User talk:Viriditas/Archive 37

You were right
Due to some recent events, I decided to follow your 2009 advice and to read EEML archive. I was impressed and somewhat shocked. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Mole Day!
 Happy Mole Day 6.022x1023  Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.


 * What is this?
 * Mole Day is an unofficial holiday celebrated among chemists, chemistry students and chemistry enthusiasts on October 23, between 6:02 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. This date is derived from the Avogadro number, which is approximately 6.022×1023, and the day is named after scientist Amedeo Avogadro.


 * What you can do!


 * Participate in our and our sister WikiProjects
 * Expand articles listed here
 * Improve science articles
 * Sign the guestbook or place User WikiProject Science on your user page.
 * Add this page to your watchlist to see what's occurring here


 * Similar events


 * Pi day
 * DNA day
 * Evolution Day
 * Yuri's Night
 * Square Root Day


 * See also


 * Observances about science
 * Observances in October

- Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe/Unsubscribe -

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject Science and its related projects. Wikiproject Science

Wikiproject Chemistry

Wikiproject Physics

WikiProject History of Science Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

More Season's Greeting
Hi! You have been resurrected! Some of us seriously thought you may have permanently left the land of the living. Good to see you! Hope you had a merry Christmas and will enjoy a prosperous New Year! YoPienso (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Cannabis Edit
Hi Viriditas,

I write you because of that page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_and_time_perception

I was on talk-page but I am new here and didnt know, how to talk there :D Anyway thanks for your message. The Link which you ment is online. Maybe you could check again? I can open the website without any problems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581701/

You can also check the url here https://www.proxysite.com/.

Please tell me what I have to do now?

Have a nice evening and thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelfresse20195 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:I retired in the multiverse
Template:I retired in the multiverse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Hawaii watchlists has been nominated for merging
Category:WikiProject Hawaii watchlists, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gary Webb In His Own Words 623.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gary Webb In His Own Words 623.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Teatard" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Teatard. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 22:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Teahadist" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Teahadist. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 22:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Tealiban" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tealiban. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 22:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Viriditas! I just saw you leave a message on someone else's talkpage, and realized that you've been back for a while. Until just now, I didn't know! So I just wanted to say hi, and that it's good to see you. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Good to see you back as well. I might have some questions for you about a few articles soon. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing much editing lately, but of course feel free to ask. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all very strange. I was just thinking of you the other day, and preparing a list of questions to ask you, but then I got distracted and forgot about it.  And now, here you are.  Synchronicity, or did I summon you from the depths of the ocean with my thoughts?  I will get back to navel gazing and give it some thought.... Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Requests for Latter Day Saint movement peer review


A tag has been placed on Category:Requests for Latter Day Saint movement peer review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Human Genetic Branching" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Human Genetic Branching. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitchens editing
Hey, I'm the guy who went back and forth with you on Hitchens' influences. It's funny you brought up Bill Maher as an objection because I'd thought the exact same thing a while back. Maher is obviously not an influence on Hitchens. I tried to remove it a while ago and it was reverted. Such is life.

I cleaned up the section I added on the talk page so it's not accusatory—just wanted to let you know. Take care. 2601:346:C281:79F0:40A2:70FA:4D57:1264 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries, mate. Maher was definitely influenced by Hitch, that's for sure. Not sure if there are sources for it. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Supply Side Jesus" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Supply Side Jesus. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Casspedia ( talk )  14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop
The discussion you keep trying to engage me in, is a waste of space at AE. When something is labelled as commentary or opinion, that means the publication doesn't endorse it. You have already proven to me that you are intolerant of other people's views and I don't wish to discuss this any further. So please don't ping me again.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The classification of "commentary" in this journal is used to primarily mean it hasn't been peer reviewed. Meanwhile, it is supported by 54 citations in the literature. I am intolerant of intolerance, which is what your views represent, based on your call to sanction multiple editors in the discussion for having the audacity to disagree with you based on actual evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, a commentary piece is not evidence, it's commentary. The word 'cult' doesn't even occur in it, and the inferences you make from it are absolutely OR. If it means anything to you, I'm on the far-left side of the political spectrum and have been so for more than 20 years now. The comment you just directed at Rusf10 ([...] intolerance, which is what your views represent) seems unfounded and verges upon personal attack. I suggest you strike it and apologize. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 02:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you misinterpreted what I wrote. Here it is again:


 * "For example, we know that cults are characterized by charismatic authoritarian leaders and extremist ideologies, which the Republican Party supports. We also know that Trump and the Republican Party reinforce social hierarchy and skew towards authoritarianism, another known facet of cults. Thomas F. Pettigrew's 2017 research, "Social Psychological Perspectives on Trump Supporters", supports this statement. Again, we aren't discussing my beliefs. We are discussing the evidence that the Republican Party is a cult. What evidence will you accept that will change your mind?"


