her show alone, and I think other readers will agree.  I've added a bit about the show to my sandbox. You are welcome to comment on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Public forum"—yeah, in the fbook thread I linked earlier ...
 * https://www.facebook.com/JournalistAbbyMartin/posts/10152087319629404
 * ... but whatever, the preference of a subject of an article isn't a deciding factor here (hence my 'FWIW' qualifier).


 * Your reasoning seems sound as to source availability. If that's the case that BtS links are more scarce than A.M. links then, yeah, A.M. article sounds like the way to go. With expanding coverage in the main RT article as a fallback option. I'd not been considering her art and activist activities outside of and preceding the show.


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Then again, we could do this "Manhattan Project" style, and have two groups working on both articles. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Kirk
Thanks for pointing that out. Usually I find in a small article, it seems a pity to put body text in the reflist. Breaking things out may be because my laptop screen is small and helps in quick scanning of the article. Didn't know it was important. Mostly I enter "wikify" or "wikistyle" to mean links, tweaks, general cleanup, not strictly house. Am happy to change things if you like. Manytexts (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you simply reverted it in the manner of a OWN article watchdog while pretending to be civil. Well, I wasted my time there, didn't I. And I'm actually researching him atm & was going to add some. No matter,it's all yours. Manytexts (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When you edit this talk page, there's a message asking you to keep the discussion in one place, in one thread, not spread across multiple talk pages. I guess you didn't read it.  Anyway, there is nothing stopping you from adding or paraphrasing the quote in the main body or expanding the paragraphs.  There is nothing to "own" here. A large quote like that simply doesn't belong in the lead, and small sentences broken off from the main block paragraphs are opposite of encyclopedic house style.  It's pretty simple. You yourself said that you were editing the article based on your personal preference reflected by your computer screen.  That's exactly what you don't want to be doing and it's why we have a MOS and a number of best practices.  If everyone edited based on how something looks on their viewing device, you would end up with a lot of unhappy people.  In case you don't know, you can control your resolution through your screen settings, your browser preferences, and Wikipedia preferences. That's how you are supposed to do it. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
— Maile (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We're through the looking glass here, people
"Whistleblowers are being punished. Those who took us into war based on lies are being celebrated.  This inversion of reality is Orwellian, it needs to be reckoned with..." -- Dennis Kucinich

Counterculture of the 1960s
I had some quote boxes filling in whitespace at the top of the article. They were deleted. I thought they were representative of the era, and adequately sourced. Please look over and let me know if you concur, if you still care about this article.Thanks and best wishes!Learner001 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great articles on Wikipedia don't use quotes like that because encyclopedic style is to focus on the main points and to use quotes sparingly, if at all. For an example of this, look at a featured article like The Power of Nightmares.  Editorial driven quote selection may have its place depending on how closely it adheres to the topic. The use of quotes leading a section is an old school style used in print to reflect the meaning conveyed by an author to an overall work or chapter.  Since Wikipeida doesn't reflect the intent of a single editor, that kind of quoting is out of place here. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

SLS mission sources
SLS mission sources were posted by me here on 12:49, 15 December 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=next&oldid=465528048

I Just didn't get around to filling in the details of the proposed missions until 17:57, 15 December 2011, just 2 edits later. Reference #91

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#cite_note-LunarRoadmap-91

So yes, all of 'that stuff' is referenced.

