User talk:Viriditas/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Viriditas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. I just wrote down some thoughts that I think you may find interesting. See: User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem. Cheers.

Also, thanks for supporting me earlier today. Your vote of confidence means a lot to me. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. Referring to "Alice" as a "he" sort of threw me off a bit. Actually, using the name Alice here is helpful. If you want to be creative, you can use the "Wonderland" metaphor as a backdrop. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two words: Alice Cooper. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See Alice and Bob for details on those placeholder names.

Good essay (and assay), GTBacchus. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good old Uncle Alice... I was having a little gender-bending fun there. If this were likely to become part of the general discourse, someone would fix that. I think it's an early attempt at articulating something that's still inchoate.

I see this community as being good at some tasks, and bad at others. Dealing with trolling falls into the latter category, a lot of the time anyway. I think part of the problem is that we're not really asking the important questions, but rather hoping that everyone will just intuitively know the answers. I don't see that as an optimal solution.

What if a group of Wikipedians were to get together and decide that we really want to figure out what works when it comes to dealing with trolling (or "trolling")? Wouldn't that be cool? I mean, focused, empirical study couldn't be worse than the status quo, which is to the blind leading the blind through a fumble in the dark. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is where the rubber meets the road. In April, I proposed similar ideas on Wikipedia talk:No original research.[1][2] They were completely ignored, of course. I'm sure others have made similar proposals in the past. Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia seems to be the starting point for researching trolling, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies (now inactive) might have some pointers. I suggest starting fresh, with something like User:GTBacchus/Evidence-based Wikipedia. I think we should base all of our policies and guidelines on what works (or what can work) rather than some theoretical vision that isn't grounded in practice. One way to get started doing this is to analyze the archives of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and her subpages. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Reading archived AN or ANI discussions sounds about as pleasant as giving myself 2 or 3 root canals with rusty instruments and no anesthetic, except the root canals would at least make a good story later. However, you're right that a lot of the action happens there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You made a comment earlier on User talk:Baseball Bugs that struck a chord with me. You were saying something about how there weren't many examples on the policy pages, and I immediately thought, that's true, and that is why there are so many essays. The essays are the examples, but they are not always linked in the policy pages. I'm wondering if there is a way for us to integrate the essays into the policies using some kind of sidebar like a quote box, similar to what you see in textbooks. Viriditas (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

These essays have just kind of randomly grown over time. When all else fails, I fall back on a baseball analogy. There used to be a separate section of the rules book called "approved rulings", which expanded upon specific rules whose interpretation could be tricky, on weird issues such as batting out of order - kind of like having the Torah and the Talmud separately, to make an even more outrageous comparison. After some years of that approach, the keepers of the rules finally merged the approved rulings into the main body of the rules text, while retaining the sub-heading "approved ruling". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding a little box with links to related essays would help provide the examples that GTBacchus was speaking so wistfully about as he was bemoaning their absence in the policy pages. I'm curious, how long would it take a Self-Appointed Guardian of the Holy Policy to revert such a change? I'm guessing 53 seconds, max. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've just posted to some random subpage of the "Village pump"... um... WP:VP/M#Do not feed the trolls. There it is.

This seems to be a question that we've failed to really address head on for the better part of a decade. I suspect that addressing it intelligently could work strongly to our advantage. For now, I seem to be posting notes about it here, so... enjoy? :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you've gone and done it. If you possess a personal pillory, now might be a good time to get inside and lock yourself in. :) Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Icestorm815's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit wars over food? Is there no end to the madness? :) I'm thinking I'll start an edit war on the Lutefisk page. I'll post a completely uncited, POV comment that lutefisk tastes "fishy". Then let the battle begin! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it is much, much worse. One of the largest blowups to occur in relation to these players was on...are you ready for it....Foam take-out container. Be sure and visit the talk page. Why yes, there is even a mediation page. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy moly. See, here's one I missed. I could continue the edit war by saying that where I come from, the simple term "takeout box" is used (as opposed to "doggie bag", which is typically a bag rather than a box). I could also bring lutefisk into it. The article asserts that the food in takeout box can be poisoned by its container. I would say in the case of lutefisk, it would be the other way around. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How ludicrous. Jerome is not, and has never been, a "Jewish" name, it is, in fact, best known as the name of the Catholic saint, and is widely used as a name for Catholic boys, not Jewish boys. The name "Marc" is, like "Mark", a nickname for "Marcus", also a non-Jewish [Greek] name. Of course, I doubt using facts would have been especially effective in the discussion, but ... gah! Tomer^talk 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to this. The talk page is too long for me to find another related thread. Has it been discussed somewhere else that I should know about? Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's what I was referring to. Had it been brought up again, I'd'a been spouting off on the talk page. ;-) Tomer^talk 06:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here [3] I have proposed a discussion of the use of the above categories - your thoughts would be valuable. Redheylin (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you would contact User:Samuel_Wantman on his talk page and invite him to the discussion. I tend to agree with his position on categorization, and I would like to see what he has to say first. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Redheylin (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked in Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 44#Follow-up "Why is it that every standard textbook reference for identifying and using reliable sources doesn't remotely resemble the one on Wikipedia?" What I was told was that the definition was drafted by WMF's legal advisers for BLP & then mindlessly applied to everything. Peter jackson (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you still proposing changes to RS? Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever was. I simply raise questions from time to time. What people want to do about them is up to them. Peter jackson (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Have you made a list of these questions? It would be sort of neat to go through them on a subpage in your user space and see how far you can take them. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that organized. In any case, my main concern at present is not the details of the policy but the fact that there's no consistently effective enforcement procedure. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said previously, the guideline is practically worthless. And I'm concerned it was designed that way. If the details were more specific (they are purposefully made as broad as possible) it would be very easy to enforce. An attempt was made to get specific with WP:EVALUATE and it was intentionally watered down into meaningless drivel by the usual suspects. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant about enforcement was basically

1. administrators & arbitrators aren't authorized to enforce content policy
2. the community often can't be bothered when asked to do so by RfC &c

Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Can we move that conversation here, and let AN/I get along with its existence? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Leave it, close out the thread, and start the sanction proposal. It says more about me than it does you. I don't know why it bothers you. The concept of freedom in the way I'm using it is something I find important. I understand that you don't. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me so much as... I was enjoying the conversation, and I think I'm learning a bit from you. I already said I wouldn't start the sanction proposal until he's back. At least, if I didn't say it explicitly enough, it wasn't for lack of meaning it.

I enjoy talking with you about this because your perspective is different from mine. However, I'm not sure we differ in all the ways we might think we do.

For example, your impression that I have "always poopooed the idea" that he's being harassed and stalked is false. I have addressed that concern head on with him. Offering quite explicitly to help him end the harassment. The problem is that he won't let me help him in the only way I really know how. I have tried to make it very, very clear that I will help him succeed against the harassers, but he seems not to hear me.

I acknowledge that the help I offer is unusual, counter-intuitive, and unexpected. That does not mean that I fail to recognize the problem, and it does not mean that I am unwilling to put in a lot of hard work to back up what I claim.