 * I'm terms of the intolerance I'm speaking of, Rusf10 attacked JzG, MastCell, and myself for disagreeing with him, and made the outrageous claim that it was totally unacceptable for anyone to call the Republican Party a cult. I hope that clears up your evident confusion. Btw, it's considered extremely poor form to demand apologies from anyone. From where I stand, Rusf10 is intolerant of those who disagree with him, and I'm free to oppose that. Have a good evening. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggested apologizing because it would perhaps mitigate any possible consequences from this personal attack. However, you're of course free not to apologize if you do not feel so inclined.


 * As for the reasoning you're quoting here, I'd thought it should be obvious to an experienced editor that when a source supports a statement that Trump and the Republican Party exhibit a number of traits, and when other sources confirm that these same traits are common characteristics of cults, it is an unacceptable synthesis to infer from this that 'the Republican Party is a cult'? Surely, if the reasoning were so sound, we would have numerous reliable sources just directly stating that the Republican Party is a cult?


 * But even quite apart from policy, the reasoning is in fact unsound. It is a formal fallacy known as the fallacy of the undistributed middle. To see this, we can put the reasoning in syllogistic form:


 * 1. All cults are entities exhibiting traits A, B, C
 * 2. The GOP is an entity exhibiting traits A, B, C
 * 3. Therefore, the GOP is a cult


 * Now, replace 'cults', 'GOP', and traits A, B, C as follows:


 * 1. All fish can swim, need oxygen to survive, and sexually reproduce
 * 2. My best friend can swim, needs oxygen to survive, and sexually reproduces
 * 3. Therefore, my best friend is a fish


 * Note that my best friend and fish actually are related in so far as that they're both animals, and sharing a number of traits may indeed indicate some kind of relationship. I'm pretty sure that there are reliable sources out there which accurately observe that the Trumpist faction in the GOP exhibits a significant number of cult-like elements. Of course there is also an actual cult that is in fact Trumpist. But there's no logically valid way from there to 'the Republican Party is a cult'. For this reason too, you will find no reliable source directly supporting that claim. Finally, it is manifestly unfair to represent this as an evidence-based fact, when in reality it is an irrational hyperbole, quite typical of the current US political climate. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 04:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you are heavily invested in the outcome of this discussion based on your history with the ANI, so it seems fruitless for me to convince you otherwise, but I will suggest you start with the article on Trumpism. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll freely admit that you're right about me being (too) heavily invested in this. I don't even edit in politics-related articles, and I'm mainly just reacting to some of the abusive stuff I'd seen being thrown around when lurking on ANI a few days ago. That's probably unfair, and if I were involved in discussions with actual Trumpist POV-pushers around here, I'd likely be a lot more sympathetic to your cause. Meanwhile, I suggest you review what I wrote above. Bad logic will be bad logic, regardless of emotional investment or sympathy. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 04:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The cult in question consists of Trumpism and its many subgroups, such as QAnon. The Republican Party has fully embraced Trumpism, and major figures within that party have fully embraced QAnon.  The Republican Party has been described as a cult by many reliable sources for this reason. It is of particular note, that many former members of the GOP have levied this accusation against their former party. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you know about the fallacy called guilt by association? That's the one you committed just above (more formally: 'Republicans A, B and C are members of the GOP', 'Republicans A, B and C are also part of QAnon/a cult' 'therefore, all members of the GOP are part of QAnon/a cult'; cf.: 'my sister likes reggea music', 'my sister also is a convicted criminal', therefore, all people who like reggea music are convicted criminals').