Respectfully- Doyna Yar (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Your comment made my week. Thanks! --Morphovariant (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As I mentioned in my talk, I removed these bad sources in an admin capacity. Further restoration of them is likely to lead to a block for you. I implore you not to go down this road. --John (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken and quite clearly threatening to misuse your tools. The material is sourced directly in the article to reliable sources.  Correct your mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the article in question here? Thanks. Jus  da  fax   06:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It started on John Barrowman (see the talk page) but there's a deeper discussion (if you are interested) here. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented briefly on the Barrowman page as you may have noted. The larger discussion is of serious interest, as I believe you have a case. Further study is needed on my part. Jus  da  fax   06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What?
What are we to do with Wikipedia? It seems just as f**d up as it was five years ago, and five years before that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem has more to do with ourselves than anything external to us, like a website, which of course, is composed of people like you and me. Bus stop certainly hasn't helped his case. He should have apologized to AtG for accusing him of antisemitism.  At the same time, AtG has been allowed to be terribly uncivil, which is beyond the pale.  I don't see any real winners here. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Alansohn accused AtG of antisemitism, but I'm not aware that Bus stop said that about AtG too. I guess Wikipedia may get better in the future if it becomes more human, i.e. people talking to each other using some kind of Skype technology, instead of the drab written word.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point. I'm still waiting for smell-a-vision. :) Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All in good time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, it's surprising we don't already have this. Imagine the products you could advertise and sell. And how much more real movies would become. Where's my damn holodeck already? Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if we can digitize all five senses, then the Wikipedia trout slap might really mean something!Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what Alan Watts said many years ago. I don't know if you are familiar with the "philosopher" (or entertainer as he described himself) Watts, but he used to go into a lengthy discourse (a thought experiment really) on the simulation argument (although he didn't call it that) some decades before Nick Bostrom and others were taking it seriously. It's a fascinating line of thought that makes one question the very nature of reality.  And it doesn't matter if it is true or false, it's just an exercise in thinking your way through the inevitable consequences of an idea and following it to its logical conclusion. He concluded, of course, (and with great mirth, serious or not) that the reality we inhabit is no different than a simulated reality, and that as such, we should recognize it is as a great game.  To my mind, this is very similar to what Joseph Campbell was saying as well. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've heard of Watts, and Campbell too of course. Campbell advised everyone to "follow your bliss", and I wonder how many people therefore followed it over a cliff (i.e. followed it to ill effect).  As for this idea about reality being a simulation, well, I've heard of that too, and all I can really say about it is that I'm very grateful that whoever runs the simulation has been kind enough to be so unobtrusive.
 * I wonder if anyone before me tried to explain current categorization policy politely at Bus stop's user talk. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Bus Stop
After further reading of your posts and others I agree that Bus Stop does not need to be topic banned. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Inviting an inviting friend
Hello Viriditas, after deciding to participate in this year's core contest, I've selected Pearl Harbor for the endeavor. I think you are exceptionally well suited, and would love to partner with you from the outset, if you are willing. Please let me know if this is a thing you are interested in doing. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind invite, Mr. Cline, but I'm pretty busy with other things at this point and I don't have enough free time to contribute. If there's a source you need on JSTOR or some other resource you can't find, drop me a line and I'll try to help. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand. I will ask of such sources as the need might arise. Feel free to suggest any reading you might recommend, especially considering your proximity. I thought about starting a merge discussion and noticed you had once edited there, so I wanted to ask you first; Should Hawaiiana and Native Hawaiian be merged? I am curious of your thoughts about this. Thanks for all of your help.—John Cline (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question. Can you tell me why you think they should be merged? Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hawaiiana initially struck me as an unnecessary fork of Native Hawaiian, but I am now seeing the term primarily relates to artifacts, as similarly as Americana for example. Therefor, I am extra glad I didn't open a merge discussion from the false premise I originally assumed. I remain interested to know if you agree? Cheers—John Cline (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Hi Virditas. I redacted your post there under the provisions of our policy against personal attacks. You are welcome to replace it if you are able to comment on the matter under discussion without making personal attacks. --John (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack, and you shouldn't be removing content you personally dislike. Don't do it again. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Criticizing your failed attempts to disrupt Wikipedia is not a personal attack. If you wish me to retract something, simply ask about a specific item. Stop acting unilaterally to remove things you don't like.  Your opinion on this subject is in the minority and your actions are disruptive.  Creating personal blacklists and obsessively removing sources you personally dislike is disruptive.  Stop disrupting Wikipedia. That's not a personal attack, it's a request for you to cease your bad behavior. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are completely welcome to your opinion, and to express it. You are not welcome to compare me with a rabid dog. Per my talk page notice, we'll keep this discussion of your behaviour where it belongs, on your talk page. --John (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * John, you were not compared with a rabid dog. Just as a rabid dog is put down, so was your argument.  Do you understand the difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing a person?  No, it appears you do not.  I have therefore decided to refactor and remove the simile as it seems to confuse you. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good move! respect dude!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Greetings, although my ban will likely be initiated soon (or sent up to Arbcom) I just wanted to take a moment in my last edits here to thank you for your oppose of my ban. Good luck and happy editing. Kumioko 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The American Presidency Project listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The American Presidency Project. Since you had some involvement with the The American Presidency Project redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Abby Martin
Greetings Viriditas!