If you agree (with Wantman, Quiddity, etc.) that the stalking, harassment, etc. are bigger problems that B.'s behavior, then how do you propose addressing those problems? If you talk to me about it, I'm likely to agree with you and try to help. You might be surprised where I'm willing to go and what I'm willing to do if I think it will work. That's my one criterion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not add this response to the thread and then close it out? Do you see any reason why the thread should still be open? He's been blocked for the behavior in question and Ronz has started DR on the talk page of the article he was having trouble with in the first place. Where did you directly address the harassment? I remember you saying you would if Badagnani worked with you, but I don't remember you ever actually doing it. And you have poopooed it several times in different discussions. In one you said, "I can't say that something is "hounding" if it's only spammy edits that are being reverted. Nobody has shown me any reversions that are wrongful, or not based on policy, and I haven't yet found them on my own." (13:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) But several editors have made the same observation about hounding. It doesn't matter because I understand that you see it differently. That's fine, because I understand the Rashomon effect and anticipate it. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Was that a polite way of telling that I remember it wrong? Does that effect also apply to you?

My very first interaction related to Badagnani was disagreeing with someone (Ronz, I think) for leaving an unhelpful potted warning on B's page. Later, I helped revert someone from some Asian cuisine article who was re-adding harassing messages on Badagnani's talk page after B had removed them. I don't know what you mean by "directly address." If that means trying to persuade people to cut it out... I've done that. If it means reverting unwelcome stalking edits at this talk page, I've done that, and warned the person leaving those messages.

It's true that I haven't blocked anyone for harassing him.

We're clearly looking at the situation from different spots. It's very easy to look at the situation and see a disruptive editor who keeps stepping on more and more toes, and who won't work well with others. It's also very easy to look at the situation and see a productive but misunderstood editor being harassed by a loose collection of people who have interacted with him repeatedly. I don't know how to decide between the two, because I think both are true, to varying extents. This suggests three types of solutions - Persuade Badagnani to change, persuade others to change, or some combination of the two.

Regarding the hounding... I may be underestimating that problem. You mention that several editors have noticed it. I am very open to seeing what you and others are seeing. It is just as easy, however, to point out that "several editors" have made the same observation about Badagnani's intractability. The pair of facts, taken together, convinces me that the problem lies on both sides.