 * I also may want to add to what I said about Trumpist POV-pushers above: it should have been 'Trumpist POV-pushers and their anti-Trumpist rivals'. At the AE you cite a source that reports one disillusioned ex-member of the GOP saying I’d call it the cult of Trump shortly after leaving the party. The editorial title makes of that that multiple ex-members are outright calling it 'Trump cult' (no more 'would'). Finally, you make of that the Republican Party is a cult (emphasis added), as if emotional name-calling by people involved in a conflict with the party they spent most of their lives in would equate to a calm and objective description of facts. Such misrepresentation of sources is classic POV-pusher territory.


 * Seriously, consider this: while illogical hyperbole and extrapolation of facts may convince the masses in the context of political propaganda, it won't do as much good in discussions with experienced WP editors. Around here, good old-fashioned clear-headedness may be a lot more conducive to furthering your cause. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 14:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, back in the real world, cult experts warned that Trumpism resembles a suicide cult. I'll stick with the experts, thanks for your concern. Viriditas (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Right-wing figures all around the world are spreading misinformation on Covid-19. Are they all leading suicide cults now? Your inability to distinguish hyperbolic news-media reports from dispassionate expert analysis is truly appalling. What's more, your incapability to engage with any rational argument about your views is itself characteristic of the kinds of politics you are presumably trying to criticize. As is the insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is not living in the real world: red pill and blue pill rhetoric is one of the most typical alt-right tropes I can think of. I'm sure that on reflection, you will realize that this is not the way leading back to sanity. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 17:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Journalist A.W. Maldonado notes, "The word “cult” is usually used to describe groups or communities of fanatics who surrender themselves to a person they see as the Messiah, always a person with great communication abilities, often with crackpot ideas, and at times with insane ideas that have led to tragedies such as mass suicides."


 * "They were ready to fight for their leader and shed blood. And they did." Those are the words of journalist Mike Rothschild in his book, The Storm is Upon Us: How QAnon Became a Movement, Cult, and Conspiracy Theory of Everything.  "These insurrectionists didn’t just believe that voting machines had been hacked, China was partially responsible, Trump had really won the election, and efforts to decertify the vote had legal merit that would eventually pay off. They also believed that if legal measures were unsuccessful, the military would step in, Trump would be installed as president for life, liberals and traitors would be hanged, and freedom would reign."


 * "Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has embraced his status as a hero among QAnon followers for supposedly faking an admission of guilt to go under deep cover in the deep state. Roger Stone extolled Q’s virtues and urged Trump to declare martial law—a go-to fantasy of QAnon mythology—in the run-up to the 2020 election. Conservative stalwarts, including some of Donald Trump’s children and other popular right-wing pundits, have begun pandering to the movement. Between 2018 and 2020, nearly one hundred Republican candidates declared themselves to be Q believers, with several actually winning their elections. And before his Twitter account was shut down, Trump himself retweeted hundreds of Q followers, putting their violent fantasies and bizarre memes into tens of millions of feeds. When asked by a White House press corps member to denounce Q, Trump evasively replied “I don’t know much about the movement other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate.”


 * "QAnon has centered around violent ideation since its very inception, and before the brutal attack on the Capitol, several killings, numerous incidents of domestic terrorism, multiple child-kidnapping schemes, police chases, and even a botched attempt to kill Joe Biden and destroy a coronavirus hospital ship were committed in the name of QAnon. It is a movement premised on the idea that a “storm” of mass arrests and executions to sweep corruption, child molesters, and liberals out of government forever, so it should not have been so jarring a surprise when Q’s believers decided to carry out a long-promised purge themselves."


