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.
I am sorry I mis-read “Photographed by Dr. William Tufts Brigham , director of the Bishop Museum, in 1891.” Anyway would the copy right still be upheld if it is copyrighted 1968?
72.234.223.116 (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas, I am looking at my watchlist and it showed vandalism to Pele done by "Makana Chai." Has someone hijacked my name? What should I do? I've looked around WP policies incl. user names and don't see this. Thanks for your help. Makana Chai (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Aloha, don't worry, looks like a simple error. From what I can tell you reverted what you thought was vandalism, but was actually an IP cleaning up prior vandalism, and you were reverted as a result. Not a problem, false positives come along with the territory. Does this make sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The vandalism was added by User:64.166.145.2. The other IP reverted, but you got the two confused and reverted the wrong one. Makana, this kind of thing happens and it isn't a big deal. Any editor who reverts vandalism on a daily basis is going to make this mistake now and again. To try and prevent this, I often go back and check my work. No biggie. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm humbly and politely calling you on WP:1RR re repeated removal of the See Also secton from Ballon Boy - I didn't re-insert it between your two removals, but I did put in in originally, and I did start the related section on the talk page well PRIOR to your repeated removals. I think you should have made your argument there (at least made your argument there AS WELL). Anyhow, I don't care enough to fight about it, and I'm only here writing this 'cos you've got the 1RR userbox on your page. :-) --Jaymax (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for not informing you of this. I wasn't sure whether to or not as my intention is not for your behaviour to be discussed there (and it has not been) but solely to try and get the help of other editors to better explain why adhering to WP:BLP very important as it's clear my explanations were not working. On further consideration, it would have been best to inform you Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Counterculture of the 1960s
Hi, and good to meet you. I've done quite a bit of edit work on the article today, and would like to do more. Please look at each edit, and hopefully you will like what you see. I do quite a bit of editing on the Civil Rights Movement and other related topics. I'm a '60s person myself, and lived and saw much of what I've read in your fine article. More soon, I just wanted to touch base with you. Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
File:LoihiBathemetric.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:LoihiBathemetric.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:LoihiBathemetric.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I knew but it was necessary
With so many people howling for blood, so many people who want to fast forward to a conviction before there's even been an indictment. I think what I said bears detailed repetition.
Next time I will write it uniquely instead of cut and paste. But I will remind that this cannot be called a hoax until it is a judiciated fact. WP cannot afford to take chances and take a future libel lawsuit the way our sources can.
Thank you for your friendly message on the NV talk page. I didn't want to reply there because I the discussion was long enough as it is, so I'd rather keep this "meta-talk" here. It is of course up to you if you'd like to log out, but I'd be happy if you could stay. For one, you are probably more knowledgeable than I about NV.
But it might also be a good thing for yourself. Gandhi called his autobiography "the story of my experiments with truth" for a reason. It is only when we expose ourselves to truth that we embody satyagraha. Truth can be inconvenient - just like the "woes of third class passengers", but embracing it makes us stronger, because it means that we have to work on ourselves.
In this context, I would like to bring up a little issue, which was when you you provided a reference to a page without making it clear which part of it you are referring to. I may be able to find something that supports your point on the page you're linking to, but remember that you're not only writing for me. This is interesting in this context because ironically you wrote shortly before that how easy it is to cite references. I'm not holding that against you; my point is just that we all make such mistakes, and we all need an open minded interaction with each other to become aware of it, and not to judge others who make the same mistakes. I know that's sometimes hard here, because we don't see the people we talk with. But the advantage over person-to-person conversation is that it's all written down, so we can go back to what we wrote, and reexamine it from the safe distance of time. Often I'm embarrassed to find that I overlooked some vital point in the rush. So, this discussion is a great chance for growth, and I hope you stay there.
I agree with and support what you write except for your criticism of my use of sources. My statement in regards to this point was originally made as a request for a quote from another editor. In my case, no quote was requested of me, and I did not provide one, so your analogy does not hold. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't give up! I just mentioned it's pov to put their points way up in the lead. I also just deleted the who section on property damage, which remained unref'd after I put up a tag in august. That'll give them something to do. Gandhi didn't say "don't fight" - just do it nonviolently :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Carol. I've looked at the recent discussion, and I was surprised to find repeated attacks made upon my character and my motives by Jrtayloriv in my absence. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I didn't read the talk page carefully enough to notice. Just went in to article itself and cleaned out most WP:OR unsourced and wp:undue stuff and then suggested if they really want criticism they re-create the criticism section I'd largely gutted and summarize such criticisms in the bottom of the lead. So let's see if they want to do that work. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I ran across the Colorpulse video a month ago or so when it was linked on Boingboing - nice stuff. What sort of work is needed on the article? Arjuna (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a to-do list on the talk page. There's also room for improvements in prose flow, descriptions of the video, etc. There's new information in the recent GeekDad column that I've linked to in further reading. I haven't had a chance to add the material yet, so have at it. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this Article. I have been fighting to get information for this project included on Carl Sagan's page, and now with your article I was able to link to a very well sourced and well created page. It's included in the end of Sagan's popularization of Science thread. 204.17.31.126 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good Viriditas. Are you going to re-add the John Boswell article I started instead of re-directing to Symphony of Science? I guess I should have called it Symphony of Science instead because I didn't see an article about that at the time either. A friend of mine had sent me the video and I thought it was great and, since it was such an internet sensation, figured Boswell deserved some Wikipedia recognition. I wouldn't mind getting some recognition for starting John Boswell (Musician) article but not a big deal. Superswade (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm still waiting on major media coverage on just Boswell. So far, with the exception of a very brief mention in a local paper and several technology blogs, we have nothing. The new biography page on Boswell's site is self-published and doesn't really count towards our goal of finding secondary source coverage. For an example of the kind of information we are looking for in a biography, take a look at other YouTube stars, like Tay Zonday, or anyone listed in Category:American Internet personalities. The thing is, Boswell is trying to keep the attention on Symphony of Science on purpose, so he is not what we would classify as an "Internet personality". So, if we are going to have a biography of his work as a composer, we need better sources. So far, most (if not all) of the sources on the subject concern they Symphony of Science project. I started this article in my user space at 01:16, 25 October[1]. You created the article on Boswell at 09:48, 25 October[2], however by 02:09, the article in my user space looked like this. When I finally noticed your article in main space around 12:04, Symphony of Science looked like this and I redirected what you had here. As you can see, prior to the redirect, your version at 09:57[3] didn't include any information that wasn't already found in Symphony of Science, and more importantly, lacked secondary sources. I'm hoping we can correct this problem in the next few weeks with better sources. But for now, I think the biography should stay in the Symphony of Science article. If and when we do remove the redirect and restore the biography article, your "credit" will still appear as the creator, so that hasn't changed. I suppose we could ask an administrator to do a history merge into the new article, but I suspect we will need your biography in the near future. But, the fact remains, at present, Boswell is known for the compositions related to Symphony of Science, not as a composer. If you don't agree, I suggest we bring this up on the BLP noticeboard or some other board and let others decide on what we should do. But keep in mind, the sources you created the original article with were not sufficient, and the article would have been a candidate for deletion if it had not been redirected. The question remains, is this still true? I would answer yes, but I may be adhering to a strict interpretation of the policy, so perhaps we should get other opinions. I'm not concerned about the outcome, but I am trying to prevent the deletion and duplication of content. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:John Boswell.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:John Boswell.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing personal
I would like to make it clear to you that i am not part of a tag team. I was merely attempting to get an outside opinion on what seems to be an endless discussion. I re-affirm that i find you an excellent editor and enjoy your edits. I do not like edit wars and as such will refrain (as hard as it will be) from commenting on the talk page for around 24 hours. We dont always assume good faith in other editors (even though we should) and as such i am sorry for calling you a wanker. I look forward to discussing the matter further in due time. Once again nothing personal and i hope oneday we will be on the same side in an argument as you are a worthy opponent/adversary. ZooPro13:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me where I can find lectures: yes, this is a new, if ephemeral, medium for experts. These are often very good, and I've recorded some onto DVD. Sadly, I've noticed older lectures (at MIT at least) have been removed: lectures by famous teachers.
Though my health prevented my teaching longer, my explanations of geology and of thermodynamics were always simplified by unpublished thoughts and theorems. They're supposed to be. This is what makes teaching fun: when clarifying a difficult or complicated topic, original discoveries can be made. One is free to do this at schools, podcasts, & in monographs. The painful aspect is that this is very hard, and this is why some universities require active research by their professors. Non-experts are very likely wrong in making up their own explanations. It can't be permitted. (Unfortunately it's common, for even some teachers misunderstood what they once learned.)
Original research
In my field, petrologists for years calculated 'normative values' in complicated ways. Now, I can explain why & how they calculated each with linear geometry (a wave of my hands). But that would be original research. Because almost no one understands them, there is consequently no article on norms.
Self reference
Ironically, whole post-graduate courses are given on constructing p,T-diagrams using some rules by F.A.H. Schreinemakers Schreinemaker's analysis. One really always knows reaction coefficients: using these, I published an abstract that showed how to construct a digram in less than a minute. If one doesn't know such coefficients, I published another article with a trivial, very fast algorithm based on one of Schreinemakers' rules, which I proved. Unfortunately, no one has used either (the sources are obscure); so I should be the only reference. :-)
However, I see no alternative. 'SlimVirgin's suggestion of 'challenging' a statement could be developed, but I don't see how.
This was not the case in encyclopedias with carefully selected experts, who edited one another. The best reference for 'Dimensional Analysis' - which I think I could clarify in terms of projective geometry :-( - is P.W. Bridgman's article on it in an older Encyclopedia Britannica. In summary, we all want to read clear & definitive articles, but those we want to write them may the discouraged by the necessary requirements for an open encyclopedia (which one doesn't want egalitarian, like USENET).
