User talk:Viriditas/Archive 34

Frigatebird folklore
Heya, I am busy buffing frigatebird for FAC (might do great frigatebird while I'm at it too) and have stumbled over some cultural stuff - any other folklore would be really cool to add - I suspect you're more familiar with it than me :) cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall you sending me a few requested sources a few years back, so if anything catches your eye, let me know and I'll send you any Hawaii-related material you might need. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok - I now have uni access but they are better on Australian than O/S material so will see how I go...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * David Malo gives one important account of their use by Hawaiians. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not impressed yet?


I'll keep trying.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted
Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Abby Martin
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Vénus de Quinipily
Hello. Whenever you get some time, could you please take a look at the article and put some comments at the PR? This is a current GA and I am planning to take it up to FAC. Please let me know if you have any comments. -  Vivvt  ( Talk ) 03:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the quoting looks strange, such as the "foul", "indecent and obscene" and "erotic".  I'm sure the rules of quoting like this are arcane, but looking even further I see more of the same throughout the article.  Common words are generally paraphrased or sparingly quoted, and if you are quoting for a reason (such as indicating scholarly attribution), I expect some kind of prompt.  Seeing "erotic" in quotes for no reason makes no sense, and I see that this appears in the DYK as well.  In the design section you use "Venus" in quotes several times, obviously referring back to Macquoid's opinion that it isn't a Venus, but this comes of as far more complex than it should be, so I would read the article again and try to simplify. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See Scare quotes; IMO a kind of casual & journalistic shorthand. What I dislike most about them in formal writing is that they’re vague: beyond marking some kind of doubt, distance, or disdain they convey nothing specific about what‘s wrong with the term in quotes—and can sometimes amount to WP:WEASELing. Where context makes the issue clear they’re pretty harmless, but it‘s generally better to use such qualifiers as “so-called”, “what X believes to be“, “alleged”, “purported”, “ostensible“, “seeming”, … even “so to speak” & “for want of a better word”, that give some indication of why the author is using the dubious term, or how the reader should be cautioned.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well said! Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1
Hey! been a while now. How are things going? Viriditas, One of my fellow editors, Pavanjandhyala, has opened the peer review for Mayabazar (1957), the first Telugu film to be attempted for FA class. I am a co-nominator thereby this article makes it my second attempt at FAC (Enthiran is my first FA success.). Feel free to leave comments and ping me if you wish to do so. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 08:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have time to take a look in about eight hours. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for La Promenade (1870 Renoir)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike Glennon
Not sure why you are changing Mike Glennon to Michael Joseph Glennon. Mike is his common name.--Yankees10 01:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * because there are many people named Michael Glennon and "Mike" is a common nick. Would you like me to change it to Mike Glennon (American football) instead? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation is unnecessary as this Glennon is the only one that goes by Mike. It also appears this is the more notable Mike/Michael Glennon anyway. A hatnote would make more sense.--Yankees10 01:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true. You need to be careful of Google search recentism.  Michael J. Glennon also goes by "Mike" as I'm sure many others do as well.  As I previously said, "Mike' is short for "Michael". As for notability, I would say that is hotly disputed.  I doubt anyone in Australia has ever heard of the football player. The congressional literature, including political books on law, is full of references to Mike Glennon for years before the football player was born.  There's even a newspaper article showing that the attorney was using the name in 1970 as a student.  Basically, your argument is that only "Mike Glennon" should redirect to the football player, but since "Mike is the most common abbreviation or shorthand for Michael", I argue that it should redirect to the dab page. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * because the attorney appears to be the only one who goes by "Mike", I'll reverse the move and compromise on a hatnote. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have an admin move it. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good. Thanks.--Yankees10 03:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice for rank NPA
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kahu of Mauna Ala
Hey Viriditas. Are you still a resident of Maui? If so, I was wondering if you know if the State or State Park service has chosen a new curator/kahu for the Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii since Bill Maiʻoho's death in February? I didn't know Maiʻoho died until last month and since then I haven't found anything on the internet talking about the subject since his death. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, I'm still here. I'll look into this for you and see what I can find. Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if you found anything about this. Do you have any local friends who may know the Maiʻoho family or be involved in this area of work either in the State Park service or museum curating? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm a resident of Maui. Mai'oho lived and worked on Oahu. My understanding is that because his family has been doing this for almost two centuries, his son (or some other family member) would take over his work after his death. I think the governor has to formally appoint someone, most likely from the Mai'oho family.  So I think what you are really asking is whether the governor has appointed anyone yet.  You can call the Royal Mausoleum State Monument and ask them: (808) 587-2590.  Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cleopatra and Caesar (painting)
Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
 * 2) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
 * 3) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Max Cowan
Good work on that page, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * welcome back! :) Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of GreenFacts for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GreenFacts 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/GreenFacts_(2nd_nomination) 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. Jacques de Selliers (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