 * Maldonado again: "The Trump cult is frightening because of its size, because it has taken over a national party, the Republican Party, and because it consists of the expert use, manipulation of the poison of the “they” mentality that exists in all countries. And because history tells us one thing: When a cult takes over, very bad things happen—even in the most advanced, civilized, democratic countries—it tears them apart, as Trump and his cult are tearing America apart." Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If anybody wants my opinion on the question of whether all Trump supporters are Republicans or all Republicans are cultists, it's that it does not matter when the question being repeatedly sandbagged is rather of whether Ashli Babbitt should be called an insurrectionist. Or whether five people were killed by the event, by any name. Whether Derek Chauvin is a racist, Tucker Carlson is a patriot or Mike Pence is hanged are equally as pointless when it comes to finding consensus on whether a man's best friend who likes fishsticks is a gay fish. Save those questions and answers for the appropriate conversation, that's all I ask; a central point of debate is all any two sides need at the same time. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Viriditas - please stop. The extended discussion you are engaging in is not productive.  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW - seems relevant - Yes - the Republican Party may now be a cult - but to what end? - following the money (cui bono?) - may be behind much of this imo - although the ball may be hidden - via theatrics, ploys and whatnot - after all -  just 400 people have more wealth than half of all Americans combined - an historic 2017 tax cut "heist" largely benefits this ultra-rich group of people afaik - and represents a "non-negotiable red line" to Republicans re negotiations - as well as, similarly, with Democrats - all in all -  a way of maintaining an "american aristocracy" of ultra-rich people? - at the expense of tax payers? - a return to a "plantation economy"? - updated to modern times - and modern dress - develop a following - promote a cult - denounce democracy - as well - seems the current Republican Party wants to rule, not govern, and, by way of another American Civil War involving race or the like, wants to return to a time of The American Revolution, and embrace a monarch like King George - simply backwards - going backwards in time - backwards in USA History - or so it currently seems - my 2013 NYT comments may be especially relevant - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * [[file:Hands-Clapping.jpg|200px]]Now, that's just what the doctor ordered! Viriditas

Thank you
... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like this cannot be real. I am so out of touch with Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not up to date enough...cause I thought....oh my.....
Holy freaking crap you scared the holy f*** out of me!

So...what can we fight about. LOL!;)--Mark Miller (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Not like we're best friends but dude....you scared the shit out of me for year. A note to ay; "I'm not dead yet" would have gone a long way. LOL! Just glad you are back.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Riane Eisler
Hi Viriditas. I see that long ago you created. I recently came across it and am sorry to say that it had become a blatant COI violation. I've been looking over the article history, hoping to find a good version to work from. I'm out of time for today, but think it is probably best to revert it all the way back to the stub you created so long ago, merging in what I've left of it. Do you have any time to take a look at it? --Hipal (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Hawaii culture by location


A tag has been placed on Category:Hawaii culture by location indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