Hi Viriditas, I saw your note on Anna's page and just wanted to say: if you are tempted to start articles about endemic Hawaiian gastropods but need some help, please let me know. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Does your WikiProject actively collaborate with other groups? I would like to identify how many of Hawaii-related articles currently fall under your scope, and possibly break this down further as part of a Hawaiian biota project or task force. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm in. Odd jobs and bit work would be great at first as I have a few projects on the go here and my time is a bit short. Just point me in the right direction. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It's always pleasant to have the opportunity to sincerely compliment another's work, entirely apart from any disputed issues, and I do! Your overall cleanup of the talk page for medical cannabis improved it dramatically, I find. I appreciate that, and likewise appreciate the fairness with which you completed the job on a controversial subject. Nice work! Ohiostandard (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Matriarchy
My editing the Matriarchy page was not an experiment, though the first couple edits were misdone. In my most recent edit, I looked at the patriarchy page to see its top definition and applied it to matriarchy. I fail to see how this is a problem. Kayanami (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Portal:Hawaii had not been updated in a while, so I worked on it a bit today. Hope I did not do too much damage. You suggested a while back to use transclusion with the DYK list so that we do not need to have seven or eight places where they are kept. I read up on the parser features and did something to that effect. The page now with the active list is Portal:Hawaii/Did you know and the talk page is just a talk page. Please let me know what you think. Mahalo. W Nowicki (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
18 November 2009: It seems to me that the large banner devoted to Zoology is inappropriate on the Neuroethology page. One could argue that Neuroethology is a subset of Neuroscience, which includes psychology, neurobiology, linguistics, congnitive science, and neurology, rather than a subset of zoology. For that reason, I had moved the large Zoology logo, which was something of a distractor, and moved it to the bottom of the page. Instead I replaced it with an image of an echolocating bat, which is more symbolic of one of the field of Neuroethology. Let me know if you agree? User:cdh8—Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
Neuroethology is part of the Zoology series template, where it is linked, and series templates are used in either the header or a subsection, not in the footer. I'm not going to revert you, but the large series template doesn't go in the footer. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I usually try to ignore her, and sometimes play along and respond to all the accounts as if they were separate people, but it can really tire me out. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Good morning. You nominated this article for GA. I'm willing to review it if you have the time to respond to any concerns that might arise. Drop me a line on my talk page if/ when you're ready to proceed and I'll make it official. HJMitchellYou rang? 08:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I may need some help, from either you or the primary editors. I don't know the topic all that well, but it was in pretty good shape when I originally nominated it. But, whatever. I'll learn as I go. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Join the club! I can always hold it open for a while if there are any issues that need addressing. I'll start the review now if that suits you but I may not be able to finish it in one session but I'll return to it later today if need be! HJMitchellYou rang? 08:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I've made some initial comments on the review page, the main issues are references (which should turn up, he's not exactly unknown!) and prose (which is easily fixed, I'll copyedit it myself later on). Don't feel obliged to address the comments immediately, I'm not in a rush. Oh, and I'll watch your page from now on, so you don't have to open mine for the talkback templates! Until later, HJMitchellYou rang? 10:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Re:Re: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
Okay, I agree, we attribute each source, but in this case, lets attribute ALL three sources then. It's all or nothing. :-) --Rockstone (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, the reason for the attribution is that the statement was obvious speculation, and of all the news sources, only fox made that claim. A few other have quoted a sceptic making that claim. But one editor repeatedly insisted on inserting it, and apparently fox news is supposed to be a reliable source? Therefore it was more important to point out that the quote express fox news' view. So we put it like that as a temporary solution until we found a better source, but then we both got tagged with 3rr notices and so the edit stayed in the article. However, both quote and attribution should be removed, since there is now a better source and the issue is elaborated in the next section of the article (Mann and von Storch part). That deals directly with that email and is better sourced (to wall street journal i think). —Apis (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Scibaby
I have just indef blocked three more Scibaby socks which were wasting your time. Why don't you get sysoped and then you can block your own? --BozMotalk09:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That cite is already in the article, and no, it doesn't say that. It says 80% of similar incidents are done by insiders, and it's an opinion attributed to a security expert. It has no bearing on this incident, other than it's an opinion of someone who wanted to mention their experience with similar cases. Please remember to attribute all opinions and not to portray opinions as fact. Further discussion is on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The edit I did was not original research nor did it come from primary sources. Rather than get into a source war, I thought I'd put in the stub of what should be the dominant portion of the article and see if anybody else could help with sourcing. The Pajamas Media news group has a piece out by a Colorodo computer scientist doing some preliminary analysis. Reason Magazine has a piece that relies heavily on statistician William Brigg's ongoing analysis efforts. CBS News also has an item on the programmer end of things that refers to three further ongoing code reviews from various perspectives.
You could nit pick all three of these sources which is why I did not include them. But they do demonstrate that your tags are wrong. TMLutas (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
How could the tags possibly be wrong if 1) you added the material without sources and made analytical statements about the primary sources without any supporting sources, and 2) the tag specifically requests verification of the primary source. So, now that you are offering sources (the entire purpose of the tag), let's see what you've got: 1) A partisan, conservative/libertarian blog post by Charlie Martin from Pajamas Media, titled "Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story: The "Read Me" file of a harried programmer who couldn't replicate the scientists' warming results." 2) A partisan, libertarian blog post by science editor for Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey titled, "Climategate" -- Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us?" Bailey has been campaigning against anthropogenic climate change for almost two decades. 3) A partisan, libertarian blog post by Declan McCullagh of CBS News. McCullagh, like Bailey and Martin, has been writing articles promoting the cause of global warming skepticism since at least June of 2009. So what have you offered? Three incredibly biased, anti-anthropogenic climate change pundits, who have published op/ed's on their blogs and in no way, shape, or form pretend to be neutral on the subject. Do you think that meets the standard for neutral, authoritative, and accurate reliable sourcing? Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It isn't original research if I'm going from sources, weak so far so I didn't actually put them up. It's an understandable confusion which is why I put up the weak sources on your page so you could see that, indeed I did have sources, just not ones that are likely to pass muster on the page. A fact tag, seeking citations was added and I didn't protest that. The section's been pulled so I'm regrouping but I think that the material should go back in after some improvement. TMLutas (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It depends on the material and how you use the sources. Please note, the OR tag had a question mark on the end. Either way, the stronger your sources, the more likely the material will be preserved in the article. If you make an effort to report on the subject in a neutral manner, using neutral sources, it is unlikely the material will be removed. This means covering both sides of the story. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Replied in several places, and I've elevated the proposed guideline to a style guideline per stability of current version and based on older discussions. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter-Proxy
Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Andi 3ö's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I just noticed your posts to the review page. As I said there, I made only a cursory check of the refs before making preliminary comments and wasn't aware of just how bad it was. Would you like me to leave it on hold, if so, I'm happy to do so, or will the nom have to be withdrawn? The decision's yours. HJMitchellYou rang? 11:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The phrasing "British American" is fine, it's just the link to the article about Americans born with British ancestry that is the problem. If somebody relinks it in good faith, it can easily be removed again. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
V.V. Ashford picture and questions
Hi again I was wondering if I can upload a picture of V.V. Ashford from
[4]?