I just left a comment at Talk:Abby Martin. Your revised article on Abby Martin is fine! What is next to get it back on main space? If you need to start a voting then count me in as a FOR. BTW: I think the moronic "ban" on Abby was heaven sent, because it offered her a subject and platform where she and Wikipedia are both winners. Cheers!--Rickbrown9 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aloha, Rickbrown9. The current proposed version for review is located at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Abby_Martin. Thanks for your feedback. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aloha! I just noticed that an admin denied the revised AM page again (March 6, 2014). What is going on? And what's next? WP:DRV?--Rickbrown9 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/QuackGuru2
Hi! There is currently a Request for comment regarding User:QuackGuru. I believe you may have interacted with this particular user in the past, and your input is greatly appreciated. Thank you! -A1candidate (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Maui favor
I could use a couple of favors. Pictures of Lahaina that I cannot find in the public Domain or CC 3.0. Need a picture of the "Brick Palace" foundations and plaque. Also of the adjoining lot of Ka'ahumanu's traditional Hawaiian home and what ever is on either side of the palace to be sure and then if possible the Library which was the royal taro path of Kamehameha I. Lahaina is going to be a focus of mine so if you think you can help, it would be great to have a Wikipedia contact right there.

I want to start creating articles and expanding existing articles about the Kamehameha's and my main focus is Maui and the Lahaina capitol there. I do not know if Kamehameha had a floating court until then or had owned property where the Ali'iolani Hale was built in Honolulu. I know the Hale Ali'i, (wooden palace where the current Iolani Palace stands) was originally owned by someone else and sold to Kamehameha III. (By the way, who owns the Hale Ali'i Hale on Maui, wow...now that is a palace) Any help you can offer would be great!

Where is the best palace on Maui to check records of citizens going back to Kamehameha? --Mark Miller (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can definitely provide you with the photos. Have you looked at the Lahaina photos on Commons to see if they already exist? Keep in mind, this is the height of the tourist season right now, so it's not ideal for taking photos, unless you want hundreds of people in the frame.  You might want to hold off for another month until the crowds die down. As for checking on people, the Maui Historical Society will be able to point you in the right direction.  Their contact info is here.  They have some publications I may be able to access for you as well. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, it's raining right now and is expected to rain for the next week, so outdoor photos won't be ideal at this time. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will use the time to do more focused research. I could use some archeological info on the excavations. I can't find anything published and viewable and think most of it is in Lahaina at the local library or the historical society. I am looking to find as much information on the building of the Brick Palace as possible. I know the names of the two people that built it, where they supposedly come from, but little else. I know it was red brick, but some sources claim the brick was fired and others that it was sun baked adobe. The construction was so bad Kaahumanu refused to move in and stayed in a traditional home only feet from the building. I have read in some unreliable sources that one of the builders married Kanekapolei. I also read in more reliable sources that distilling came with the Botany Bay convicts that were there before 1795. I also read somewhere that they are considering whether it would be feasible to reconstruct it and some other historic buildings. I'll check out and contact all the best places and track down whatever I can't access online.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark Miller, the weather has cleared up a bit and I may have some free time next week to take the photos you requested. I'll let you know when I upload them. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Very cool!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark Miller, I thought I would give you a small update. I've been scoping out the shoot for the last few days.  It's got to be done just right to get the kind of pics you see online, otherwise there will be people in the frame.  When I was there yesterday, there were dozens of people inside the shot.  Also, I need to shoot wide because of the size of the foundation.  I'm working on it, and I will let you know what I have soon. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to get a good pic.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That shot is not very easy to get. I took several practice shots on my phone and they look nothing like the professional shots online, although they may give you something to work with.  I hesitate to upload them, however. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is fine Viriditas. If you wish, go ahead and E-mail them to me and I will photoshop them and send them back to you to upload. No problem is too big to overcome! Just let me know if you e-mail them to me as I almost never check my mail!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll send you what I have so far, but hopefully you'll get better pics in the future, maybe even from me! Oh, and there's no reason to send them back to me. They now belong to you and you can do what you want with them. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't thank me yet. You may have to apply your PS skills in the most creative way possible. Oh, I forgot, you will need to email me your actual email address as a reply first. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thank you anyway because you took time to help. I appreciate that. I will e-mail you my address right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sent. I so envy you, you know that right? That in itself is sort of odd as my dad has told me stories about growing up on Maui and they were not pleasant stories. Grandpa was a little abusive.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Received. Didn't take to much photo shopping but I did have to remove some elements and brighten up the exposure, but the shot is one of the most unique I have seen. No one else thought to shoot this from the perspective you did, showing the wonderful Maui sunset. Thanks! I'll upload them shortly after I find what I did with my draft of that article I was writing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I took another look. The sunset photo might work if it is largely cropped to focus on the foundation with just a bit of sunset at the top.  Of course, I could be wrong.  It's in your hands. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I cropped it but left all of the sunset. To nice to lose any of it.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Brick Palace foundations sunset.jpg--Mark Miller (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Been very distracted and have not been able to knuckle down and create that article yet...but I will as soon as my family becomes sane...wait...that means never, let me rephrase that...when my family isn't driving me crazy.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. May you have a peaceful week. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Frenkel
Thanks, the author is UCal Berkeley math professor Edward Frenkel (author of the NYT piece, not the program). Two concepts give me headaches: time travel backward, and the idea that we're in a simulated program. But here's another mathematical theorem: if a person's homepage has more than one photo as an adult, and the person is over forty, the chances are over 90% that the most recent one will not appear first. Case in point. If I had any handsome photo of myself, it would come first. :-)

