User talk:Viriditas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Young Living[edit]

Please help, I'm dealing with a Request for Deletion from a user that I am aware you have had to deal with previously (you can see who it is at the page). I believe his/her claims are without merit and I cannot understand why they would not simply edit the article to remedy their concerns, if their concerns are indeed genuine. Can you please consider arguing on behalf of preserving Young Living on the deletion page? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Living Thanks so much for all your hard work on here!Christopher Lotito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Divide[edit]

Did you read the divide? If so, I was just wondering what you thought. Thanks Brontobytex2 (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Brontobytex2, I'm only on page 166. I will finish it. :) So far, I like it, and Crabapple's illustrations are amazing, and she should probably win an award for her work on this book. Taibbi's writing is compelling for the most part. On Wikipedia, I've written a little bit about programs like Changing Lives Through Literature. Although I haven't finished The Divide just yet, I doubt Taibbi covers the efficacy of alternative sentencing programs like bibliotherapy, but it would have made a nice addition to his book. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Militant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Scott Olsen, Occupy Oakland,[edit]

and particularly Law enforcement and the Occupy movement need updating, can you do it? Recent commentary[1] and the report described as forthcoming in these outdated articles [2]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you found User:Viriditas/Scott Olsen. I'll take a look today or tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pa'u riders[edit]