Also I wanted to upload a photo from the book I mentioned earlier, it says it was from (taken by the) the U.S. Navy.
Also are pictures from the Archives of Hawaii, also from the book, is this OK?
Looks ok to me. I assume you plan on crediting Neil Bernard Dukas? BTW, you can always create the article in your userspace first, to avoid having new page patrols tag your new article for deletion. That way, when you are ready to go "live", all you have to do is move the article to mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Loihi and TFA
I know when it's going to be. October ## (FeMO cruise), 2010.
Age
By that time the article will have reached over 1 year since promotion. 1 point.
Timing
Date relevant to topic-next FeMO cruise! 1 point.
Contributor history
Yes I'm a noob, and it's my first one. :P 1 point.
Main page representation
Fits into cats of Volcano and Hawaii. Both are pretty rare so that should be a garunteed, hopefully, 1 point...
Diversity
This is a harder point. In terms of seamounts, it is, as of now, unique; as a volcano though, it shares space with others. But I don't think this is a point we can get...
If you are really that concerned about the change in the title I will change it back, I am not touching that link I don’t want this computer to catch fire (like my last one). Hawaii Samurai (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolution
Ok it looks as though the edits were changed back, I won’t protest, by the way I was thinking of uploading picture form the military, is this in the public domain. Hawaii Samurai (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike Huckabee
If you want to add info back into the political positions section it's ok. But I don't see what would be the point behind that because there is an entire seperate article that talks about Huck's positions.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I finally found a long lost invasion of Hawaii attempt.
Oi, I finally found what I was looking for about the “U.S. invasion of Hawaii” it was the Black Week, see what you think.
I've taken a look at your edits to Barrowman and the review page. it seems to be coming along. How's it going? Is there anything you need from me? If not, I'm watching both pages and I'll just drop in from time to time. Regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The only reason I haven't given up is because of your encouragement. I can see a light at the end of the tunnel, but I sure hope it isn't a train coming straight at me! :) I hope to have the early life section expanded and complete sometime later today or tomorrow. After that comes the hard part, as the acting career sections need to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, anything's possible! If an article can get from this to what it is now (a GA!) anything can and you've got a much better article to start with! Besides, judging by your edit count, I'd guess you have far more experience in the area than I do! I'll hold the review open as long as it takes- we'll get there! HJMitchellYou rang? 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
1) I have no rank, and don't use my length of time here (at least I try not to) against anyone; 2) Pulling rank is generally an inferior method of argument (see argument from authority); 3) Drolz is either a new user or is confused about the place and will learn the ropes in time, or is quite possibly a returning user who will never respect the policies and guidelines that make this place function, and will be dealt with in due time. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Note on Fresno/Scibaby
I checked the SPI List and it doesn't look like anyone ever started an SPI -- if thats not the case and someone, in fact, did then I apologize, but otherwise its not really proper to add (repeatedly) the tag to his userpage. jheiv (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk page comment
What have I missed here? How is that not a personal vision or philosophical position on truth and instead a lack of one? Brumski (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the out of context quote you added because you are distorting its meaning, and since I wrote it, I know exactly what I said and I do not need to look at it for reference. The full quote can be found here. To begin with, please notice the topic of the discussion, started by User:A Quest For Knowledge. It is "The Truth does NOT matter".[5] Is there a reason you are ignoring this? In any case, you seem to take issue with the statement that "Truth is a perfect ideal that will not be realized in our lifetime." This is a standard observation about the universe and it has nothing to do with any personal philosophy. It's a solid fact. The human lifespan is incredibly short, usually less than a century. Human culture has only been around for 50,000 years and the species itself has existed in its current anatomical form for ~100,000 years. The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and the universe is currently thought to be between 13.5-14 billion years old. For the sake of this argument, if we assume the universe is 13 billion years old and think of this in terms of 13 years to simplify our understanding of our overall significance, then the big bang occurred 13 years ago, the sun and solar system formed 4.5 years ago, the first living organisms on Earth appeared 4 years ago, the Dinosaurs went extinct 3 weeks ago, Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 50 minutes ago, the rise of agriculture occurred 5 minutes ago, the Industrial Revolution took place 6 seconds ago, and we reached the Moon in the last second.[6] And you're on my talk page arguing about the possibility of apprehending "Truth"? Please. In this view, the entire recorded history of civilization has only amounted to 3 minutes out of a 13 year history of the universe, and there is only around four minutes left! Truth is not even up for debate. It's a non-starter. This is not a personal philosophy but an observable fact. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not taking issue with the single line of text you've quoted above and I'm also not even taking issue with your entire comment. I'm not taking issue with anything - when I had read your comment initially it seemed to me like you were asserting that some version of truth was more important than Wikipedia policies, in terms of deciding what should go into articles. You have explained that you were not, so I don't see that there can be anything for me to take issue with. However, I am interested in my interpretation and understanding of things in general and I'm particularly interested in my misinterpretations. When you write "Truth is a perfect ideal that will not be realized in our lifetime. What this means is that we strive for everything that can lead us to truth (or as the Buddhists like to say, points to truth), but not truth itself, since that cannot be grasped, or more to the point, it cannot be verbalized or put into words. Little mouth noises and symbolic language is a poor substitute. Can you do it with math? Maybe, I don't know.", I immediately interpret that to be a philosophy on truth (a vision or version or understanding of truth; something that subscribes to a particular position on truth). Now, my interpretation of that text as a philosophy on truth is obviously wrong, because you disagree that it is, and you wrote it so you should know. As you pointed out, in your opinion I "have greatly distorted and twisted the simple words that I have used, and I find your misreading troubling. I have offered no personal vision or philosophical position on truth, but rather the complete opposite, a lack of one". So, I'm interested in how and why I have misread what