GAN
Hello Viriditas! The last time we went together was at Talk:Argo (2012 film)/GA1, which was a real mess. And I didn't even know what were issues in the film and what you wanted me to address. So this time we are at Talk:The Interview (2014 film)/GA1, and I want you to clear all issues and by letting me know and letting me address those. I don't know if you are an experienced GA reviewer or not but last review, I didn't like your method. I know I didn't edited Argo (2012 film) much, just a few edits. But wait, let me show you something, look at the Talk:Dallas Buyers Club/GA1, I nominated the Dallas Buyers Club when I didn't even made a single edit on the article. But the reviewer helped me in that by telling me the issues and I addressed all those issues and we got through together. There is another example, Talk:The Fault in Our Stars (film)/GA1, we both nominator and the reviewer were non-native of English, so the reviewed the whole article and then we requested it at GOCE. I'm very good in addressing issues and resolving problems in articles, but you need to tell me what are those and what you want me to do. So please, relax a little bit this time and help me get through this, even it takes more time. Thanks (Hope you get it). -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 11:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:Captain Assassin! I previously explained to you why I closed the Argo review on both your talk page and the review page.  More importantly, I only followed through with failing it after consulting the community.  Please don't continue to nominate articles that you haven't edited.  As for your questions, you can see how many reviews I've done by looking at the number in parenthesis listed by my signature on the main review page. Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I read your discussion and you failed without even asking to address the issues. During the discussion, one editor told you to "carry the review" and then you failed on saying "fail the review immediately" by another editor. It's not the way Wikipedia is, if someone thinks an article deserves GA, so he would nominate it. And your work is to address issues and help him passing that nomination, not failing immediately. You should do your work even the editor has done a single edit on that article before or not. Is this written in the rules that an editor can not nominate the article he did not edited before? I haven't heard it before and it only applies in FA nominations not GAN. Sorry if I've been rude but it's true. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would never accuse you of being rude. You are very polite and civil.  In terms of the Argo review, it was only after I took the review that I learned you were not the primary nor significant editor.  In fact, you had contributed little to no content.  Because of the complexity of that topic, and many of the outstanding issues, it would have been a waste of my time (and yours) to pursue the review.  I then closed the review and asked you to find another reviewer.  Apparently the only procedure for doing this is to fail it.  I'm sorry about that.  As for The Interview, I see that you created the basic stub structure and are somewhat familiar with the subject.  In terms of the rules themselves, they are generally flexible to provide for different interpretations and to prevent gaming.  I think if you look at the rules, and more importantly at our current batch of nominations, you will find that the rules 1) discourage editors from nominating articles where they aren't significant contributors and 2) of the current nominations, it is likely that 90% or more consist of nominations by primary contributors.  So both the rules and best practice guide the way forward.  There are many reasons for this but the best reason is to allow the reviewer and nominator to work efficiently and without much conflict.  I see that many of the articles you have nominated in the past are those to which you have contributed very little or nothing significant.  Theoretically, this could work for editors who have expert knowledge or access to specialist sources. I myself once nominated a climate change scientist for GA because I was familiar with the subject and had access to good sources.  Tell me, do either of those things apply to you and the type of articles you nominate? If not, going forward, it's best for you to nominate only articles you have created, significantly contributed to as a content editor, or where you are collaborating with other involved editors. Reviewers want to be secure in the knowledge that you know the subject and the sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand what you are saying here. And I've been with Film project for more than two years and I'm best in finding sources and expanding articles (as you can see my previous history). I don't blame you now, because what's done is done. But if you had not failed the previous review and let me address all issues, you would have seen by yourself that how I manage the articles. I'm just a little lazy but very familiar with the project and very good in finding sources. By the way, thank you for understanding me and I hope we'll do good this time. And good luck with the review to both of us. :) -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 09:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please talk back at Talk:The Interview (2014 film)/GA1. Now about controversies, I'm little confused about that. It's really a complex topic. But look, it's a part of the article, we need to write about it as much we have information. We can-not shortened it, you know? You should think about it, that why the Sony's hack attack happened... Because of this film, then why should we shorten or remove the controversies. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

please try to address the simple issues first and leave the more complex problems for last. This means, focus on fixing the plot and the critical reception, and the lead. If you are able to address some of the issues, that would at least be a start in the general direction. My concerns with the controversy section have more to do with the structure and weight, not the coverage. You may be referring to my point that a lot can be condensed and paraphrased, leading to a shortening of sorts. This ties directly into the RECENTISM problem. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