That said... I'm interested in solutions more than I'm interested in blame in the same ratio that infinity has to zero. If the hounding is more of a problem than B's behavior, when will people start suggesting ways of addressing that, before we lose Badagnani? What direct action can be taken to address that side of the problem; what can I do, that can feasibly be done? I'm always looking for the practical upshot, you know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is past the point of proactive management. What we need here is wei wu wei. In other words, stop trying to fix it and let it fix itself. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, is that what you were doing on ANI? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If I was "trying" to do anything, that wouldn't be wei wu wei now, would it? Whether you believe it or not (and it is really only something that can be experienced not discussed in words) there is a current and flow to the universe, and you can ride it like a surfer or fight against it like someone drowning. Most people fight against it, never understanding that their greatest enemy is their self. When you look at ANI, really look at it, you see people guided by their emotions, making statements based on anger, and generally motivated by fight or flight. If it is a psychological experiment, it is surely generating interesting results. TBSDY originally intended the noticeboard as a central respository for alerting admins to issues needing attention. It has since turned into a timesink, and a way for editors to vent about other users. I suggest that it be converted directly into a fastrack for WP:DR, so that all of the energy poured into it is channeled into getting results and not encouraging people to simply "sound off" about X user du jour. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I could use a bit of help: Talk:Hawaii hotspot/GA1. Cheers! ResMar 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not bothering me, and I'm always happy to help. I'm trying to finish up a DYK before the deadline, so I won't be able to get to it until later tonight or tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could point out any areas where I should devote my time. From what I can tell, you have everything under control. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Viri, I'd appreciate your views here if you have time. You're one of the editors who tried to edit neutrally on I/P articles, and you recently expressed concern about the use of sources, and how to produce quality editing in general, so I'd be interested to know whether you think it could work. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I love the bubble rain. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Jurvetson has the eye of a camera in his head. Check out more of his work, here (Make sure you visit his People & Animals gallery). As for the proposal, I am interested in reading your forthcoming response to Durova's comment [4] and Wikidemon's opinion.[5] I like how you are brainstorming solutions, but I'm worried it won't be flexible to accommodate concerns and objections. If you allow this thing to grow and change with discussion, something might come of it, but in its infancy it has many problems. This is going to sound insane, but I'm going to make a suggestion. Why not propose that the panel be made up of experts in their field from Citizendium? They have already been vetted, and that site can provide a valuable review board for Wikipedia. I think it is time to heal the rift between the two sites and this might be the way to do it. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked whether CZ actually have any experts here? My experience was that their coverage is patchy. In areas without resident experts they're worse than WP. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that their experts have been vetted, and we don't have to rely on someone who says they have doctorates in Theology and Canon Law and teaches graduate theology. The fact that Citizendium is separate from Wikipedia but is working towards the same goal, provides the necessary "separation of powers" and keeps us in check. They are an important resource that is desperately needed. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't completely understand your change. At first it seems like you saying that the Japanese Navy sunk their own submarine. Further, the sources does not mention the Japanese Navy at all, and since that is part of the DYK hook, your change is enough to sink the hook. I realize that the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, but in the sentence "by the Japanese Navy" could refer to the sinking. Would you mind if I changed it to agree with the sources, at least while it is a DYK? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea you were working on a hook, but the same material is sourced in the body of the article below the lead: . In August 2002, Pisces V and her sister vessel discovered a Japanese midget submarine, the first vessel to be sunk during the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.[2] How could changing the lead sink the hook if it is already sourced in the body? I'll change it again to make it clear. Your original wording repeated "Pearl Harbor" twice and didn't read well. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that I need a source to say the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor? Fine, Go to the attack on Pearl Harbor page. That is most likely the silliest thing I have ever heard. Adding "by the Japanese Navy" doesn't corrupt the source. Surely you know that? Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with the DYK rules? I notified them, and I will leave it up to them. Normally, if the source does not specify something, "generally known" is definitely not good enough. Not unless you are saying that humans generally have five fingers on each hand! It would not be good enough for FAC. I would like to change it back for the period of the DYK. Then you can do whatever you want with the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you not reading what I have written above? The DYK is already sourced in the body of the article. The lead section is separate from the body. To summarize, sources are used to provide support for claims. The claim in this case, is that the submarine was the first vessel to be sunk during the war between the U.S. and Japan. That's it. Anything else in that sentence doe not depend on the source. If I say the submarine is a WW II-era sub, are you going to challenge that? Are you actually saying that I cannot say that? In what way is it challenged that the sub is not a WW II-era sub. That is exactly what it is. In the same way, how is it challenged that the Japanese navy attacked the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor? Do you understand what I have written or is this not making sense to you? Sources are used to support specific claims and to show who said what. The claim you are using for the DYK is already in the body. Why can't the lead be expanded to explain in a clear manner, what was discovered? Is there anything that I have added that cannot be supported or is not already common knowledge? You just want to do things your way, which means you aren't willing to listen to anyone. Need I remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you do not know how DYK works. The DYK hook has already been verified based on the lead. It is not accepted that the DYK checker has to rummage around in the body of the article to find the hook. The lead is not correctly referenced now and so I will have to remove the reference. I will strike from the DYK queue. I will not die without the DYK although I would like it. Then you can do what you want with the article. Sorry! I did not realize that because it was about Hawaii this would happen. I was about to start another one on Hawaii but I will skip it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously not paying attention. To begin with: 1) The DYK was already verified. That means you don't have to do anything. 2) The DYK that was verified is still in the body of the article, in the third paragraph of the second section. 3) Why would you strike a verified DYK that already appears in the article exactly as it was submitted, from the DYK queue after it has already been verified and approved? 4) Is any of this making sense to you? 5) If is making sense, is there any reason you are still upset about it? Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• The hooks are always reverified before they go into the queue to make sure there are no mistakes. It is important that the hook be easy to find and that the hook be referenced at the end of the sentence. See D1. I may just strike it from the queue, as I have been very intent in setting a good DYK example. I am a major verifier for hooks, so this undermines my message to those whose hooks I check. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You are creating a problem where absolutely none exists. This seems to be a pattern. The current hook has been verified. The lead section has been expanded. And the third paragraph of the second section has your hook in full, still in the article. You are trying to confuse people by making a fuss. And it's working. Oh, and I loved this: "The new statement is generally known to be true, says the editor, but now it is unreferenced." No, the new statement is the lead section; the hook is still in the article below it. And are you actually saying that one needs a reference to call the Japanese submersible a "WW II-era" vessel, and that one needs a reference to say that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? I mean, that is what I'm hearing you say. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Why can't you let me have my hook and go muck up the article after? You cannot bend to accommodate me even a little. I will probably scratch the article from DYK as you are being unnecessarily inconsiderate of me when there is no reason you cannot wait a few days before you take over the article. I do not understand your attitude but I do not want to go through it again. The article I was going to do, I will see if I can write it without mentioning Hawaii. I have all the sources ready to go and hate to dump it but I will if it means going through this again. I have over 75 DYKs and I have never had this happen before. I used to write a number of articles on Hawaii and was planning to do so again, but I will skip it. I am helping get one through FAC right now and even got a Barnstar for my efforts! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Two editors have now come forward to verify the hook. What more do you want? Oh, that's right, you don't want anyone to edit your article. Gotcha. Do whatever you want, Mattisse. See you on arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Wow, that is pretty straight forward. It means that much to you to deny me a little pleasure? Especilly, when you know about the Arbitration. What have I ever done to you? I have never been selfish about articles. Do you not remember that you gave me a Barnstar for my Hawaiian articles and wanted me to write more? Because I get a little pleasure out of a DYK, you want to stomp on it? OK, if that is worth banning me from Wikipedia, then please have your say at Arbitration. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, my friend and colleague, I don't think arbcom is going to ban you. Even though you think there is this great conspiracy against you, the people you refer to as your enemies aren't calling for your ban. The interesting thing is that the few people who are supporting your ban, don't know you and have had very little interaction with you in the past. What do you make of that? I think it is obvious. We have all played this game with you before, and you've been through all of the dispute resolution mechanisms, in some cases several times. So, there is nothing new here. Everyone knows you are intelligent, and you have a beautiful mind; I can remember several times where you wrote something that literally made me jump out of my seat, and honestly, very few people here have provoked that kind of reaction from me. You have the ability to bring enlightenment to Wikipedia while at the same time, turning on the people who work with you and who have been in a position to help you. This has happened again and again, with many different editors. You also rush to judgment and are quick to condemn editors before they have a chance to finish a discussion with you, and you will often use personal attacks to communicate your preferences, couched in terms of manipulating the emotions of others rather than simply arguing your case on its merits. For some reason, you personalize issues, and I am still sad at the way you treated SandyGeorgia in the past. Furthermore, the sock puppet issue with Rosencomet was never really resolved, but I think you have moved on from that dark period in your early editing. Having known you for several years, I predict that the end result of the arbcom case will not be a ban, but a strongly worded sanction and enforcement ruling allowing any administrator to block you the next time your behavior becomes a problem, followed by escalating blocks. That will most certainly be the outcome. In other words, you are getting a "last chance" which I think you deserve based on your contributions to the project. Now, I have not said that I want to deny you "pleasure", but I am curious why you think Wikipedia is about giving you pleasure? And for the record, I have given you not one, but two barnstars; the other one was for your good work on law-related articles. In any case, you seem to have this need to always justify your good work here, as if that somehow excused the problems under discussion at arbcom. I think you would do well to listen to the criticism raised there and make an effort to change your behavior. I know you believe otherwise, but I want you to know that nobody is "out to get you". The pattern here is that whenever anyone tries to help you, you turn on them and they become your enemy. Perhaps one could argue that you don't need help, but by the looks of the arbcom case against you, you could use all of the help you can get. Any way you look at it, Wikipedia is not therapy, and the community can only take so much. One could argue that you should be banned since all of the dispute resolution mechanisms have been exhausted, but I don't think anyone would support such a statement. You are going to get another chance, but you are going to be put on a very short leash. The next step is up to you. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see that one (obviously!). I've forcibly merged the two pages, leaving behind the old name as a redirect (since I'm not that fussed as to which to use, but both have incoming links). I also took the opportunity to turn Robert Perkins into a disambiguation page, since it appears that there's at least one more notable person by that name (a British MP in the 1940s). Thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of business. I appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I love your article on xylocopa sonorina, and the picture you took. Carpenter bees are beautiful albeit quite intimidating. I wish they hadn't loved the redwood overhang on my back patio so much as it required a beekeeper to come out and deal with them. They are HUGE! --MPerel 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I haven't added it to the article just yet, the males tend to chase people, not the females. It's sort of funny, because there is nothing they can do but chase. It's like a small dog with a big bark. :) I think I have enough sources to bring it to GA, so I'll keep working on it. I would like to do the same with Amaranthus brownii, but it needs some work first. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Little bully bees, that's funny! I do want to help you bring A. brownii to GA, and perhaps the bee article too. --MPerel 00:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Xylocopa sonorina, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay, congratulations, you're on the main page : ) Very nice work! --MPerel 00:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, at Talk:Buddha Jumps Over the Wall#Straw poll I have attempted to summarize in a few words views you expressed at Talk:Buddha Jumps Over the Wall#Due weight to shark finning. Please refactor or confirm if my summary is consistent with your views. Thank you, Bongomatic 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything that would tie him to LaRouche. There are probably too few edits to be able to tell; on the other hand, the LaRouchies do usually give themselves away immediately. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I'm sure you are right. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I added some new info and references to the heaiu page, but I couldn't figure out how to get the error message to go away. Also, I might be interested in developing a new page for Piilanihale heiau and submitting it to DYK.