14th-century establishment
Hi, please could you explain the basis for the category you added here? It does not seem to be justified by the article text. Was this a typo? – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's highly unlikely that it's a typo, as I have a habit of reviewing my edits the next day. Archeological surveys of that site have dated Polynesian settlement in that area to around CE 43-231, with the oldest extant temples dating to 1200. We know the 14th century was the origin date of the Piilani kings in that area. It's been 11 years since I added that category, so I would have to do a lot of research to figure out why, but I'm guessing it's based on one of the sources in the current article showing that the Alii were thought to have been using it at that time.  The context of this current article is in reference to the Kamehameha III royal residential complex, and not to earlier hypothesized settlements, so it might make sense to remove the category until this information can be shared.  I do know that when I added this category in 2010, I was doing research at the Lahaina library, so I suspect its origin can be found there. To answer your question, it was not a typo. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I may have found the problem. Sources say that the Aliʻi nui of Maui, beginning with Piʻilani, established a palace at or near Mokuula in the late 16th century, not the 14th. But some people are still using the 14th century in older sources.  I suspect there may have been a realignment of dating at some point (this is very common in Hawaii history for some reason).  So the 14th century was actually supposed to be 16th based on newer sources pointing to a more accurate dating of Piʻilani's reign.  Nevertheless, it doesn't really help, because as I said before, it's likely the site was "established" even earlier.  I think this resolves the problem, and I will go ahead and remove the date. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. For info, that edit has left Category:14th-century establishments in Oceania empty. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Memory is a funny thing. Now that I've had some time to think about it, I'm almost certain the 14th century date comes from this source in the aforementioned article: Klieger, P. Christiaan (1999). Mokuʻula: Maui's Sacred Island. Bishop Museum Press. ISBN 1-58178-002-8. Given the age of the source (1999) and the realignment of dates, it's a safe bet that the dating is either wrong or inaccurate to some extent. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies I accidentally clicked something and reverted your edits to a talk page. I quickly used rollback to fix my error. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Persecution of Christians
Errr, can you please step is as there is a lot of not dropping the stick going on. In fact it starts to look (as I am being referred to directly regularly) as baiting.11:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you just ignore it for the moment and take the higher ground? Also, could you briefly restate the problem in a few sentences? I read what User:Jenhawk777 wrote, and I find her points convincing.  What is the current objection against her argument? Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say more than I have. We need criteria that ensure the page does not become a repository of Christan persecution complex. There were issues in the past when it contained stuff that was very much that. A lot was removed after we came up with "Unless RS say it was". I fear if we undermine that and allow (in essence) OR (as in "well I think its persecution") we will have that kind of material again (as I said on the talk page). I do not see anything in what has been said that prevents that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also note that I am still, not sure what the new criteria would be, that the synonymous terms are.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven and Viriditas I was notified that I was mentioned here, so I am going to respond. Please note that concerns about the inclusion of a "persecution complex" have already been addressed in my recommendations on the Talk page. Excluding what is not actually persecution is as important as including what is, but a good definition would function in exactly that way. What we have right now is not a definition of any kind, it's an artificial requirement for a single word.
 * Your fears are unfounded. A definition would be used to evaluate additions in exactly the same manner as you have been doing, it would just be clearer, and more consistent with WP, and less arbitrary.
 * What I have observed in this article is that the application of the current requirement for the presence of a single word is applied unevenly. Here is an article that uses the term persecution. It is not a great source but it is a reasonable one, but imo, it still shouldn't get included in the article because its data is based on Gordon-Conwell's - and we have already excluded their data - based on the meaning of the term persecution as excluding participants in war. So in the past, articles that met the requirement for the word have been excluded based on meaning. The opposite has also occurred.
 * Everyone agrees that anything from a non-RS will get excluded. The question is whether a RS must have the word persecution or if a discussion of actions - recognized by a definition that we can agree to as persecution - is sufficient. The definition isn't difficult. It can be stated in one or two sentences. It can be expanded and discussed and placed at the front of the article for everyone to go by. If we can agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I propose:
 * Persecution is the illegitimate infliction of sufficiently severe harm within these limitations:
 * Behavior that a consensus of modern civilized society would condone is excluded.
 * Participants in war or terrorism are excluded.
 * Harm - "physical harm, restraints and deprivations of privacy, resource and opportunity limitation, psychological harms, and infringements on human rights" - is defined by a common general understanding of harm. Harm does not become persecution until it is severe, either through repetition or escalation; severity is defined by context.
 * The State has legitimate power to inflict some harms, in some circumstances, with a general assumption of human rights as a limitation on state power. Therefore some severe, harmful violations of human rights are illegitimate uses of state power and are recognized as persecution.