I guess you and Mark Miller live in Hawaii? What a beautiful place. I was there once, at the end of 1980.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Christian Era (redirect)
I noticed one of your steps in resolving the page moves and edits by User:Crumpled Fire was to redirect "Christian Era" to "Common Era". This has been extensively discussed in the past, with much quoting of dictionaries and style guides. The consensus was that if the average English speaking person found a sentence such as "Year, common  and  leap.  For  the  purpose  of computing and reckoning the days of the year in the same regular course in the future,every year, the number of which in the Christian era is..." (New York State General Construction Law § 57) and desired to summarize the sentence, the average person would employ the abbreviation "AD" rather than "CE" and thus it would be more appropriate to redirect "Christian Era" to "Anno Domini", which is the main article discussing "AD". Also, the religious connotations of "Christian Era" are closer to the connotations of "Anno Domini" than to "Common Era". Therefore I have changed the redirect back to the status quo. (These comments also apply to the redirect where "era" is not capitalized.) Jc3s5h (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Joan McCracken
First I wanted to thank you for your thorough and extremely thoughtful GA review. I just wanted to mention that I will be off-wiki from much of Saturday through Tuesday, just in case that time period is meaningful in addressing the issues you raise. Coretheapple (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Coretheapple, there's no hurry, and you've got as much time as you need. Contact me when you get back, or simply address the review at that time.  In any case, I will leave you a message on your talk page when the review is complete.  My time is limited as well, which is why this is taking so long. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh on the contrary, I was led to believe there would be a wait of many months. tx, Coretheapple (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm about half the way finished. Let's see how far I can get tonight.  I would like to be done soon. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrt to Charlie Burton and William M. Connolley
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Burton
Did you give up on the entire stupid affair? I asked you a question in "Source review" but you didn't reply William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Underwater basketweaving yet again
If you think that trying to keep things on topic is "heavy-handed authoritarianism"[sic], then maybe you would be more comfortable somewhere else than Wikipedia. It's possible that I violated the technicalities of the policy, but I was trying to keep things on topic, while you were trying to use Wikipedia as a host for your free-form ranting essays on your overall general philosophy of life. AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion is on topic. And, my explication of the problem with the current version addresses the problem, directly.  I have no interest nor any time in writing essays or discussing my personal philosophy of life, none of which appears on the talk page anywhere.  I have previously explained this to you several times already, so you are firmly entrenched in IDHT territory at this point. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abby Martin (February 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [.