McMillan quote
The quote should stay. Everybody wants to jump in and describe these events. Oughtn't we to pay heed to the subject of this article and her take on what happened, if only because she was really there? As for the Wikiquote page, I don't think McMillan is famous enough to warrant having a quote page of her own. Chisme (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, but please realize that from here on out, you will need to get involved in talk page discussions. You can't just keep adding a quote into the article and ignore the discussion.  Like I said previously, I neither like the quote nor dislike it, but you must use the talk page to defend your edits since they've been contested by at least one editor.  Simply create a new section heading, briefly explaining your reason.  And for what it's worth, she is quite certainly famous enough for her own quote page, which I will be creating shortly. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Carnism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carnism 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/Carnism & 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. ~ RobTalk 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvas
You may or may not be interested in this User_talk:Onel5969 attempt by our good colleague to enlist a fellow editor in a program of circumvention of edit restrictions, in particular targeting a recent edit of yours, while being careful not to notify you. Hugh (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur_Rubin
You are invited to join the discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC) You have been mentioned. Hugh (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Spiegelman
Hi. I'm really sorry, but it may take me some time to deal with what you've brought up at the Spiegelman article. The article sat at GAN for a long time, and you picked it up at a time when I happen to be really busy in real life. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm almost done with the review, so you don't have to do anything just yet. It looks like everything is good to go except for the prose.  I'll leave you color-coded pointers in the review so you know what to fix and what to ignore.  It will probably take you five minutes to fix the problems when I'm done. As for the overall structure that I keep complaining about, I'll probably end up giving you a few examples of what I mean in the review, but it won't impact the end result, so don't worry about it for now. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

...
... using your edit summaries might have been a good idea. Just sayin'. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage 🖖 02:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Spiegelman GA again
Hi. I just want to thank you again for the review, and especially for the very thorough feedback. I do intend to get to it eventually, but likely not soon (definitely not today—I've got an unusually heavy workload, and then a pile of things to do when I get home). I'm usually much more active at WP, even when I've got other things to do, but real life has finally caught up to me these days. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lise Tréhot
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lise Tréhot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Self-Portrait with Halo and Snake
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Geologic time scale
Template:Geologic time scale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Looking for editors to help with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu
Aloha!

Last summer I moved to the Seattle area after 14 years in Kailua on Oahu. I immediately fell in with the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group as it formed, joined its board and became its first president as well as the GLAM representative for Washington State.

Recently, Adriel Luis, Curator (Digital & Emerging Media) at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, contacted me about setting up an edit-a-thon like the previous Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon. In addition to discussing one for Seattle, he wrote:

It's awesome to learn about your past in Honolulu - I'm actually going to be there for another SmithsonianAPA project mid September, and thinking that this could be an opportunity to do an event there as well! I have lots of contacts with UH and the museums, but do you know of any contacts on the Wikimedia side out there?

As I was working two jobs while I lived on Oahu, I did not have the opportunity to meet your or any other Wikipedians at the time. Hence, the reason why I am contacting you now.

If you would like to help, please contact me through one of these methods:
 * Email me directly at [mailto:peaceray@cascadia.wiki peaceray@cascadia.wiki]
 * Use Special:EmailUser/Peaceray to email me
 * Leave a message for me on my talk page.

Mahalo,

Your GA nomination of Lise Tréhot
The article Lise Tréhot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lise Tréhot for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia library Newspapers.com renewal
Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on August 20 2015. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until August 20 2016, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Human Rights League
Is Human Rights League a set index article? Also, I want to organize it somehow. It seems dreadfully hard to read. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess no, because even though they share the same name, they are different types of organizations. Of course, you could argue that they are all a set of human rights organizations, but I'm not sure the SIA is used that way.  I've been known to be wrong, however. Sorting by geographical region seems to be the way to go. Also, I'm not sure if all of those links belong. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Different types, yes, that makes sense. Keep it a dab page.