to me is a philosophical position on truth but is to you the complete opposite. From your response, it seems like you're saying it's not a philosophy on truth because it is a solid fact and is not even up for debate and isn't a personal philosophy but is instead an observable fact. That seems to be reasoning that it isn't a philosophy on truth because it's a true philosophy on truth. Note that I don't particularly want to argue about this and I don't really care what your position on truth is or isn't (after all, what business is it of mine if it's not being used in place of Wikipedia policies?), but that my interest in this is to know where my misinterpretation is i.e. why the text I have quoted above is not a philosophy on truth and is instead the opposite. Brumski (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? As I said above, the real topic is "Truth does NOT matter", as put forward by User:A Quest For Knowledge. This is essentially a summation of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, however, this policy is interpreted, not in isolation, but along with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Pay special attention to NPOV: "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." I like the part about representing significant views "fairly, proportionately, and without bias." How do you begin to do this? By choosing the best sources. And what are the best sources? Those that are authoritative (reliable authors, definitive, peer-reviewed, editorial oversight), accurate (reputation for fact-checking, reasonable not extremist, free from rumor or personal opinion), and timely. All of these things help us point in the direction of truth, but are not the truth themselves, nor can they be. One of the reasons we use good sources is to help the reader look in the right direction, and verify these things for themselves. That's the key. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd really love it if you could find time to start a draft on the background to the incident. Just a couple of paragraphs would be enough. List some useful sources if you can, but it isn't essential. At this stage I think you should just post a mind-dump that we can focus on. I am really keen to get this into the article if it can be reliably sourced and shown to be useful to understanding the context. --TS00:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(To Viriditas) Except for you, I don't see too many voices of moderation on the talk page for that article. Both sides appear to be really far apart on how the article should be. For example, one side is saying that the AP reporters acted unethically and the other side appears to be saying that reporter's opinions can't be used in the article. I don't know if you noticed, but one side recently refused to allow a report from the NY Times to be used in one of the Global Warming articles, saying that newspapers can't be used in science articles, much to the annoyance of the regulars over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In my opinion, both sides' associated POV's are too strong to enable them to consistently follow Wikipedia's NPOV rule. I've seen this before, over at the Sea of Japan article, which used to be a real mess until it was locked down and both sides eventually gave up arguing with each other on the talk page and left. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
(More). I thought the AP article was written so reasonably and neutrally that it would resolve the disputes between the two parties in that article. When I see the editors involved, however, arguing over the veracity of the article and trying to cherry-pick what can or can't be used from it, again, I believe that both sides' POVs are just too strong to enable effective collaboration. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the reasons why I disagree with Tony about the use of reporter's opinions. Not all of the rebuttals come from other involved or uninvolved scientists, some comes from other observers, including journalists. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JaGatalk19:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Source Evaluation
With regards to source evaluations, its possible I missed something significant in the Wikipedia policies (in fact, due to the overwhelming amount of policy pages, very possible). If you get a second, I'd be interested in reading more. Thanks. jheiv (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I've got my hands full right now, but if there's no time limit on it, I might be able to help out. I can, of course, give it a look, but I'm not sure I can spend as much time on it as I like. Let me see... Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas
Your gift this year: A Fabergé Egg! Originally a Christmas present from King George V to his wife Queen Mary of Teck, then pinched by me from a museum in 1982, and used to hold the window open in my kitchen ever since.
May your Christmas be white and merry. May your table have cheeses and lox. May the gravy be hot and double. May your presents be other than socks. Happy Holidays!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Re ANI
I looked at his first edit upon his return in September, actually, to Glenn Beck, and saw that he was reinstating an edit that he had clearly made as an IP. The IP doesn't show other abuse that I can see, and the motivations seem pretty surface level. Can't know for sure, certainly with such a new account, but I just wanted to clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I simply haven't had enough time to review your edits, but it looks like you are on the right path. Keep asking questions. Find other editors who are actively participating in the topic that interests you and ask them questions. You can also use the {{helpme}} template on your talk page for more direct questions about Wikipedia. Your best bet, however, is to ask questions at the WikiProject noticeboard or talk page. For example, you could make a brief request over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. But, be specific. I don't know exactly what kind of improvement you need. Perhaps you can specify? Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas, between another page I'm involved with here suddenly going "hot" again, and some non-Wikipedia time-demanders, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to tackle our Dr. Strangelove project for a while. Sorry. If you decide to jump into it yourself, best of luck -- I'll watch your progress eagerly. If we wind up doing it together down the road, then that'll be great, too. Either way, thanks again for being interested. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays to you too! Thanks for the book reads. My library finally provided me with the Claude Anshin Thomas book which I read the past few days. My husband saw me reading it and then read it yesterday. Then, last night he took it to give it to a friend who was over. Though I thought the war parts were redundant (and the image of the baby as a bomb sticks in my mind, out! out!) I do find myself being much more observant and mindful, especially when I have strong emotions. So, thank you! I'll order these you mention from the library too. I appreciate your thinking of me. Best wishes, Renee (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, my friend! Hope all is well in the world of Viriditas! Anyhow, just dropping by to see how you're getting on with Barrowman. Anything you need from me? Looks like I'm going for adminship so I might not have as much time on my hands to be available in the mainspace as I'd like! Anyway, drop by if you need anything, I'll be more than happy to oblige if I can. Merry Christmas (again). All the best, HJMitchellYou rang? 20:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks, and Merry Christmas to you, too! I think you'll make a fine admin. I'm going to try and focus on finishing up the article before the first. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if you need anyhting from me. I appreciate your comments. I'd appreciate it even more if you'd make them on the RfA since it's going to be a close one by the looks of it but you shouldn't feel obliged to! All the best, HJMitchellYou rang? 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas/Archive 15! Malvern College is an article you have edited or contributed to concerns an important school. It still needs some urgent attention. If you can help, please see Talk:Malvern College#Lead Section regarding how it may be improved. --Kudpung (talk)