 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.


 * I am quite impressed by the article and since I have followed the subject for some time independently, I am utterly unconvinced that this article is unworthy of being a Wikipedia subject. Viriditas, I suggest you just post the article, which then requires that, should it still somehow be thought of as unnotable or otherwise unsuitable, that it be submitted to the Afd process, a venue in which more eyes than just two will be able to judge it. Thanks.  Jus  da  fax   21:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article title is protected from recreation, which is why it went through the AfC process. I can't really parse Hasteur's rationale for not creating it, so It's difficult to respond to it.  It's certainly neither the same article that went through the last two AfD's nor does it use the same references.  When viewed dispassionately, one can make equal arguments for deletion and creation, but Hasteur did not provide any argument or weigh both sides. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Disturbing and annoying. Thanks for your effort. Jus  da  fax   07:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 + 2 = 5 Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The uploads
What a nice, kind, lovely, wonderful, generous, helpful, and marvelous person you are!!!!! Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Joan McCracken
Thanks very much for your thorough review of Joan McCracken. I've been under the weather so I've cut back on my content work, and it may take a while for me to address all the comments, which I hope is OK. Question: What is the protocol re addressing your comments, if necessary. Should I just reply beneath each? Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you really don't need to address my comments. Just fix whatever problems you can. I hope you feel better. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure I do! It's good input. Anyway, I put my mind to it and addressed the issues as best I could. Coretheapple (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks good from what I've been able to look at so far.  Hopefully, I can finish reviewing the changes tomorrow and close it out. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Please advise on what is needed, especially re sourcing. I've responded on that but I am not sure I've addressed it adequately. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you addressed it. But other editors may question a GA based on one source.  I think you should take a close look at Sagolla's bibliography to see if you can find other sources to add.  But that won't change my review for the moment. You've done all you can do at this point, so let me review it. Just keep in mind, most articles must be written from more than one source, otherwise people will question its notability, its neutrality, and its overall accuracy. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for taking all that time to work with me on the article. Quite a tutorial, very helpful moving forward. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

STEM courses
Did you ever get my email? Yopienso (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. I've been having issues with that email account so I will have to reply from another one.  I'll try to reply today. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no time. I'll try again tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to answer; I just didn't want you to think I'd ignored you. :) I really don't have time for a discussion, either. Yopienso (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops
I moved Abby Martin to Abigail Martin, forgetting that that would create two redirects instead of one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We now agree
Recent news coverage makes it clear to me that Abby Martin is now notable. I have the article on my watch list, and intend to oppose any attempts to delete or redirect the article. I wish you well.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your move request of March 4
Hi Viriditas. Regarding your March 4 Abby Martin move request, isn't it moot now, given that the article was moved on March 6? If it's obsolete, perhaps you should withdraw it? On the other hand, moving it to Abby Martin would probably be allowed since the journalist is the primary (instead of the fictional character), but maybe it's not necessary even though allowed. Might it open a can of worms? The people who supported were supporting a move into article space.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mike V •  Talk  23:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly urge you to self edit your posts. I agree with you almost entirely but I want you around and not blocked for any of that. Although the "fucking the chicken" remark was seriously hilarious....it may fly outside what is considered civil and we should always discuss the content and not the contributors so saying "anyone who..." kinda steps over that line. You are free to ignore this message, delete it or just not agree.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / removal of material from the Cost of living section at Talk:Hawaii
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hawaii. Peaceray (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Amps
Hi Viriditas,