 * Geographically, yes, that makes sense too. I will work on it.


 * Many thanks for the guidance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Peter Berg are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Goldfish racing listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goldfish racing. Since you had some involvement with the Goldfish racing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Restoration at WP:TPG
Hi, Apologies for the interruption. Just letting you know that I have reversed your restoration of the "Male is not the default" section at WP:TPG. There is an open discussion on the Talk page covering this section, and the consensus (if there is any) is against inclusion using this language at this stage. I welcome your contributions, and those of interested editors, to that discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lise (Renoir)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again
Hi there. You helped me three years ago when I started trying to edit articles. I'm back after 2 years and can't remember anything. How do I get adopted for training again? Thanks. Selene Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selene Scott (talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . Aloha.  I see that you've been given links to The Wikipedia Adventure.  I highly recommend taking that tutorial.  Let me know if you have any questions... Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply
I replied to you on my talk page. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii#Move to coup d'état
Please feel free to comment on Talk:Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ron "Pigpen" McKernan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biker culture. 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) 11:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I ...
get a more senior WP editor to review a change/edit/deletion that I may propose? I have left same on the article's Talk page, but they seem to go unnoticed, or at least unremarked upon. Some of these pages have existed for years, so I am hesitant to make changes that might be viewed as subjective instead of objective. I would appreciate the advice. Gil gosseyn (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, just go ahead and make the change. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeat ping for from edit here. From Template:Ping, seems the pinging only takes place when the signature tildes are processed, so an after-thought ping won't work. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libertarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Fallon. 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) 12:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Birdman review in progress
Hi Veriditas; It looks like the Birdman review is in progress. User:Neuroroxic is continuing to tentatively collect notes for comment/critique for an FA upgrade which he is tentatively planning for next year. It should not affect the current GA assessment which appears to be in progress and which I plan to start answering today. I also noticed that one editor had a good question on the Talk page there which was not placed on the assessment page if you could glance at it. Ready to start when you are, and User:Neuroxic may join in as needed since he is presently on exams or some such and shall rejoin as time allows. I look forward to your comments/critiques during the assessment. MusicAngels (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the article page I am noticing repeat edits from User:Kailash. I did thank him for previously adding the "telekenisis" link, although normally he is expected to use the Assessment page for establishing consensus prior to editing the article. He has now done this several times. Just mentioning this in case you did not notice it during the assessment discussions on the Assessment page. MusicAngels (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the third instance this morning of edit reverts from User:Kailash. This time it is after your close of the "dark satiric drama film" discussion for which I provided the requested examples. MusicAngels (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious (or maybe nuts)
I hope you don't mind my asking, but about, I hope it wasn't prompted by the evidence I've been giving at ArbCom. Yeah, I know that's kind of paranoid of me to even ask, and I apologize for that, but please accept the question as one that is posed in a friendly way. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weird, we were both writing each other messages at the same time. I'm not seeing a relationship with arbcom, but I have been following the thread for sometime.  I did try to get a comment in before the RfC closed, as you recently noted.  Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I just wanted to make sure that you didn't make that comment, disagreeing with me, because you were angry at me. I'm glad that that's not the case. Now I'll take a pill for my misplaced paranoia (joke, not serious). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be difficult for you to believe, but I'm not an angry person or someone that holds a grudge. I realize that the environment here can paint a vastly different image of reality, which is why I have removed myself from certain topics.  In any case, if you read my RfC comment, I think you'll notice that I emphasize the nature of consensus and the due weight it should be given before discussing my personal opinion.  I'm basically saying, "look, I think consensus is against EEng here and he needs to accept that." Nevertheless, I respect different editorial styles and approaches, and while the consensus may be against him, I feel that a certain amount of "investment" in editorial diversity is a good thing.  Perhaps this could lead EEng to compromise, I don't know.  But this really wasn't a dig at you.  If you go back and look, you'll see that I take this type of position quite often, and it's very close to the same solitary argument I recently made on the noticeboards about keeping Stevertigo as an editor.  I think you'll find my position consistent across the board.  I believe minority voices are important to preserve and protect. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Birdman (film)
 * added a link pointing to Antonio Sánchez