Thanks for any help you can offer! Shannon.wianecki (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Good work, I would be glad to help out. I wasn't sure if you were still around. It's nice to see that you are! :) Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually discussing this with yourself? And do you need any help with this article? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That is funny, but no, I'm not having a discussion with myself. I'm using the talk page to note issues that have come up. I suppose the use of threading confused you, but that just shows that each note follows the next or was superseded. Anyone is welcome to address the notes, and there are taxo discrepancies that still have questions. such as the brasil. designation, which only appears in a few papers. You are welcome to try answering these questions. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(not talking to myself!) I'll try and cleanup the talk page and add a to-do list. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at DrilBot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wasn't sure if you'd be watching it since it was just a bug report. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First, thank for your message. I love to wirte an article about List of Vietnamese proverbs but I couldn't for now. You know, my English haven't good yet so I could wirte some simple articles such as biolographies of famous people, or cultural fastivals etc. I promise you that I will write List of Vietnamese proverbs as soon as I can. About Vietnamese immigration to Hawaii, I'm sorry that I couldn't do anything because I have no much RS which regard to Overseas Vietnamese in general.--Amore Mio ^(talk) 03:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and going nowhere. I think that one of the problems is that we're both ignoring the other's points. How about we stop the accusations of POV and try to calmly explain our thoughts? Soxwon (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but my time is limited. Let's use the article talk page, and not expect immediate replies. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I am giving you this barnstar for your work on the Human rights in the United States article. This article seems to be a bit of a target for some of Wikipedia's more fundamentalist editors, and you have shown patience and diligence in dealing with them. Pexise (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC) I second it, for the very same reasons. Larkusix (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

I appreciate what you do to defend the article. I'd like to help out on this page, but I am afraid, I lost the overview. In the article the edits are occuring too fast. I'll try to keep track of the changes and do what I can. Larkusix (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Viriditas. A complaint about your rearrangement of the Talk page at Talk:Human rights in the United States has been filed at WP:AN3. You are aware of that complaint since you've already responded. My conclusion is that talk pages can only be rearranged by the consensus of the editors working there. WP:REFACTOR provides, If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.

You can avoid a block for violating WP:TPG if you will agree to stop rearranging others' comments on that page unless you first get consensus. I will hold off on closing the case if it appears you are likely to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to stop refactoring the talk page without consensus. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your Defender of the Wiki barnstar is very well deserved. Alas, I am a bit too bogged down right now to jump into the fray at RfC (I might be participating soon enough, nevertheless.) I have to commend your strength in dealing with the traveling circus of users who are attacking you – this is a simply but very long-standing problem of cliquish editors I've already made a point about at User talk:Hiberniantears.
Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Article created 00:51, 24 May
• Article listed for speedy deletion
• Speedy template removed
• Additions to article by myself
• Article prodded
• prod removed
• Article nominated for NZ Collaboration of the month
• Additions to article by User:Avenue
• Article now six times original size. Time: 01:50, 24 May

A busy wee 59 minutes for this article! Grutness...wha? 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Caversham FA - thanks for that :) Grutness...wha? 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loihi Seamount/archive2. Trying again. ResMar 23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• So soon? What can I do to help? Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on how I can help you, therefore I have sent you an e-mail declining my participation. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not a technical encyclopedia, or rather it's not supposed to be, and an earthquake swarm, while also jargon, is comprehensible to the average lay reader.

I just read a dinosaur article that uses every single piece of biological jargon it possibly can over five complete and long sentences to describe that the dinosaur had a long thin nose and teeth that were all alike. There's no chance a lay reader or anyone besides a biologist or vertebrate paleontologist can understand that article. Those specialists, however, the scientists, will be reading the technical journals for their information.

Why not give the non-specialists something to read, like an encyclopedia written for them? Like wikipedia? That's my opinion. I'll assume the lack of comment about the rest of my work means it, too, was substandard. That's okay. I tried. Try to get the other writers to be more careful about copying sentences and distinct phrases without quotation marks-they are required. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I commented quite positively on your work, both on FAC and in the edit summary of the article. I think you're mistaken about the use of the term "event", but not so wrong that I feel the need to revert your changes. Improving readability is a priority, and you've done some good work with that goal in mind. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That is what I am trying to do, make the article readable and more accurate, but also without including someone else's work product without attribution. Wikipedia regulars are sometimes overly critical of input from IPs, without even looking at the input, so I tend to be jumpy. It would have been nicer, imo, to include, on my talk page, something positive about my contributions alongside the criticism about the choice of jargon, particularly when the topic is more appropriate for discussion by the group of editors working on the article on the article talk page. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You make an important point. In the future, I will try to say something positive along with the constructive criticism. Thanks for reminding me of this. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, Hawaii tropical low shrublands does not sound grammatically accurate, so I replaced Hawaii with Hawaiian. The WWF is inconsistent in its use of adjective forms in the names of ecoregions; they list Samoan tropical moist forests, Tongan tropical moist forests, and Western Polynesian tropical moist forests in addition to Marianas tropical dry forests and Fiji tropical dry forests.--TDogg310 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but we don't change a standard classification simply because we don't like it. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendly nudge from a random Wikipedian. You said back in December that you would be providing a picture in "a week or so" to the Li hing mui page, but it's still not there. Get working on that! ;) Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's something strange: Earlier today, I was standing in front of a Crack Seed storefront while reading your message on my mobile. What are the odds? Unfortunately, I did not have my camera with me, but your reminder is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On 5 June, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Barack Obama speech at Cairo University, 2009, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you are aware of this thread at an admin's page. I've made a comment at the bottom you should be aware of, I don't believe in discussing editors behind their backs. I would hope your preference is for a more collegial atmosphere of collaboration with regard to Human rights in the United States as well. PetersV       TALK 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. As I just indicated in the thread referenced above, I am truly sorry for whatever experiences you have had on the article which have engendered a siege mentality. My time is limited, but I have made a start on improving the international law aspect—which was completely lacking even basic information on self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. As for the RfC, my original vote and latest suggestion regarding limiting to domestic U.S. and direct U.S. jurisdiction are my own and no one else's. I regret all you see are wolf packs of editors seeking to obscure their identities. You might consider that as I've wound up studying:

• treaties and international law because the Russian Duma even today states Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law
• human rights because the Baltic states, Estonia and Latvia, are regularly accused of violating various covenants to which they are a party

that other editors with an interest in that sphere may have studied the same materials for the same reasons and therefore have developed the same interests. There are more plausible and good-faith explanations for why certain editors may share certain editorial interests or opinions. To believe you're out there alone defending the article agsint the barbarian hordes, sorry, wolf packs, is your own hubris. PetersV       TALK 19:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit to Laie Hawaii Temple. You added a link to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hawaii to the see also section, but it already appears in the "Sandwich Islands Mission" section at the top, as a see also. Do you think we need two? Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Point I didn't realize it was already in the article. I'll leave that up to you and you can delete it if you feel that's best. I'll have no objections either way. Dmm1169 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't hurting anyone right now, so I'll leave it in. If you didn't see it, then there is a possibility that others didn't see it, so perhaps it is justified in both places, I don't know. One thing I would like to find a source for is the statement, "Laie Hawaii Temple was formerly known as the Hawaiian Temple or the Hawaii Temple until a standard naming convention for LDS temples was adopted in the early 2000s." This has been in the article for some time, and appears to be true, but I would like to see it substantiated with a reference. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I like seeing an IP get a barn star.