I have made some expansions and such to the Amps article. Does it help with your concerns? The reason I am writing to you here on your talk page is that I wasn't sure how set in stone your "one week to improve the article or else it may fail" policy is. If your policy is strict, and you are not happy with the changes, I wanted to make sure you see this ASAP so that I can hopefully have time to still fix it before the week is up. Thanks again. Moisejp (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Moisejp, I am sorry if I gave you any stress over this. When I wrote this comment, I thought I made it clear that I was not strict, and that you had as much time as you needed.  I'll try to review tomorrow and hopefully pass the article if I don't run into any issues.  If I do, I'm sure you'll be able to fix them easily. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again very much for all the time you put into reviewing the article. I made changes for all of your final suggestions. Have a great day! Moisejp (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Project Censored the Movie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Perkins and Carl Jensen (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) 09:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

find out in what revision version a piece of text was added
Hi Viriditas! Is it possible to find when a piece of text was added? Or is there no other way than just 'cold search' and compare revision history?--Dongiello (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several different tools for that purpose, but out of habit I tend to do the cold search method simply by first finding the oldest revision without the content. When I find that, I can target the addition by scanning the revision history and randomly check every 50 revisions until I nail it.  It usually only takes a few minutes. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I saw the mention on the Anna Frodesiak talk page. I follow up on there, if any. --Dongiello (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw it too. I always use this one and it seems to work ok. --John (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. User:Dongiello were you able to use the link John offered? Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Checking out right now!--Dongiello (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Using it on Dangerous MJ album, because somebody wrote Princess Stéphanie of Monaco is featured on the album.--Dongiello (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok wow! That worked! Thanks guys!--Dongiello (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I use Wikiblame too. It's slow, but fine to get it working and come back later. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

E-mail
Could you please resend.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. I wish it were that easy.  I'm on mobile sending you 50MB of files on a weak cell connection with no Wi-Fi in sight. And it's still sending.  Best tell me which pages you are missing. Cause this takes a while.  Of course,  I can resend again once I get home and have a better connection.  You should have more than 32 pages plus appendices. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It may just be taking time. I have cleaned e-mail space just to be sure. Bad at doing that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you checking the right account? I'm using the email address you sent me, not Wikipedia.  In any case, just forget it.  I'll put everything on Dropbox and you can download it from there.  I should have done that in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why individual files wouldn't go through but I got the drop box link. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is a spam filter running on your server. Anyway, the upload should be done ten minutes from the timestamp of this message. Please confirm that you have a total of 50 files. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The link stopped working. I'll check again tomorrow I had it for a minute but then I dropped the page by mistake and not it wont load.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of connection issue you are having. The link works perfectly and loads all 50 files.  I've checked it from three different computers on three different connections.  I would recommend loading it from the original email and then bookmarking it.  Sounds like you may have truncated the URL by accident. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You did everything correctly. My e-mail service provider has a few issues and I don't seem to handle mass image transfers well. I was just reminded that this happened once before. Also, that connection issue happens with my provider often....way TOO often for my taste. Anyway. Success. All loaded and finished today with a fresh restart of the old computer.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Let me know when you're finished with it so I can delete it.  I expect you'll download it. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am finished with it. Thank you very much.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For your hard work on my behalf!

 * Thank you kindly, good sir. Viriditas (talk)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 3, 2014. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick update...
So, as I mentioned sometime back, I have been doing a lot of research on Hawaii's Royal Family. A lot of my research was spawned because of a family tree I discovered hidden away for almost exactly 30 years. All of the research I did over the last year has finally been verified through documentation (birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates) and even adjudicated through the courts to determine heirs for legal purposes. I actually could have saved an entire years worth of research had I stayed in contact with my cousins. But they found me on a genealogy site on FB and we are actually looking into a family reunion in Oahu in the future. But before I had the verification I was reading through a number of the probate documents on several figures and discovered loads of information (such as a number of family members from the late 18th century and early 19th century). Since Charles Kanaina and Kekūanāoa turned out to be my first cousins (6x removed) I began a great deal of research centering on them, their lives, homes (lots of information of their homes) family etc. and plane to expand these articles in the near future. I already did a good deal of work on the Charles Kanaina article and created many other articles including Kalaimanokahoowaha. While Charles Kanaina was named after this figure's nick name (Kanaina or sometimes referred to as Kanaina nui), it turns out that my 5th great grandmother was his half sister and given the name "Kaleimanokahoowaha" with a female variation to the name.

But the best thing so far has to be the article I created a short time ago, Kāhili which garnered my first DYK. That was very cool.