 * Birdman (film score)
 * added a link pointing to Antonio Sánchez

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Hi Viriditas. The talk page was my initial instinct, went there and my eyes played a trick on me, when I saw "Photo from 2009". Thinking I was seeing comments from 2009, I thought it would be futile to discuss anything on a page with such low participation. So I opted for the tag. Speaking of which, I am not familiar with "pointy tag bombing" - could you clarify? Also, for the record, it was pointed out to me in my early days around here that what goes on in other articles cannot be used to justify anything on a different article. So, how long other articles are is not a criterion. There is a lot of unnecessary information, which — I believe — actually puts people off. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, my free Wikipedia time is extremely limited to actual tasks, problem solving, and doing real work, so I can't hold your hand and guide you through the process as much as I would like to here. The article is comparatively short compared to other articles on related topics, specifically science biographies.  Leaving a tag without a discussion on the talk page is generally discouraged.  This is not an article with low participation or with few readers, so I think you've misread the situation.  A lot of eyes are on this subject due to many troubled editors who have a grudge with the good doctor for various reasons. It isn't clear what you mean by "unnecessary information", and your complaint is too nebulous for anyone to act upon, which is why the tag was removed.  If you can be specific, I will address your concerns as I have time. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Olive branch at sister site


Please see my proposal, at n:User talk:Viriditas.

If you take it, I'd strongly support your efforts, per Template:2nd chance.

Good luck,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry
I'm sorry you're disappointed.

Please try to understand I can't just go against any local project's community singlehandedly.

I will strongly support you if you follow my proposal -- and I will try to help get you unblocked, but it looks like after you write one article it would take a community discussion after that instead of just me unblocking you myself straightaway.

I haven't changed my tune, the offer still stands, it's just I can't do it myself, we'd need to bring it to the community after you take the initiative yourself and demonstrate w:Template:2nd chance.

I hope that makes sense.

Once again, I'm quite sorry you're disappointed about this, I didn't mean to get your hopes up over nothing, certainly, and I sincerrely do hope it works out for you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikinews and Pi Zero
I saw the earlier discussion and looked to see what was happening, and, unfortunately, I kind of have to agree with Cirt here. If he as an admin were to act against consensus, not only would the sanction against you be restored, but he himself would almost certainly lose his adminship in the process. Needless to say, if I see further discussion here regarding this matter, this being a WMF entity I am much more regular one, indicating that discussion is taking place there, I would myself probably offer what positive input I can regarding your history here. I know a few editors here who have retired because of bad admins, and have no reason to doubt that the same situation of bad admins might exist over there. So I can't fault you on your apparent choice there. But, also, unfortunately, sometimes the only way to get attention to bad admins or other editors involves being able to active edit over there. Right now it looks like Pi Zero is on the wikinews arbcom, and acting against a sitting arbitrator anywhere is generally at best going to get unwanted attention, and at worst begging for trouble. Best of luck one way or another.