 * This is not only from a reliable source, it is also how we have used the term. I just think it should be stated clearly for everyone, and applied evenly, that's all. The requirement for RS should never lessen in any way, but this should support not prevent that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Veriditas for the thank you. :-) But it's clear that all that is required to prevent progress is silence. I don't feel like I should add it on my own knowing there is feeling against it. So I'm stuck. Sigh. Such is life on WP. Thank you for trying to help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Your recent editing history at Hitchens's razor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democracy in Chains, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince Edward County. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Filetime (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Filetime (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI drama reduction
Without opining about the original subject, kudos for that effort at drama reduction at ANI. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Category:Gottfried Leibniz has been nominated for renaming
Category:Gottfried Leibniz has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:POLITE
Good evening. Please avoid making assumptions as you do when you write “ … you are upset about your religion being associated with drugs.” With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As a further suggestion; please have a look at “Writing what you know, a common cause of bias	WP:WWYKACCOB. You are clearly highly invested in the topics being discussed at Entheogen: you might consider that your energies  would be better employed elsewhere. With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rewrite-talk
Template:Rewrite-talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ocsirpeoj comment on Wikipedia
Thanks for your comments directing me. I certainly want to keep Wikipedia the quality source that it usually. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocsirpeoj (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BLC1
You undid my edit to BLC1 and argued that it was vandalism. But the source clearly shows that it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.209.52 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right. It appeared as vandalism to me, but upon closer inspection, it’s original research, and you’ve been repeatedly warned about why you shouldn’t do it, and it’s why you were blocked from British Isles naming dispute.  Take a step back for a minute. Do you really, truly, honestly believe you are the first person who has ever thought, "Hey, I’ll just upload my essay to a self-published site and cite myself as a source"?  Seriously, dude? Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that I am the author of the source. Wikipedia allows self- published sources. The source is not original research and is reliable as it can be verified that someone has indeed made this suggestion. The guidelines are far less strict for individual statements within articles than for entire articles. These are good reasons for retaining the statement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.209.52 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You were previously corrected on this point on Talk:British Isles naming dispute last year by several editors and an admin. You were repeatedly pointed to our policies and guidelines on WP:OR and WP:RS.  As for the author, it’s a strange coincidence that you keep posting the same unknown author who self-published an essay to two different articles.  Seriously, dude, are you going to keep playing this game? Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere do the guidelines say that an editor may not add sources published by themselves. Wikipedia allows self-published or questionable sources as sources about themselves, which is what this source is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.205.216 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re confused about WP:SPS. The article on BLC1 requires that sources, self-published or otherwise, be "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Your source doesn’t meet that requirement.  You’ve confused this criterion with a different one, WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows self-published sources about themselves to be used in an article about that person.  BLC1 is not about a person, so that doesn’t apply.  I hope this clears up your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The guidelines say that self-published sources can be used by non-experts as sources about themselves, whether they are people or not. Extraordinary claims require very reliable or expert sources, but this statement is merely a theory, and so the source may be one that is self-published by a non-expert.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.208.169 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it most certainly does not say that. The policy says, quite explicitly, that self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources on themselves in certain situations, and that if the source is not about themselves, the source must be a known subject-matter expert who has published in the relevant field.  Please read it again, as your interpretation isn’t supported anywhere on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hawaii legal status overview
Template:Hawaii legal status overview has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hawaii talk
Template:Hawaii talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi can you please solve this equation problem with tYhe US ai computer RXNILBROOKS too the power of 7×7>= answer your questions 😄 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.176.166 (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ella Young 1930 by Edward Weston Center for Creative Photography.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ella Young 1930 by Edward Weston Center for Creative Photography.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you send me ...
any specifics you have on Koch(s), Kock Industries, etc. via wiki email, e.g. diffs, SPIs. Blocked editors, COINs, talk page warnings or explosions of nastiness, etc If you saw my response to you at disinformation report. you might understand that I have 3 levels of screening before I start these investigations. Koch has now passed the 1st screening. . So there's about 10% chance I'll publish on the topic. Thanks. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would love to help, but I’m kind of busy right now. Best I can do is point you to Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia, and the book, Dark Money, which if you get a chance to read, will allow you to connect the dots. That book in particular comprehensively lists just about all of the known American oligarchs involved in the Koch network, and there’s a section of the book devoted to their manipulation of media resources. If you haven’t already read the book, you should be careful, as it’s one of the most disturbing and upsetting books ever written. It will forever change how you see the US and its institutions. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Talkback
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Keep up the good work