Unfortunately, I have still come up to a "Brick Palace" wall in regards to information on "Mela [Miller] and any relationship he may have to another figured named Alika Mela and as well as Kānekapōlei. I do know that John Mahiʻai Kāneakua has the same parents as my great grandfather Samuel Miller. Kāneakua was actually born "John Miller" and his parents were Alexander (Alika) P. Miller and mother, Kanuha (Kaialiilii) Miller. He was an Ali'i and decorated, a former Lt in the Queen's Guard and has absolutely no reason that I can find to show how he was considered an Ali'i, as you have to have been born into it. So, for this reason, nearly all (if not literally all) genealogy sites list Alika Mela as his father. Alika is listed in the great Mahele as having been granted land by Kamehameha I, but oddly enough is also shown to be gifting land to Kamehameha III. It may not be a coincidence that my third great grandfather was a Kāhili bearer for Ka'ahumanu and Kam 3. So, it seems that many people are claiming different things in regards to Kānekapōlei, as Kamehameha I had a daughter named Kānekapōlei II and some sites are listing Keōpūolani. I requested some help from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs) and hope they are able to sort things out and steer me towards the right documentation. I am also going to try calling the Bishop Museum again to speak with the archivist there who was very helpful the last time I called. While exciting to discover I am from the House of Kamehameha (makes me feel like...Percy Jackson, LOL!) It has also been a little frustrating because...well...it seems there are a lot of people who use genealogy to claim a relationship to the Kamehamehas and this has made many people very suspicious of those claiming ties to the late monarch and/or his family. But the best part about all of this is I am finally learning Hawaiian history and finally getting to the articles here on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I correct to assume you've taken the necessary steps to go the Family Tree DNA, Ancestry.com, and 23andMe route? Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I may yet do the DNA but decided that it was too costly for the moment. I be broke. However, I forgot to ask my cousins about that and maybe someone in the family has already done it.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation lists of Hawaii-related topics
Category:Disambiguation lists of Hawaii-related topics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed signature
Just so it doesn't confuse you, I wanted to make sure you were aware that I have changed my signature to the Hawaiian version of my name. -- (Mark Miller) Maleko Mela (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your new sig! It's quite the bundle of joy. :)  Isn't the Hawaiian language beautiful? Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It really is. By the way...if you haven't sent that link yet, hold off. My e-mail service provider was Surewest, and they recently sold to Consolidated Communications and they just converted my e-mail and it screwed everything up and now nothing loads and I cannot access anything. If you would like I can send you an alternate account or we can wait to see if the company can fix this quickly.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. There's no hurry. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice
I enjoyed this comment. In the old days it would have qualified for a nomination for Raul's Brick O' Common Sense. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

copied from User talk:99.181.129.75
... for historical record ? 99.181.131.25 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC) ...


 * Thank you very much. Nice to meet you Viriditas.  99.181.129.75 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you. I removed the link you added per WP:OVERLINK.  Unless there are exceptional circumstances, we generally don't link to common words.  Have you thought about registering an account so you can create a watchlist and participate more fully on Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No big deal. The controversy in the future will be over what readers find "common".  How well understood is something if it needs a Wikipedia article.  Subjects that seem obvious can upon reflection be revealing.  99.181.129.75 (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you are the "Michigan Kid". I don't know why Arthur Rubin keeps blocking you, but if you registered an account and tried to follow the rules, I would defend your right to edit without being blocked. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No kids here. 99.181.129.75 (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin who was quoted by the NYT?

Your input is requested
Please comment over at User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak. I'm only referring to you as "The Michigan Kid" because that's the name Arthur Rubin came up with. If you want me to refer to you as something else, please correct me. Anyway, I would like you to participate over at Anna's talk page because I want you to be able to edit Wikipedia under a registered account without being afraid of constantly being blocked by Mr. Rubin. Are you interested? Tell Anna how she can help you. She's very good at dealing with these situations. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who are you? And who is "Anna Frodesiak"?  And are your answers verifiable?  99.181.129.75 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have broad edits, per http://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Viriditas&blocks=true Where is "Fushanzhen"?  99.181.129.75 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I always have to laugh when an anon IP asks a registered user who they are. I don't know why...but it cracks me up every time.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toms River: A Story of Science and Salvation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bantam (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) 08:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Disengaging w/Malke 2010