I actually had written this before the recent response, and was caught in an edit conflict. That being the case, if this gets removed as well, I can understand, and my apologies for any disruption. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a trout for starting an mfd on Strivingsoul's user page
It happens to the best of us. Cheers mate.--Adam in MO Talk 02:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DRIVEBY listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DRIVEBY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DRIVEBY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (Just a retarget to match destination of WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cleopatra and Caesar (painting)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cleopatra and Caesar (painting) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Alternative running styles
Category:Alternative running styles, 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. SFB 11:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A passing thought
Hi, Viriditas - I was just reading over some of the ArbCom discussions you participated in regarding pro and anti GMO expenditures, etc. I actually don't edit those articles, and even if I did I wouldn't take sides either way; a behavior long ingrained in my writing style, but that's neither here nor there. I believe we're on the same page as far as understanding that an encyclopedic article should provide general knowledge of a topic and be broad in coverage, and it's quite obvious that isn't what is happening in the GMO suite of articles. On that basis, I was curious as to how much money was actually spent on the recent GMO labeling push and was surprised to find the following information, which pretty much supports your statements regarding the money spent by anti-GMO advocates vs pro-industry: Ironically, Rove's quote will be perpetuated with him being remembered as a great orator. Atsme 📞📧 17:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Food and biotechnology industry lobbying dwarfed those by GMO labeling advocates, who disclosed $4.3 million in the last two years -- $1.6 million in 2013 and $2.6 million last year -- to lobby for issues including GMO labeling. It comes down to this: opponents of labeling have already outspent supporters by nearly 20-to-1.   I would think that next time the debate surfaces, one could simply include a few links that reveal the factual information and be done with it. Happy editing!  Atsme 📞📧 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can see later in the report, the numbers go over 100 million for all GMO lobbying, and twice that in the last decade. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's just the disclosed numbers. I submit what is undisclosed is likely far greater, and darker. Jus  da  fax   22:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it boggles the mind that the editor in question could blatantly lie like that on Wikipedia and not face any repercussions. I mean, the both of you were able to fact check his claim in less than a minute and see that he was clearly lying, and yet he continues to be allowed to edit.  If an editor blatantly lies like this, not just once, but twice on the talk page, they should be indefinitely blocked.  I can't imagine why someone who posts obvious falsehoods to Wikipedia should be allowed to edit.  Then again, Wikipedia seems to be chock full of pathological liars, more so on some of the sister projects like Wikinews, where being a pathological liar is a prerequisite for adminship.  I am reminded of a particular Bizarro (comic strip) by cartoonist Dan Piraro, that shows Karl Rove laying on the grass in Classical Greece arguing philosophy with Plato.  In the panel, Rove says to Plato, "But surely you agree that truth can be created by the repetition of a lie."  That about sums it up. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good one, Atsme. :) Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That word
I saw your note about there being differences between UK and US usage. I don't think that's true, V. The BBC regards it as worse than the n-word: "The strongest language, with the potential to cause most offence, includes terms such as cunt, motherfucker and fuck (which are subject to mandatory referrals to Output Controllers); others such as cocksucker and nigger are also potentially extremely offensive to audiences." Sarah (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * undefined Absolutely! The best profanity is still &%*#! and *%$#@!.  Bold it so they know you mean business.  And if you're really frustrated, use red: &%*#!  😡.  Then once you realize what a complete ass you've been, strike it, apologize and leave a smiley.  😁  Works every time. --Atsme 📞📧 02:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:SlimVirgin, the usage differences are spelled out with cited definitions on the page itself, and this usage difference is easily observed in popular culture. In short, in Commonwealth countries, the word refers to a stupid person, whereas in the US, the word has a specific misogynistic meaning.  This was the essence of the original dispute.  Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Continued
I see you archived, so if you want to archive this too, please do, and apologies for replying if it wasn't wanted.

I just wanted to say briefly that, no matter what the Wikipedia article says, or any RS, I lived there for decades. If you direct that word at a woman in many areas of the country, you can kiss goodbye to your teeth. And for a lot of women, it's not only an insulting word to hear from a man, but a threatening one, because it's likely to be the word you hear just before being punched or raped.

That doesn't mean that no one ever uses it as a form of endearment, by the way: I have seen that argument, and of course that could apply to any word. I'm talking about its use between people who don't know each other.

It tells us a lot about Wikipedia that we have to discuss whether it's acceptable to use that word when we interact with colleagues. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Sarah (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:SlimVirgin, I have never used the word in any discourse, nor have I ever found the need. I'm not discussing whether it's acceptable, it's not and it never has been. We were discussing the different meaning of the word.  I didn't archive because of you or the thread, I archived because I'm trying to find peace and quiet. Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Your banner
I compliment you on your banner and quote about love overcoming hate. Just this a.m. my morning reflection mentions somewhat of a distinction between the Franciscans and the Dominicans...the former believe a thing must be loved before it can be known...while the Dominicans seem to hold the converse. I thought you might appreciate this. Thanks for your work on the TJ review. Hoppyh (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace
If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