Dunno. Personally I hate those year by year templates at the top. I've linked the years in Jazz in the template at the bottom. I've started 1960 in jazz. I'll probably start some just listing the album releases (notable lists can be found at [7]. Just lists take time to develop but they should definately be started. I've started linking at 1915 but it may date a few years back than this...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat13:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What I'll do is start them with some notable albums first. The albums though will need dabbing later and if red linked and missing can be started later. The lists can then gradually be filled out by you or whoever...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat13:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Understood, but I'm still curious if there's a reason somebody didn't already do it. I can't believe that I'm the only editor who sees new articles come up on their watchlist, but never make it to DYK. I guess house style is to DIY, which is why there is no template. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Congratulations, Barrowman is now a GA! I've updated all the project banners and added the oldid template fro you! So what will you do next? HJMitchellYou rang? 10:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Viriditas, I semi-protected your talk page for 24 hours in response to a request by Tony Sidaway at RFPP. If you would rather it is not protected or would rather the duration was lengthened please feel free to ask me (or any other admin) to make the appropriate change. CIreland (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
In the general flavor of WP:BRD, I've reverted your move of Snowball Earth as I don't think "hypothesis" is part of the common name and there appears to have been no discussion on the move. If you'd like to start a discussion in favor of your renaming, please do so. Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. "Snowball Earth" is the shortened name for what is generally referred to as the Snowball Earth Hypothesis (SEH). You can look at the Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments (2009)[8] for one of many examples. Shortening the name to "Snowball Earth" would be like calling the Rare Earth hypothesis "Rare Earth". This is what happens when editors do not write with readers in mind. When scientists publish papers talking about "snowball Earth", they are talking about the "Snowball Earth hypothesis", and article titles are meant to be explicit. Sure, some experts will leave off the hypothesis because they are talking among their peers who already know the concept is a hypothesis. But we are writing for a general audience, and our subject matter must be clear and concise. I haven't the slightest idea why you would want to remove "hypothesis" from the title. We are in the habit of explaining and informing, so the full title not only makes sense, it's best practice. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that the "Snowball Earth hypothesis/proposal/theory/etc." is merely an expanded (and somewhat pedantic) form of what has become more commonly known as simply "Snowball Earth". Experts sometimes use a longer form, but I do not believe this is the common name either in science or as recognized by the public at large. It is admittedly a very crude metric, but Google suggests there are 19400 websites [9] using "snowball Earth" with "hypothesis" somewhere else on the page and 70300 websites [10] using "snowball earth" without "hypothesis" ever being mentioned. Similarly, the ISI Web of Science reports 68 journal articles using "Snowball Earth hypothesis" in their abstract or title, and 455 journal articles using "Snowball Earth" without the term "hypothesis". This preference for the term "Snowball Earth" alone corresponds to my personal experience. I would also point out that "Snowball Earth" as a noun describing a glaciated world is perfectly understandable regardless of any remaining uncertainties about whether such a glaciated condition actually occurred at some specific time in the past. I also don't see why adding "hypothesis" here adds any more clarity than say "global warming hypothesis" or "big bang hypothesis" or "Homo floresiensis hypothesis". Most things in science are ultimately a hypothesis. In common language some things are explicitly referred as such and some things aren't. In this case I believe the short name is the more common name, and I don't agree that intentionally lengthening it does anything much to improve understanding. Dragons flight (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The term "snowball Earth hypothesis" is used at least eight times in the Wikipedia article alone, and I gave you a link to a current entry about the SEH in an encyclopedia written and compiled by scientists:
The snowball Earth hypothesis (SEH) suggests that the Earth experienced surface temperatures so low that virutally its entire surface was covered by glaciers and/or thick sea ice periodically during its early history. Such a condition has been hypothesized for parts of the Neoproterozoic Era from about 750 million years ago (Ma) to about 500 Ma [...] A similar frozen state has been proposed during the early part of the Paleoproterozoic Era at about 2.300 Ma. There is little evidence of glaciation in the long intervening period but recently Williams (2005) presented evidence for glaciation in the Kimberly region of Western Australia at about 1.800 Ma.[11]
I don't understand why you are talking about personal experience when we have reliable sources. I don't write articles from personal experience, do you? Why would you search for the term SEH in an article title or abstract, when that is the one place where the term would not be used? I very much doubt encyclopedia titles and the titles of article abstracts are equivalent in scope. The former depends on subject accuracy and completeness while the latter is focused on explaining original research in the interests of brevity. The common name for our purposes is the "Snowball Earth hypothesis". The term "Snowball Earth" can refer to other things other than the hypothesis, for example, the Sturtian and Marinoan/Varange glaciation during the Cryogenian period. Notice, in that article, it says, "The deposits of glacial tillite also occur in places that were at low latitudes during the Cryogenian, a phenomenon which led to the hypothesis of deeply-frozen planetary oceans called "Snowball Earth". So, "Snowball Earth" is the shortened "nickname"[12] for the hypothesis explaining the glacial deposition during the Cryogenian period. We don't use nicknames as article titles, we use the full subject name. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should say that my personal experience as a geophysicist is that scientists in papers and presentations don't feel compelled to use the extended form and often do not, and I provided summary data that supported that view. In addition here are three recent high profile scientific papers on the "Snowball Earth" that never say "Snowball Earth hypothesis": in Nature 2008, in Geology 2008 (does say "snowball Earth theory" twice, but mostly no suffix is used) and in PNAS 2000. We have the WP:RM process for disputed moves. I don't think we are likely to convince each other but feel free to use that process to solicit other opinions. Oh, and yes, we do use nicknames when they are the common name, e.g. Bill Clinton (not "William"), Venus de Milo (not "Aphrodite of Melos"), and Guinea pig (not "Cavia porcellus"). Dragons flight (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe I already said that above: "experts will leave off the hypothesis because they are talking among their peers who already know the concept is a hypothesis...we are writing for a general audience, and our subject matter must be clear and concise." We aren't writing for scientists, hence the need to be explicit. This is a general encyclopedia, and our articles are written for a general audience. The term "Snowball Earth" is a nickname, not just for the hypothesis, but for a period of glacial deposition, and the term can be used in different ways. I still don't understand why you are trying to play games with cherry picking sources out of the literature. Apparently, a specialist encyclopedia written by experts wasn't good enough for you. So, here are many papers using the term in the last several years:[13] And, that's the full name for the term, and on Wikipedia, that's the one we use when a nickname can ambiguously refer to multiple subjects. Almost every major definition and treatment of the subject describes it as a hypothesis, but the term can be used to refer to not just the 1) hypothesis of paleoclimatic global-scale glaciation, but also 2) Specific periods in Eath's history, such as the Cryogenian glaciation 3) The general idea of a planet covered in ice, possibly applied to other solar system bodies, such as the planetary satellite, Europa. You say we aren't likely to convince each other, but what you really mean is that the subject is closed for discussion. You didn't move the article from the full name to the nickname for any reason. You moved it because you are right and everyone else is wrong. I moved it because it is the correct and accurate encyclopedic designation for the topic, recently illustrated in the Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments (2009) and other relevant sources linked above. For what it is worth, the encyclopedia entry for SEH was written by Grant M. Young[14], Department of Earth Sciences, University of Western Ontario. Oh, and look at this. Joseph L. Kirschvink calls it "The Snowball Earth Hypothesis". But then, what would he know? Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please calm down a bit. Mostly I suggested you go to RM because we seem to be at an impasse and I need to go things other than Wiki. I believe you are arguing in good faith, and I would hope you would give me the same presumption. I honestly believe that "Snowball Earth" is the common name both in science and in writing for the public. Your reference to the 2009 encyclopedia is interesting but not persuasive for me given the broader context of how the terminology is used. You could just as well have repeated your Google Scholar search excluding "hypothesis" and see there are many more papers not using that word. To the extent that "Snowball Earth" may be said to mean multiple things, there is no reason not to address all of that. I would say that the article should start from the idea of an Earth totally covered in ice and then move to the specific glaciations and theories. If you are suggesting that there is some problem in covering the topic broadly (rather than focusing on just the specific details of the Cryogenian proposal), then I would say that your view of what the article should be is actually too narrow. Dragons flight (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's review: The man who coined the term calls it the "Snowball Earth Hypothesis" and the most current encyclopedic entry on the subject of paleoclimatology calls it the "Snowball Earth hypothesis". Multiple sources refer to the standalone term "Snowball Earth" as a nickname[15] that refers to the Cryogenian glaciation, not just the hypothesis that explains it. And, somehow, my view is "too narrow". Ok, we're done here. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictures
Hi i am updating the Castle_of_Irchonwelzarticle and have mailed the brewery which currently stands on the site for permission to use one of the images from their website, if they say yes then when i upload it which permissions should i put in and how do i add the e-mail granting permission? I am asking as i want to further misunderstandings. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but not all Wikipedians in Hawaii are using the category. Would you like to help me contact them and add them to the category with their permission? Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Li hing mui
Friendly Wiki-neighborhood nudge: Being that it is now 2010, the note on this page that says an image will be provided "soon" that is dated 2008 is nearly TWO years out dated. You also left a comment on my page that you were ready to do that finally, last year. I encourage you to get around to it. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
User:FlagSteward added the original image request on 24 September 2007.[16] I moved this into the project queue on 24 January 2008[17] and I took a series of images on 2009-06-15 at the local store. Unfortunately, they didn't come out so well because the store is like a little cave with poor lighting and when you use a flash, it reflects off of all the clear packages and glass containers. Then there's the paranoia of the store owner and the vendors who assumed I was from the health department, even after I asked to take a photograph first, and explained to them who I was and what I was doing. They probably were violating several health ordinances, so their paranoia was justified. I can't say that I'm in a huge hurry to do that again, nor am I impressed with the quality of the photographs to even upload them. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey can you help me? I have a problem with the way some of Buddhism page's information has and it has to do with telling people that Buddhism came from India and that the Buddha was born in Ancient India. Do you remember me? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I really do appreciate the hard work that you put in here, and I'm sorry for the cavalier nature of my comments in response you. It was very out of character for me to respond like I did, and (as my only excuse) I've been running into a number of frustrations with Wiki lately, especially around annoyance at me in areas in which I have some expertise and am trying to help. On top of that, I've been really hosed and tired in real life. And so I think I hit the end of your heated conversation with Dragon's flight and got a first impression of you which was along the lines of, Oh, shoot. Here we go again, which is unfortunate.
Likewise at WP:RSN, I really thought that your issue was that you think we should be using 2° instead of 1° sources for the title, and I just tried to repeat what I saw on your subpage. I think that we are coming at this with completely different viewpoints and are sailing clear past one another, so what I was trying to do there was to take the problem to a more abstract level and get to what I saw as the different languages we were speaking.