 * I have been generally attempting to avoid further detailed comment to avoid "piling on" more, but wanted to follow up some with you.
 * This comment of yours on TParis' talk page,
 * "I guess she's having one of her "fits" again. Happens to the best of us, but she's on quite a bender this time."'
 * ...went beyond continuing to engage constructively, into poking the bear.
 * You've been around. You know that people who are frustrated almost without exception don't calm down and respond more constructively if you keep poking at them.  It was evident to everyone - including you - that this was the situation several days ago.
 * I agree that there was a complicated and not well handled issue on the article in the first place. Creating more ill-will and a more hostile environment for either of the original parties, at this time, isn't helping anyone.
 * There is a difference between keeping an eye on an incident and moving into making it worse. Malke was not "the bad guy" (or woman) in this case; there is no point in trying to hound her off WP.  Anything that seeks to or would primarily have the effect of worsening or prolonging the dispute, at this point, should be stopped.
 * I would like to request that you please step back. Plenty of uninvolved admins know about it, will continue to monitor, etc.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, I completely disagree with you. Malke 2010 has attacked dozens of editors without reason and without cause, and she's chased off newbies and made Wikipedia a very hostile environment.  Yesterday, she decided to use her user page to launch a polemic against real people and institutions offline.  Anyone else would have been blocked a long time ago for this behavior.  Perhaps the real problem is that some admins look the other way when certain editors do this. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Without comment on prior incidents; the *current* incident is remarkably complex and involved bad assumptions on both sides' parts, fed by lack of information (that experienced editor was also a woman, and that this was a well meaning female student backed by a class project and involved professor). Both initial responses (on each side) and subsequent responses (on each side) sought to escalate rather than understand, though that seems to be shifting now.
 * Even if we grant your assertion that this is blockable behavior,
 * Your tenor of response is absolutely not appropriate to get proper admin attention, or appropriate for one who might alternatively start a user conduct RFC or the like.
 * If you did succeed in getting a block, your behavior would then have to be viewed as dancing on the editors' grave, which is in and of itself blockable.
 * I am not of the opinion that this incident rises to the level of requiring admin intervention, in particular because of its complexity. If you find another admin who finds it blockable than that's that.  If you start a user conduct RFC that's that as well.  I am not in the way of either of those things.
 * The sniping makes it harder for anyone else to see underneath the post-incident nastyness and assess the incident itself. Which ultimately is counterproductive to your accomplishing either engaging another admin or filing a user conduct RFC.  So it's just counterproductive to your apparent goal, in addition to being rude and disruptive.  If there's a longer term pattern that needs to be taken into account, you've helped bury it under a round of sniping which is short-term and multiparty, which is again counterproductive.
 * I have gone on record in the past as being willing to block misbehaving sitting arbcom members and WMF staff, if there is need and sufficient abuse. Malke is not on any sort of hypothetical special list of people I would not block because am either friendly to or afraid of.  I am not happy about their handling of the incident, and have told her so.  IF I thought it was necessary to block I would have done so following my initial assessment, after Sue's first post on gendergap, or at any intervening time based on further information that justified and required it.
 * Please stop making it worse and more complicated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's complete and total nonsense. I have made nothing worse nor anything more complicated.  And contrary to your empty assertions, many editors have come forward and asked for dispute resolution processes and sanctions.  IMO you inhabit an alternative reality to mine, and as such, we have nothing to discuss on this matter.  All I see you doing is coming here and applying mass projection and transference on to other editors like myself.  This is precisely the reason why administrators have a terrible reputation and are poorly respected.  Please, do us both a favor and take this talk page off of your watchlist and ignore me.  I have nothing to say to you.  We have a clear, unambiguous example of an editor attacking innocent editors in bad faith, making unambiguous personal attacks without evidence, and creating a hostile environment for people on Wikipedia, at the same time, misusing their user page to attack people off-wiki connected to the dispute.  And yet, according to the alternative reality you wish me to believe, it is the editors complaining about this behavior that are the real problem.  I'm sorry, but I will not accept that.  Good day to you sir. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)