YGM
Mike V • Talk 00:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WOW
Holy shit, I'm finding more information on ColonelHenry and it's some real twisted, scary shit. This is someone whose Wikipedia contributions with their name attached to them as creator need to be eradicated, in my opinion. In other words, they are the exact type of individual G5 and DENY were written for. "Wow" doesn't express my thoughts and feelings adequately. I know you don't want to discuss the situation any further, and because of that I won't expect a response from you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, did you ever see the film, The Crush? It reminds me of the JackTheVicar situation. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson review
I hope you can see your way to continue the Thomas Jefferson review, island hopping some of Gwhillhickers objections. Hoppyh and Khazar2 have been doing some good work following your outline/direction, and I believe they will be able to work with Gwhillhickers as I have in the past on contributions related to naval history. I did not get all I wanted at the introduction, but clearly the article is being substantially improved overall. Thanks in advance for your continued efforts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I plan to do that if I can. What threw me for a loop was his claim that summary style was optional, ignoring GA criterion 3b.  Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Careful, I didn't say summary style was optional, only that the idea not be used as a blank-check to delete important historical content/context, esp in cases where there is no supporting/clarifying content in a lesser article. Concise summaries are fine, so long as there is somewhere for the reader to go to get clarification. If no such content is available in lesser/dedicated articles, we need to be careful what we remove in the main article, or it will beg the, , and  tags in the various sections that have been overly shrunken down to a sketchy narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, will you be applying your interest, knowledge, and experience on this topic to improving the daughter articles to GA and above? Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So
Based on this and other comments you've made recently, part of me is convinced that you've been replaced with a parody account. The other part wants to see you write a Signpost op-ed based on these views, and I'm mostly quite serious about that. I'm curious to see how you would apply these views to the practical problem of running an encyclopedia, and how your invective squares with the quote at the top of this page. What's the endgame in all of this? I want to know. Gamaliel ( talk ) 04:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration. Poe's law aside, I do think distributed debundling would work well to eliminate the centralization of power and weaken hegemony.  The problem is essentially that of moral agency. Editors here are unable to agree on what is right and what is wrong, and until we can all come to the table and agree on a modicum of values that will work for all of us, progress on this issue is unattainable.  As I see it, we are at different levels of development, whether it is age, education, career, or life experience.  But I suspect that somewhere, buried within that continuum, there are shared values we can all agree on and strive for as a community.  That's all I have to say on this matter at this time.  Thank you, but I must decline your invitation. The hour is late and my cat is calling for his nightly dram.  Amor fati. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Enlightening...
I don't edit GMO articles but the back and forth among editors regarding that topic has been enlightening. It made me think of Einstein which happened to raise my curiosity about potential parallels with regards to how it relates to indisputable science and benefits to mankind...."The physicist Albert Einstein did not directly participate in the invention of the atomic bomb. But as we shall see, he was instrumental in facilitating its development.

In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter. This was expressed by the equation E=mc2 (energy = mass times the speed of light squared). The atomic bomb would clearly illustrate this principle.

But bombs were not what Einstein had in mind when he published this equation. Indeed, he considered himself to be a pacifist. In 1929, he publicly declared that if a war broke out he would 'unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect... regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged.' (Ronald Clark, "Einstein: The Life and Times", pg. 428). His position would change in 1933, as the result of Adolf Hitler's ascent to power in Germany. While still promoting peace, Einstein no longer fit his previous self-description of being an 'absolute pacifist'."

One last thing in closing - whatever happened to NPOV? 👀 Atsme 📞📧 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cripple
You left this message on my talk page:

Use of the word cripple is now avoided as it is generally considered pejorative. Please do not continue to add it to articles. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To which article are you referring? Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding the question
You do know im not topic banned anymore right? You are free to oppose the closure of the thread, but my point still stands on asking why do you continue to let it drag out? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ITN
In response to your inquiry, the caption Memorial to victims of the Paris attacks is too long for the tiny space available, and would look (and read) much better if it were one line. While I understand the rationale for ITN's new format, it is sometimes cluttery and typogrpahically confusing.

Second, as pointed out on Main Page talk a couple days ago, then entire literate (and semi-literate) world knows the attacks were carried out by terrorists. That's why I suggested, on Nov. 14, that the blurb be changed to say 'Islamic State' claims responsibility for attacks that killed.... Sca (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Let it go..
.. You have made the point, don't get yourself blocked for no reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, check my block log. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but no need to get blocked just to pad the numbers eh Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have a bad reputation to uphold. What if people talk?  "Viriditas is acting civil today, something is very wrong." :-) Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. At least you got a boomerang (rather than another block) for your slly attack at me at ANI. Well, I never hed your name before but you're certainly on my radar now. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, friend! How is the comedy routine going on the arbcom Q&A? Still chasing away your potential supporters by attacking them?  How is that working out for you?  You realize that is comedy gold, right?  Who said Germans didn't have a sense of humor? Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Insert block message here
This space reserved for User:Floquenbeam

gee, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

First, I will not easily forgive you for forcing me into the role of civility cop. Second, I can accept one-off rudeness, it happens to all of us. But third, I've seen you being over the top the last day or two in two unrelated threads, and it has to stop. The fact that some people worry about politeness too much does not mean that we can just say anything we want all the time. There are limits, and while we all don't agree on where those limits are, I'm sure that "Any other moronic, imbecilic, microcephalic comments you would like to make now?" is over the line. You've had plenty of time to reflect on that, and have not withdrawn, struck out, or apologized for it.