To tie up loose ends: I have registered twice. It's worse than being an IP. The first time, after being warned, threatened, and blocked for removing a link to a page that attempted to do something to your computer, I gave up. I used edit summaries, I explained what I was doing on the article discussion page, and I asked for help on an administrator discussion page (which made the situation worse); but the other editors involved had been here longer (one editor disagreed with me, others supported him). The second time I registered I pissed off an administrator who said to me something like, "eat shit and die." He was later defrocked for an issue related to why he told me to go to hell, and he left the community. Wikipedians don't apologize, though, they sanctimoniously address and seek out every bit of wrong-doing by the person owed an apology.

95% of the issues and problems at wikipedia could be simply taken care of by requiring all users to ask themselves every time if the action they are about to take is contributing to a community building an encyclopedia: 1. am I being civil, 2. is addition (or removal) of content of benefit to the encyclopedia.

You're correct the Loihi article needs more work before it's featured. Another user gave a good list, including a couple of details I was planning to work on. You also mentioned the biggest single problem with the article: material was copied (and I mean copied) from web pages without verifying it. If the editors deal with the list and with the copied material by thoroughly reading the reviews (Malahoff and Garcia, mostly), then ask the list maker to go through the article once more, I think it could be featured.

I had fun, but it's no longer fun, and vacation is almost over... --69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm a bit frustrated myself. I've tried to address these issues many times (the treatment of IP's, the copying of material, and many of the points raised by JKBrooks85) and I get really tired of repeating myself. I hope you will stick around to mentor editors on the article or consider returning with a thicker skin. I share your sentiments, and I'm sure you can count on a lot of support if you stay. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The reason I removed the user from that category is that almost a year has passed since the user was warned, they have not edited since being warned and the warning has not been followed up with any action -- it is "stale", so to speak. I figured that if you, as the user that warned them, found the username a blatant violation, then you would have pursued the matter earlier by taking the user to WP:RFCN when they did not respond. The purpose of the category Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over is to track users with an unresolved username concern, they should be removed from that category when blocked or when the concern is no longer present. However, I understand that opinions may differ, so if you disagree and still find the username a problem you should probably open a request for comment at WP:RFCN concerning that username. Sincerely, Questwolf (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First... thank you for the simple copy check on my user page... no I don't mind such changes. Second... I agree with you that there is no direct tie between the Statue of Liberty and Human Rights... but the same will be true with just about any other image I can think of. Human Rights as a concept seems not lend itself to artwork the way concepts such as Freedom, Liberty, or Justice do. That said, I don't really have a problem with using the picture as a place holder while you look for a better image. I don't know if the Declaration of Human Rights is photogenic but, if so, perhaps that would work... or the logo of whatever UN org deals with Human Rights. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A montage of key individuals in the history of U.S. human rights might be appropriate and more directly related to article content. International images wouldn't be as appropriate or effective for the lead, I think. PetersV       TALK 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just so tired of this article. Three+ months on the grind have worn me out. There's nothing in the article that's gone unquestioned. My first FAC hasn't been a great experience. ResMar 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you get a new computer yet? Have you thought about getting a cheap subnotebook just to get you back on your feet? You could probably get a really cheap, but used, laptop in your area. Check around. I think you are going to get Loihi featured, and while you have changed your approach, it's better to slow down a bit. Make a roadmap in your user space and ask others to check it. When you are pretty sure everything has been completed, then you should resubmit it, but not before. I am willing to help of course. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How ironic—just this morning I aquired an Aspire One microlaptop for my birthday! ResMar 16:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm concentrating on bringing Garcia down to 10. 12 more to go. ResMar 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I've toned him down enough. Additionally, 8 references to him are included in the two timelines, so excluding them the grand total is...12. Is that OK? Oh, and I can't really make a "worklist" as you suggest; the issues remain unclear to me, and, besides another polish-up scan, it seems greenlighted. Of course, that's how it's been to me for the past month or so, so it's obviously an illusion of mine...ResMar 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a few hours and get back to you. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the formating! Learner001 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure we will be crossing paths again soon. Make sure you start adding sources or the material might be deleted. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning that process. What's your advice for the Icons list? I like the idea because it's a good launching point for deeper study of the notable people. I also realize that lists are frowned upon. Should I start a new page and link to it? If the list is kept, what level of detail is appropriate? Other ideas? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this reply the first time around as it got lost in the flurry of orange message bars. As for the icons list, there are actually many different ways of approaching this, so it depends on what you are trying to do. The best way is to incorporate the icons into an embedded list or prose paragraph and describe their role in the counterculture. If you can tell me what you are trying to achieve, I can help you reach that goal. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Again, I'm trying to get people to some of the most notable figures from the era without recapitulating other articles. Do you think a one paragraph bio synopsis would suffice, e.g. Other thoughts? Thanks!Learner001 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you are dealing with a core group of less than a dozen people, I think you could stretch it to anywhere from 2-4 paragraphs. There are several sources on Google books that deal with this topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be dumb to start adding prose piecemeal, or should I wait to post edits (prose expansions) until they're done for all the list entries?Learner001 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First thought, best thought. Do it with sources. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks with the image sizing. Please keep watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up. ResMar 23:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good job getting the ball rolling. This is why you are leading the Volcanism of Hawaii Workgroup. You were born to lead! :) Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it, but I haven't looked into it deeply. There are only 18 pages overlapping between them; relatively few.[6] I see some overlap in interests, but only broadly. You'll have to explain the M.O. to me because I'm not familiar with either account.   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich, now there's a blast from the past. Is he still around? I'll take a look. It may be a few days before I can get down to it.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to get to this, but as much as I searched I couldn't find definitive signs either way.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries; The dispute seems to have died down on its own. Thanks anyway, though. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louis Davis (architect), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Merchant Street Historic District, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Human_rights_in_the_United_States. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rockstone35 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting reliable sources is not a form of "ownership". Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you wouldn't see it normally — I've replied to your WT:NRHP question, and W Nowicki replied before I did. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll address any further questions on that page. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the “Wilcox Rebellions” if you find anything wrong information, feel free to correct it. Thank you again for giving a second opinion on the subject. -72.234.223.116 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping I am putting footnote citing in the Wilcox Rebellion Article it is a work in progress. I have no solution on the conflict boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can come up with a solution. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

I see you have made many comments on the Medical cannabis article. If you are interested, please join the project to contribute in any way possible. If you are not interested, keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vid, do you think we should try another FAC? ResMar 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. Wait at least a month. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I've been wondering who to ask for a review...ResMar 14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I think I'm familiar with most of the criticism. One thing that is going to come up again is the image of the black smoker (File:Nur04506.jpg) Just remove it. It has nothing to do with the topic. I know you like the image, but we need to focus on the FAC, and it will come up again if it is there. Just delete it. Viriditas (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Second graph: "On January 1967" ??