So while I still don't agree with you on this, I'm really truly sorry for raising your pulse at the keyboard, and hope that you'll accept my apology. Awickert (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I honestly misunderstand; let's take a deep breath
I honestly haven't been able to understand your collection of points. That you think I'm simply acting to lie and misrepresent makes me very sad because that is the farthest thing from what I've intended to do. I came to WP to try to help out and fix up geology articles. That's all. And so it's really hard for me not to take things personally when you tell me that I'm here to make a mess of everything, and I'm only trying to represent your ideas as I best understand them.
I really hope (and do think) that our conflict is the result of consistent and escalating misunderstanding, and maybe is because I didn't read the background conversation between you and Dragon's flight. I'm feeling pretty discouraged at the moment, and I imagine that you do as well. So let's take a step back and a deep breath. I'm happy to start the conversation over, or just to leave the debate entirely, because the status quo is clearly not healthy for either of us. Awickert (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Category for deletion: Your opinion needed
There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I see great use in. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", here. (I hope you'll let me know whether you find this request inappropriate.)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Do you already have a list that serves the same purpose? If not, create it. I stopped fully participating in most (but not all) deletion and administrative discussions once I realized that very little thought goes into it, as its mostly driven by a herd-like, metoo, tribal consensus. Square pegs that don't fit in the round holes are quickly identified as free-thinking subversives and dismissed. In other words, Wikipedia is not a utopian meritocracy driven by good ideas, but a squeaking, rickety, cacophany of hobgoblins, a microcosm of the stinking meat space. Just when you thought you could get away from it, human nature and the cold steel reflection of reality peeks up out of its filthy pond and says hello. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas, you made me forget my stress for a minute and simply but heartily laugh. AHAHAHA! You had me at "cacophony of hobgoblins". OH MY! Thanks for relating to my state of mind. Don't even feel like you need to respond at the Cat4Delete discussion, you've done me enough good right here. By the way, did you mean list as in "List of musicians who've served"? Hmm...I never thought of that. I'm wondering the pros and cons of a list when compared with a CAT. Maybe the linking to from each respective page? Anyway, thanks again for the comedy relief! :-D Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually happen to have been instructed in the mind-reading arts, and so to save Peter Jackson the trouble of a response, I'll channel his thoughts from yesterday.....Ohmmmm.....OHmmmmm.....Ohmm......He was referring to a herd of some sort. The sound of "metoo" multiply shouted. And the dismissal of three thinking sub sandwiches. Wait! I got that wrong. Free thinking subversives. Yes! That was what was on his mind. I'm certain of it. Cheers, mate! And thanks again for your spicy reasoning!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds great. I would like to create such a page. And I would like your help. Just a couple things, I think I'd prefer "List of musicians who served in the military" without the "have". and also is User Talk appropriate as the prefix or just User. As you know by now, I'm pretty green.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sweet! Yippee! Okay, next? (this is so much fun!) (Hey, would a person be considered manic if that person goes from very mad to very happy in a short amount of time?)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Think of it this way: You've got to be crazy to edit Wikipedia. I mean, let's say you spend an hour or two researching a topic and create a new article. You go to sleep only to wake up and find your page deleted, changed beyond all recognition, or vandalized. And yet, people keep coming back. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Help!
{{helpme}}
I think I hit rollback all by mistake and my connection is poor at the moment. Can someone take a look and cleanup any mess I made?
So I worked the page over a little bit more and I was thinking about your question again and I'm concerned that the pages in the Template:LGBT in Hawaii would become redundant to each other if the content you wrote about would be reproduced on each of them. Or do you mean expanding/renaming, say, the "Past bills" section to another section containing just some main points and a link? That wouldn't be a lot and I guess one could do it but I'm weary with the background because the background for the bill is essentially the whole LGBT rights thing. How narrowly would one tailor that? Include the original court case at all? I'm not sure - thoughts? Hekerui (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'll answer on my talk page in the future, I'll get archived right away on this page. I saved you the time this time :) Hekerui (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Viriditas! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Hi there. I have a question that only you would know how to answer: What happens if I leave a message on two different talk pages, then both users reply? When the orange bar shows up that says I have a message, and then I go to that page, what happens to the other message? Will I see another orange bar next time I refresh the page? I've always wondered. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Anna. It really depends on the sequence of replies. If you do receive two messages while you are browsing another page, and you click on the diff in the orange bar, I'm guessing that it will only show the last version. This explains why it is easy to miss messages that people leave you if they are left one after the other. In other words, I don't think the diff will show more than the last edit, meaning you could easily miss previous messages if you have a long talk page with multiple open threads. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my understanding and experience. So, to answer your question, no, you will only see one orange bar. Of course, someone could chime in and say I'm wrong; Let's see! I hope you're doing well. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Doing very well, thanks. No winter this year. Strange. Thanks for the reply. That would explain a few things. Maybe some of the eggheads in Admin will fix it. Hope you are well too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot
Apparently the whole webserver for the toolserver went down for a while yesterday, which is why the bot wasn't responsive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Michael C. Pricetalk13:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
How strange. I can't remember what the issue was, but looking at my contribs during that period, I was editing the article on the Balloon boy hoax, so I can only guess it was related somehow. In any case, I've removed the tag. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
wikimedia.org.
While I dont expect the result of the AFD will be to keep the article, please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles as you did with What is architecture. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article or have another suggesitons, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. RadioFan (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas/Archive 15! Malvern College is an article you have edited or contributed to concerns an important school. It still needs some urgent attention. If you can help, please see Talk:Malvern College#Lead Section regarding how it may be improved. --Kudpung (talk)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Michael C. Price talk 13:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)