Junkie257 (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 

Nomination of Intelligence in Nature for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Intelligence in Nature 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/Intelligence in Nature until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of The Cosmic Serpent for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Cosmic Serpent 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/The Cosmic Serpent until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. jps (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Source for Robb Elementary School shooting
In this edit you put that the shooting was the 18th for 2022. Did you have a source for that? Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. All 18 US school shootings are linked and sourced on the linked list page. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ll update it with a source. It’s apparently an undercount. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

bravo
thank you for bringing logic to that discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benny Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page When Lights Are Low.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump RfC
What do you mean, "None of that is accurate?" It's not an official secret that Armitage promoted the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and he outed the CIA agent Valerie Plame. It's even in the Wikipedia article about him. What makes you think it's inaccurate?

Furthermore, it isn't irrevelant to the discussion, since you are relying on Armitage for his statement about Trump.

TFD (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hate and Harrison
Hi Viriditas, i tried to write something for your question on the ref desk, but couldn't without going way beyond the purpose of the forum in providing references and resources. Anyway i just wanted to express my opinion that for those of us who hold the principal of free speech dear the response of "nothing can be done" should be seen an extraordinarily lame cop-out, and a denial of the reality of what has been, can and should be done. fiveby(zero) 18:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the solidarity, fiveby. I had a long, drawn-out reply (an essay, actually) composed in response to Blueboar, but I decided against posting it and thought it best if I deleted it.  In brief, I have a pet theory about "nothing can be done". It's somewhat of a generational, conventional wisdom unique to American culture.  We hear it a lot on this side of the pond, so much so, that many here have become conditioned to accept it as true. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Toa Nidhiki05. Thank you. –– FormalDude  (talk)  13:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
RAN1 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Incivil comment
Viriditas, I would like to contrast your comment with a needless, apparently baseless accusation of QAnon with your own talk page’s main quote: hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. I hope you can improve to avoid this in the future.  starship .paint  (exalt) 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

helping a user to calm down
I'd like to invite you to reconsider the wisdom of this. Regardless of whether or not one agrees, I was attempting to help the user to calm down. The ideological question is a secondary, and perhaps necessary, part of that. It was not intended to start a battle, but merely to show some understanding of the user's situation. Thanks! Adoring nanny (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Reality has a liberal bias is a lighthearted comedic line from a comedy performance. Do you see it as something else? Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
At the risk of stating the obvious, when interacting with new users, it is important to be WP:KIND and WP:CIVIL. In the particular case where you and I recently interacted, I felt that talking to the user from a point of view he or she is likely to understand might be helpful. But your recent messages both here and especially here strain the assumption of good faith. I was not attempting to start some flame war, merely attempting to talk to the third user in a way I felt he or she might understand. Please respect that. Thank you. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "Wikipedia is overrun by people who apply all sorts of things in a left-wing way. I further agree that it's frustrating to deal with." Is this what you consider kind and civil? Generalizing about millions of people and promoting baseless conspiracy theories?  Blaulicht slower.gif Fox News Alert!! Blaulicht slower.gif  THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS HAS BEGUN.  We are told that detailed plans for the war were found in Hunter Biden’s laptop and the GOP is now investigating. Religious leaders around the world have expressed concern that the war on Christmas is being secretly orchestrated by left-leaning elves directly from the North Pole.  Reports indicate that a disgruntled elf on the left-side of the shelf had become fed-up with the harsh working conditions in Santa's workshop and even worse treatment from Mrs. Claus, whom the elves refer to as "Karen Klaus", drawing Santa's ire.  Our correspondent at the North Pole has told us that some elves are trying to form a union and that high-ranking reindeer may be involved in tense negotiations for a living wage.  "Our demands are simple", said the labor representative for the elves. "We want a living wage so we can feed our elf children and send them to better elf schools so that they have the opportunity to get out of this cold, barren wasteland and do something better with their lives than working as indentured servants in a toy factory for an obese, slave driver.  If our demands aren't met, we will disrupt the lump of coal distribution network, and naughty children might find themselves receiving better gifts than usual." More after this word from our sponsor:  are you angry and fearful at your own shadow when you wake up?  Do you have a hankering to get back to the good old days when people knew their place and you could eat lead paint chips like you were a child again in a country without regulations and a public safety net? Don’t let the "left" take away your FREEDUM, patriots, you must protect yourself with our new left-be-gone spray!  Get yours today! Offer not valid for liberals.  Must be full of impotent rage while yelling at clouds to use properly.  Left-be-gone should not be used for more than ten seconds at a time due to potential side effects of fascism, totalitarianism, and a strange desire to wear clothing made by  Hugo Boss.  Do not combine or mix with other liberal products such as clean air, water, or healthy food.  Brought to you by the same people who make own-the-libs candles, for that fresh smell of victory without actually winning anything. Look for us on the shelves of Hobby Lobby and whenever Cracker Barrel is found. Hurry and order now, before the libs make it illegal!  Left-be-gone.  Another fine product that actually does nothing but takes your money, brought to you by Gaslight, Obstruct, and Project, fine purveyors of anti-democracy and proud defenders of autocrats everywhere. Viriditas (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December music
Thank you for your help with Mother and Child. I tried to link Atma, and failed, and your link was such a gift! Perhaps add that to the other. - Enjoy the season! Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Gerda Arendt, I based the link on your source. Although the target isn’t ideal, and is somewhat confusing, it is more accurate than any other other target we have at the moment. For what it’s worth, this is a wonderful piece of music, and I regret that because I live in a somewhat isolated region, I have never seen it performed live.  I hope to have the chance in the future. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.  Stay warm. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)