Yes, good eye. Someone clearly changed the original lead. I'm looking at the page history for the last good version. Good job. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. You may want to continue to keep an eye on it. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter Issue 30 - June 2009

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Novels WikiProject Newsletter Issue 30 - June 2009 Member news Coordinators election. An election has been long overdue, and therefore one will begin shortly. If you wish to stand, please put your name in by June 28, when voting will start. Members are encouraged to vote for the candidate they wish to support by July 21 at the Coordinator Elections. The Ed17 has decided not to stand for re-election. His work as Assistant Coordinator, along with Kevinalewis, since the last elections in October is highly appreciated by all members of the project. The Novels Project now has 128 active members. 17 positions remain unfilled at the Job Centre. Members who are active project contributors are encouraged to apply even if they can only fill a position for a short time. The His Dark Materials task force has been set up, and the role of coordinator has been undertaken by Pmlinediter. Project news On April 7, a fact about novelist Karin Bang appeared on the main page in the DYK section. On April 10, a fact about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies written by Seth Grahame-Smith appeared on the main page in the DYK section. On April 23, a fact about the protagonist Cousin Betty in Honoré de Balzac's La Cousine Bette appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column. On April 25, a fact from the article Blanca Olmedo written by Lucila Gamero appeared on the main page in the DYK section. On June 9, a fact from The Fox and the Hound by Daniel P. Mannix appeared on the main page in the DYK section. On June 15, a fact from The Road to Yuba City by Tracy Kidder appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column. - Contributors are Alan16, (who searched the archives). Task force and related news His Dark Materials task force has begun. This task force is dedicated to improving all articles in the scope of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. The main purpose of this taskforce is to expand, cite, and promote all articles in scope of the series. They welcome any advice or help that members of WikiProject Novels may be able to offer. If interested, drop a note on their talk page. – Position of editor for the task force has been undertaken by Pmlinediter. Peer review and assessment news Peer Reviews are still open for seven articles – The Last of the Masters, The Kindly Ones, Flowers for Algernon, World War Z, Sector General, Petals of Blood, and Scenes of Clerical Life. Feel free to submit any novel-related article that you are working on for review, and please consider stopping by and reviewing an article, as we need more reviewers for our articles! – the_ed17 (talk) and Alan16 (talk) Member in Focus Hi, I have been a member of this project for a few months now, and after finally gotten to grips with Wikipedia I have decided to take on the role of writing this newsletter (currently by myself, but any help would be appreciated) with some helpful tips from The Ed17. After undertaking this I realise why it was so difficult to keep it going. I will, however, persevere. From the members, I would encourage you to vote in the Coordinator elections, and take up roles at the Job Centre. The project has struggled recently, and I am hoping to try and revive it. If, with the publication of this newsletter, there are a couple of things that aren't quite up-to-date (like the Collaboration part), you can be certain I am working on it. I will be trying to get a newsletter out on around the 21st of every month. Finally, thanks for the help Ed. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Current debates A Kenneth Oppel task force has been proposed. You can comment here. Oppel is a Canadian author who specialises in Young adult fiction. Novel related news American writer Michael Hemp wins the 2009 Next Generation Indie Book Award in the Action/Adventure category for his novel, The Nadjik Pheromone. From the Outreach Department This is my first attempt at the newsletter, and I hope it at least gets close to the previous high standards set by Kevinalewis and The Ed17. I will once again encourage you to vote in the Coordinator elections, as I hope it could be the springboard to revitalise the project. I'll keep working on the newsletter, partially because I like the stress, and partially because we need it to get members and would-be members interested. Hopefully the start of great things. Regards, Alan. Collaboration of the Month Because there has been little activity on our Collaboration page for a long time, I have made an executive decision, and chosen The Tin Drum as our Collaboration of the month. All members are asked to assist where they can. The next collaboration is due for selection on 21 July, 2009 so nominate and vote. Newsletter challenge This month's article is Mindplayers by science fiction author Pat Cadigan. It is a previous, uncompleted challenge. Announcements and open tasks WikiProject Novels • (inc. novellas, novelettes & short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss • changes) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured article): 33 achieved Novels WikiProject Peer reviews: • Sector General • Petals of Blood • Flowers for Algernon Improve: Oberon Old and New • The Age of Reason • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon Create: To the Vanishing Point • Spoilt City Recently a new worklist had been created and quietly arrived, the Cleanup listing which gives a fairly comprehensive hit list of "novels" related articles that have been tagged for something or other. Since then a new Article alerts listing has also been added of more topic and "urgent" items worthy of our attention.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Human rights in the United States. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely not expand the sentence in a short lede sentence describing the U.S. Constitution that "that African slaves, Native Americans, women, poor people, etc. weren't included", nor would I include the far more notable historical world pioneering precedents it set for the guaranteeing of human rights in that sentence. Rather, I would just go with the simple NPOV "The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, created a democracy that guaranteed guaranteed several rights and civil liberties."Mosedschurte (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jz12345678, beautiful, just beautiful. Pico was the missing link, and I want to thank you for reminding me of it. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, could not figure out how to use this page, I am new here. I appreciate your writing and discussion style. I actually came to Wikipedia looking to contribute something on computers, but then I saw that human rights was on the table and could not resist it. I believe that we have some commonality of perspective, since you are struggling to enter the Katrina in. I just tried to enter a section about Los Angeles in, and it was deleted without any comment at all, which I find to be an unusual discussion style. HOwever, since I am not interested in waisting my time on such, I moved it for the time being to my talk page, and I am seeking any comments, suggegtions how to present it, and also abotu the mechanics of working in this platform. Jz12345678 (talk)Jz12345678

Aloha and welcome. I would be happy to take a look at it in the next few days, as I'm somewhat indisposed at the moment. I believe the information you are referring to concerns the Rampart Scandal. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. To begin, every member of WikiProject Novels will be getting this message (the joy of macros) so if you wish to get in touch with me, please post a message on my talk page. I would encourage anyone who so wishes, to stand in the Coordinator Elections. If you wish to stand, please do so by 23:59pm, June 27. Voting will the continue to 23:59pm, July 21. Can everyone please check-out the Coordinator Elections page. Also, the collaboration of the month is The Tin Drum, so if you have any spare time, please check it out. And I apologise to the seven of you for whom this will be a repeat message. Regards, Alan16 (talk).