My usual inclination is to wait and see if someone calms down, or give an "OK, seriously, knock it off" warning, particularly when I know I'm dealing with someone who cares about the encyclopedia. But this goes too far past that. I'm blocking you for three days for a vile personal attack that seems to be part of a pattern. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize to all of the morons, imbeciles, and microcephalics on Wikipedia that I've insulted. I know there's a lot of you out there and I can't possibly remember all of your names, but let me just say this: I love you and I accept you for who you are. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that you incorrectly attempted to castigate an editor for "adding" the term "cripple" to an article (which they did not) and yet you bandy around the term "microcephalic" left, right and centre, which is foul, but clearly not something with which you have a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You have truly earned your namesake, haven't you? While you might enjoy rambling and repeating yourself, it's a real waste of my time.  I already addressed your question yesterday when I originally replied to the editor in question. I notice you tend to repeat yourself a lot, returning to the same questions with people, spinning around and around and around.  Forgive me if I find you tiresome, annoying, and droll.  Please go bore someone else to death with your repetitive, fairyland carousel obsession elsewhere. If you could hear yourself, you would block yourself for good and apologize to everyone who was forced to listen to you. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access removed
I ignored the first few times you used your talk page for personal attacks while blocked, however since it is ongoing I have removed you talk page access until the block expires. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 22:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vesuvius Dogg -- Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Take your time, Viriditas, and thank you for the Barnstar. As a compulsive reader of (if not participant in) some of WP's more tendentious disciplinary discussions, you can't know how much I appreciate the accompanying sentiment. It's proudly on my home page. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne
The article Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 Colorado Springs shootings
White guy kills three people, including a cop, and is captured alive. Meanwhile, 100 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2014 alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs)
 * Too bad the government does not collect official statistics on killings by police. There is likely underreporting. Edison (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, this needs to be said
If invisible, imaginary sky gods are compelling you to hurt people, then your beliefs are dangerous and need to be opposed at every available opportunity. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * how true Viriditas. please check your electronic mailbox. thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in my inbox or folders. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just tried again. I do not know why you did not receive it- whom shall I ask for help? or could you try emailing me?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Click the "email this user" link to the left and try again. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * some e-mail providers, including Yahoo and Gmail I believe, refuse to forward messages originating from other servers—including Wikimedia’s—as suspicious. There was some discussion at VPT last year, here for example. In case this is the obstacle you’re facing, the only workaround I know of is to put an address from a different service in your Preferences, at least temporarily, assuming you have access to an alternative.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That editor at ANI
I saw the thread at ANI, and I figure I can take the liberty of sticking my nose in to say something in a friendly manner (in my role as spiritual, technical and menu advisor). It looks to me like you are right about the editing issues, and it looks like the ANI complaint is just going to blow over. But even so, please let me suggest using less confrontational language with the editors who are on the wrong side of it. Yes, they are clueless, but it does no good to tell them so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF
I completely understand where you are coming from, and even agree with your arguments about the characterization of the incident. But we cannot and should not describe the incident as we want, but rather, we have to characterize it as it is reported. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I kindly ask you again to WP:AGF, please. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. You've consistently tried to push alternate definitons and interpretations of basic policies and guidelines to promote a specific POV. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alas, assumptions. You are clueless about my POV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia". Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi 12 hours, if you wish
Please just let me know if you don't wish. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC).

Heros (sic)
It wasn't even funny the first time, but it's probably a good indication that if you can't even spell it correctly, you shouldn't have bothered in the first place. Do yourself (and Wikipedia) a favour and stop editing other people's user pages, especially if you can't do it with any kind of skill. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see you try to spell with one hand on a smartphone while running. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you don't have the skills (even while "running"), don't bother. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is obviousle my incompetent and bumbling alter egoe, so no, I will not reveal my superhero identity. Nice trye. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's ok, your comments were clearly unwelcome. This is becoming the norm with your posts, superhero or not.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still here? How boring. You must be an extremely busy person to accommodate a spelling flame into your tight schedule.  Ramble on....Rose? Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

/* */ new section
You are right, Admins are untouchable. They don't need to follow guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, 1) this particular topic should be discussed in the parent thread, not split out into a new one, and 2) there's not enough good evidence supporting a topic ban. Look, you've been doing a hell of a lot around here.  You're probably just burnt out.  How about taking a holiday break?  Here, try some latkes. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. ''Please moderate your tone when interacting with others as you did here and here. Being uncivil is hardly the way to encourage healthy collaboration.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)