(originally left at my talk page) You have the rules of evidence backwards, my friend. On Wikipedia, WP:V is all that matters, unless you have reliable sources to the contrary. If you don't, then you need to self-revert. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

please see the article's talk page and discuss there. --Unconcerned (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I already did. Please see my talk page heading for further info. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this is not some attempt at snarky sarcasm by me, but a sincere request. just a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) spill over into other articles? I've honestly attempted to significantly disengage from the Human rights in the United States article already because of the contentious editing there (not blaming anyone in particular) and am attempting to spend less time on Wikipedia overall.

I truly believe -- all B.S. aside, and no blame on either party in this particular statement -- that we would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles. By this, I don't mean that anyone has to admit any right or wrong. Just a general agreement not to let such disputes spill into other articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, I wanted to renew the original request, a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) in Human rights in the United States spill over into other articles. We would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do, but I won't be able to get to it for a half hour or so. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, verified. Thanks. It's too bad that it had to come to this. I have no idea why NYScholar won't conform to basic wikiquette, but I see no other alternative at this time. I hope that the user will be able to change their ways and return refreshed. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My first choice remains a ban, because I believe that history shows that NYScholar is too stubborn to change his/her behaviour. Two things that all the ANI threads I cited have in common are i. NYScholar is, by a factor of several, the most prolific commenter on there, and ii. NYScholar does not, anywhere in the thousands of words, acknowledge any fault whatsoever. That said, if you want to propose an alternative for the consideration of other admins, I won't argue against it; at this point, my major concern is that the community be aware of the problem and be willing to do something to address it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Ani#Open_WP:Wikihounding_by_User:Viriditas for the specific section. Exxolon (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Per admin request, this was changed to an RfCU here.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please ask an experienced editor/administrator to help you format it per RFC conventions. Viriditas (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am one of the developers of the NICE tool and the related study's contact person. I hope you have been finding the modification helpful so far. We have been gathering users for a little over a month now, but we haven't gotten as many users as we had hoped. We'd appreciate it if you would share the NICE tool with any editors that might find it useful. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try making {{Wikipedia ads}} to advertise the tool? Then, give NICE users the option to place the banner on their talk page to attract new users. Viriditas (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I'll bring it up to the others so that we can get a nice little ad designed. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far! Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The ad we came up with has been added. You can see it on the NICE page. Thanks for the suggestion! --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.

3 users are standing:

• Alan16 (talk · contribs)
• Kevinalewis (talk · contribs)
• Pmlinediter (talk · contribs)

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at MPerel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have my sympathies for the crap you're going through right now. I've been through the same thing; a known tendentious editor--or three, I guess--using the standard shotgun method: throw enough shit against a wall and see what sticks. My suggestion is to not dignify it by giving it any attention; treat it as below contempt. Should it start gaining traction due to the usual Wikipedia herd mentality, then deal with it. Otherwise best to let it die a slow death. → ROUX ₪ 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Roux. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit less stridency and attack dog mentality (my perception on the receiving end) would go a long way. Unwillingness to accept good faith versions of situations (versus bad faith interpretations) and dealing with disagreements with belligerence (my perception on the receiving end) do no good for anyone in the end. To Roux, I'm sorry, but I did nothing to deserve being beaten about the head repeatedly as I was by Viriditas (my perception on the receiving end). I informed Viriditas of his misperception and the beatings continued for quite some time (my perception on the receiving end). I do not take kindly to being beaten about the editorial head. My two cents, editors aren't obliged to place any stock in my observations or advice. PētersV       TALK 02:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Viriditas (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no constructive purpose to replaying "Put up or shut up" and expressions of derision in commenting on editor's postings or accusations I responded to "backchannel canvassing", am a "meat puppet," et al. If I correctly take your response to mean "prove it," I'll post diffs at the RfCU—which until now I was quite content to ignore. PētersV       TALK 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there is already an RFC section, I'm going to post here. I wanted to remind you that it would be a good idea to begin filling out the response section in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas. "In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration." [7] At this point in time, I strongly doubt that an admin will close the RFC for being inappropriate since none of the admins have done anything about it on the board. The board is pretty well patrolled, so I doubt it is lack of eyes. Cheers, Sifaka ^talk 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why you are contacting me, when in two prior instances I requested the assistance of an uninvolved administrator. Are you an uninvolved administrator? No. Then, please stop giving me your opinions. I think I was clear the first two times I said this. In any case, I have already responded to every aspect and every question about every diff in the content dispute masquerading as an RfC. My responses are found in the original discussions where they took place. Since that time, my comments were isolated and removed from the full context of the original discussion, and deliberately placed in the bogus RfC as part of the usual crud flood from Mosedschurte/Yachtsman1 to try and promote a POV that does not exist. This is the usual civil POV pushing strategy, and this disruptive behavior has not changed since I first brought it to the attention of the noticeboards in May, and since it was first described in multiple reports by other users on the noticeboards in 2008. Those are the facts. This bogus RfC was filed to distract away from the POV pushing and plagiarism I have identified in multiple articles. I hope that clears up the situation for you. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, there appears to be no rule that limits who can reply to comments on ANI. I am merely trying to be helpful. Not following recommended procedures in an RFCU, even if you think it is in bad faith, tends to be viewed poorly and could affect the outcome of later dispute resolution. Also, I would also encourage you to be more civil in your replies. Because you have indicated it is unwelcome, I will cease providing help to you from now on unless you ask specifically. Sifaka ^talk 07:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I am perfectly civil. Just because I get to the point and let you know exactly where I'm coming from without any beating around the bush doesn't make me incivil. And just because you disagree with me, doesn't make me incivil. I courteously requested the opinion of an uninvolved administrator. You aren't one, but you continued to reply to me with your opinion, in effect ignoring my request. Now, who is incvil here, the person making the request and expressing their displeasure with being ignored, or the editor ignoring the request over and over? If you thought you were trying to help me, then thank you for thinking of me, but I feel it is more important to listen to other editors and respect their wishes. Call me incivil for thinking this, if you wish. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Busted for what? That account belongs to my roommate and it's a bad faith assumption to try and "bust" me when it is perfectly acceptable for more than one person in a household to have a Wikipedia account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Could you point me to talk page where you have admitted to this before now? Why does your roommate edit the same articles as you, use the same, exact language as you, and why does your roommate revert for you to avoid 3RR? You know of course, that the checkusers hear the "that account belongs to my roommate" excuse at least 100 times a day, and that for all intents and purposes, sockpuppets and meatpuppets are treated as one and the same, right? Tell you what, instead of putting you through the ringer, here's your chance to confess to the community and admit you've been using sockpuppets to avoid the 3RR. I highly doubt your "roommate" has the same verbal skills as you do, and edits the exact same articles. It's beyond obvious that you've been using this account to avoid the 3RR regardless of who else uses it. Fess up now, or I pursue this. The jig is up. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it never occurred to you that two people that have known each other for 35 years, grew up together and remain close have similar interests. No, I do not use a second account, my roommate has a Wikipedia account and factually, when I was unable to see following eye surgery not long ago, did in fact work on a project removing actor awards from infoboxes when she stayed home with me. There has never been a time when needing to disclose that publically was a necessity and for reason pertaining to issues that certain bureaucrats and oversight have had to deal with, did not feel it was something that she needed to be exposed to. However, I can name at least four editors who do know that LaVidaLoca is my friend, that being Pinkadelica, Rossrs and two others who do know and would more than willingly make a statement to that effect. You'll probably find that all four of them also edit a great number of articles in common but all of us, I am sure, edit different ones, although not all of us edit the same amount of time. We also have reverted vandalism and issues on the same articles over some issue, but that doesn't make us the same person either, or working to avoid 3RR. I believe that Rossrs and Pinkadelica at least have traded emails with her when I was effectively blind. We don't use the same computer, but we do use the same connection. I'm know there are times that she's agreed with me on something and has tried to help me avoid stress so that my blood pressure doesn't cause another vitreal bleed which obscures my sight. I edit far more articles and have much more time to do so because of health reasons. I know that at least one bureaucrat knows as well, because of issues related to the oversight. I do not doubt that she will gladly confirm what I've said when she comes home in the morning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why many of the edit summaries use the exact same language as you, language that is fairly unique to your verbal style and is somewhat rare. Even if your roommate uses this account, it is obvious that you are either sharing the account or making use of it together. Having your roommate revert for you on the same computer is treated the same as a sockpuppet by the checkusers. Another thing that doesn't make sense: You say, "We don't use the same computer, but we do use the same connection." Could you point me to overlapping edits in your contribution history? From a cursory glance, it looks like you've gone through some effort to make it seem like they are separate accounts with no overlapping edits. If you do edit from different computers but on the same connection, are you saying you are both never online at the same time? IMO, that fact alone contradicts your claim. If I assume that this is a separate account used by your roommate, then I must also assume that you have been using it. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reread what I said above. We use the same IP connection. There is no reason why we would have two separate internet access accounts in the same house. She has used a laptop ever since she bought it, whenever that was last year, I use a desktop. She has also probably edited from work and from where she lived prior to being here with me. She became a lot more active and interested in Wikipedia after the issue that oversight dealt with occurred. I do not have my roommate revert for me, although she probably has on occasion reverted on the same article at different points. I don't pay attention much of the time that she and I are home and awake at the same time as to if we both edit on Wikipedia at the same time. She works the night shift. I am disabled and do not work outside the home. I certainly would be happy to look, but understand that cross checking across pages for times and posts, or talk pages with extensive talk sections, is a difficult thing for me to do quickly and easily, which I why I don't especially like to get involved in posting things that involved using diffs. I know there was at least a couple times that she worked on something at the same time I was working on something fairly recently. As for the language use analysis, that's fairly POV unless you have training in that area. She probably has a better vocabulary. There is nothing that I can say that will convince you otherwise, or deter you from doing what you intend to do. I won't admit to being the same person as her, if that is your goal, because it isn't true. For what it's worth, concerning the sock accusation that was made about you on the RFCU, I didn't endorse it and I don't support it. I went clearly on the record that I thought it wasn't correct. I do have issues with my perception of your conduct on the Jonestown article, but by the time I came home yesterday evening, it was too late to post a response about it as it had been deleted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you, Wildhartlivie, ever used the LaVidaLoca (talk · contribs) account? Yes or no? Looking through the user contributions, it appears that you have used this account for various purposes, including avoiding 3RR, and that you did this recently on Jonestown. If you admit to it, all that I ask is that you post a message on the AN board saying that you made an error in judgment and that you won't do it again, and that you will not be making any more reverts with the LavidaLoca account or edit warring on any articles where you edit with the Wildhartlivie account, or making comments on the same talk pages or project space pages to support or oppose any type of discussion or voting. I think that the specific edits and the exact language used by both accounts show that you have been using two accounts, regardless of who owns the accounts. I also don't see any overlapping edits, making it seem like you intentionally tried to blur the line between the two accounts, which doesn't make sense if the account is only used by your roommate. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• V, you're probably not helping your cause much here. File an SPI if it's that clear, otherwise disengaging would seem to be the wise course. → ROUX ₪ 10:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Will do, as it is that obvious. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not used that account, and I said that earlier. And no, you are completely wrong regarding LaVidaLoca and Jonestown. The history on Jonestown shows that I did revert what that editor did about 7 am my time. She took up the issue about the picture placement a couple hours later and dealt with issues that came up. When I got up, she told me about what that editor had been doing and how he/she acted. But there was no 3RR issue involved and when she was done with that, she said she was fed up with hearing about the whole Jonestown thing. Her account and my account have not been involved in edit warring. I don't remember her ever being involved with projects or voting polls and according to her contributions, she's never posted to any Wikipedia: pages except three Requests for page protection, once on Third opinion, once on Administrator intervention against vandalism, once when she changed her username a year ago and a couple posts at the Help desk. It isn't reasonable to ask me to stay away from any articles that she might edit or vice versa. I can't see that you ever intended to not file an SPI about this, but maybe you were hoping to back me into a corner and make me admit something that isn't true. Asking for a checkuser is fruitless since I've said we use the same IP connection, but I don't use her account. There is no policy prohibiting two people using the same IP from having Wikipedia accounts. That one person occasionally edits, very occasionally edits, isn't going to produce the massive concurrent editing you seem to think should be present. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does the LaVidaLoca account always seem to show up when you are out of reverts, and why do the edit summaries match in both phrasing and language choice, with particular word usage and grammar that only you use? It is certainly possible that she uses her own account now and then, but I think there is enough evidence showing that you use the same account to avoid 3RR. I had no intention of taking this to SPI, but since you refuse to admit that you have used the account, Roux has suggested that I submit a SPI. Again, if you want to come clean on this, I'll hold off. I can't see how you can explain away the 3RR evasions and the exact, identical language, phrasing, and grammar in select edit summaries, perhaps even talk page contributions. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

V... holding an SPI over someone's head is a really, really bad idea. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up; either file an SPI and see what it proves/disproves, or stop making the accusation, as that counts as personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to do so, but the user returned here again and started up the discussion. I don't see anything wrong with asking questions to try to understand why the accounts are so similar. But I will try and file the SPI now. I wasn't trying to hold it over his head. I was genuinely interested in his rationale. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

V, you really are only hurting your cause here (and on AN/I). → ROUX ₪ 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• When one accosts the universe with the attitude that it is arrayed against them (my perception), it eventually realigns itself to meet expectations. Such alignments are never for the better, speaking from personal experience. An observation I thought worth sharing. PētersV       TALK 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

PetersV, thanks for your interest, but if I need a Greek chorus, I'll let you know. And please, fix your sig. Your displayed user name doesn't match your account name. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No chorus intended. I'll think about the matching name, though—as I use my real name—if someone does a web search on my last name I would prefer they not be overwhelmed with web-metastasized Wiki content. Most other WP users don't have that concern. PētersV       TALK 00:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We previously discussed this, so I hope you understand my concerns. When I see a sig, I expect that user name to be associated with a user page. Yours isn't, and is somewhat confusing because you are referred to by user name in many places (for example, in an arbcom case), not by your sig. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)