Hi. The usage of the okina template actually wasn't what me and Miller were disputing. The bigger argument not mentioned there seems to the interpretation of the current rules now on the wikiproject page and if the correct Hawaiian orthography should be used within the body of one particular article (see Talk:Pa'u riders#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Orthography: special characters — Spelling within the article). Miller maintains that main MOS overrides the rules in the Hawaii wikiproject page and that the spelling should follow what the title's spelling contrary to the current rule on this wikiproject which states the correct spelling should be used in the body of the article. Miller says this is a recommendation not a rule and doesn't follow main MOS. I agree that this isn't a mandatory policy but maintain the correct spelling should be used for Hawaiian cultural terms such as the article in question and should be an exception to whatever main MOS Miller is bringing up. My other arguments were that apostrophe shouldn't be used in place of the okina and that the okina shouldn't be used without the kahako (you should use both of them or none of them at all in words which employ both of them or ignore it all) because doing so it distorts the meaning of the word in the Hawaiian language. My concern is more about the spelling within the article not the title (although I still maintain that it should be Pau or Pāʻū, all or none). I see Pāʻū as Pau, or Paʻu with the okina but not the kahako, or Pa'u with the apostrophe as a disregard to the Hawaiian language. What is your opinion? We need another voice. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think my threading confused the discussion. I was responding to the original thread query.[3] Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes I suspect that.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you go ahead and update the MOS per that query? Do we still need the okina template? I think the answer might be yes for browsers that don't support it, but I could be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think he has already to some extent. I honestly don't care that much about the policy. I am just concern about the apostrophe being used in place of okinas and halfway/inaccurate usage of the orthographical marks using okina or apostrophe without kahako where the kahako should be.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the reasons I asked you to make a list of concerns on the talk page discussion is because I don't see anyone discussing that. I only addressed the issue I saw under discussion. Everything else seems quite nebulous. Could you make a list of issues and post it on the talk page discussion? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue on the apostrophe seems about resolved. You may be confused by the entire discussion because I've been arguing another issue alongside the issue about the apostrophe which is similar but not exactly the same. What is your opinion on partial usage of orthographical marks like Paʻu or Kekūanāoa and Kekauōnohi? All three of these examples are wrong in that it uses one orthographical mark but not the other. I created a subsection to address it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The article titles, Kekūanāoa and Kekauōnohi have no dispute that I know of in regards to the spelling of the names, however we need a reference to show the spelling is accurate. Do you have a sorce Kave for the doubt in the proper spelling of either name?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It is partial use of orthographical mark in the title and we are voting about it on "2. When using the kahako and okina for a word in article content or title that has both these marks, use both or neither." It should either be Kekauonohi or Kekauʻōnohi and Kekuanaoa or Kekūanāoʻa. We currently rarely use Kekūanāoa and Kekauōnohi except as pipelinks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
All the results are glitchy for the ones with partial usage, even thoug they show a few books (three for Kekūanāoa and one for Kekauōnohi) none show the words or sentence that uses the spelling. You won't find it in Kamakau, Kuykendall or Pukui's dictionary as these results claim.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The titles of both those articles have no issue I am aware of. You are saying that the two titles have an issue based on an MOS interpretation being voted on. I understand. What I am saying is: a) There is title dispute as yet so try not to create or stir up a dispute if possible. b) You claim this is a partial use of the orthography. I understand that but cannot locate a source that uses an ʻOkina in the spelling of either name. What is your source for the spelling of the name with the ʻOkina. Without that there simply is no furthering such a discussion on spelling or orthography for, either a discussion of a consensus or guideline to change them or to use as an example for part of an argument for the MOS.
Oh is that what you are asking. Check the journal articles written in the Hawaiian Journal of History in the Hawaiian Historical Society and other sources written after the 1970s Hawaiian Renaissance (why?, see an explanation in a book about the Kingdom by Julia Flynn Siler, the Hawaiian Renaissance and the appreciation and interest of the Hawaiian language, history and culture which stemmed from it is the reason why editors of the Wikiproject (back in the days when it was more active) believed in ignoring the majority pre-1970s source which uses no okina and no kahako and follows the spellings of Hawaiian academics following this period who spell Hawaiian orthographically correct such as Mary Kawena Pukui, Lilikalā Kameʻeleihiwa and others I can't name now. Also Dr. Jon Kamakawiwoʻole Osorio, a student of Kameʻeleihiwa, and a famous professor of Hawaiian Studies at UH Manoa in his own right (I intend to create an article about him in the near future too), who uses the correct orthographical spelling throughout his book Dismembering Lāhui for all the chiefs and politicians from the beginning of the kingdom to 1887 including Kekauʻōnohi (27, 264, 305) and Kekūanāoʻa (118, 109 and a lot more pages, every page that mentions him basically). If you want me to list other sources. I would be glad to. I am no longer interested in arguing Pa'u rider's title so please stop trying to find hidden meanings or agendas within my responses. I was specifically speaking about Kekauōnohi and Kekūanāoa in my last two responses and nothing else. And base on the lack of sources for the current spellings of no okina and kahakos. I am going to move these two article to non-orthographical titles to aid in the process of searching but retain the correct orthographical spelling in the body of the articles, as is done for Liliuokalani. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I object to the move. All of the above does not demonstrate a particular standardization and seems to rely on a handful of spellings.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You have every right to do that. But I will request a move in fhe future for these two article and other like it base on what the source says.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You can't just claim a spelling, you have to demonstrate it is accurate and standard. If the names are not using the proper orthography and is, in fact, a partial use of the Hawaiian orthography, it should be changed to the proper spelling. But if, you are claiming that this, in anyway demonstrates that you have found some argument for or against the Paʻu rider title, no, you haven't. Hawaiian, any regional orthography other orthography does not take precedence over the proper spelling of personal names, place name and names of organizations or groups. No, Wikipedia should not try to "Correct great wrongs" and use editors to be bound by any guideline that disrespects the very culture it is supposed to be sensitive to, just for a perception of the correct, "across the board" usage of a spelling no matter what. If the native Hawaiian usage of a native Hawaiian organization or group is to use an apostrophe, it is acceptable to make that an Okina, that is pretty clear because that is what we know it stand in for. As for Kekūanāoa and Kekauōnohi, I don't have a problem with the current spelling, but if a source were found and demonstrated to be used in a frequent or standard manner, than I would be all for a change that would represent a correct spelling.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Jim Bartels[edit]

Hello. We talk about copyright issues before. Is it bad (I think it probably is) for me to just copy and paste the content from to here as an article? Although the descent from John Young seems dubious and would be removed. It seems to be another form of Wikipedia. I don't care about taking credit for it. Or can the creator there copy and paste it here? Or is there some transfer device here on Wikipedia, kind of like images transfers on wikimedia or translating an foreign language Wikipedia, which allows for that. I just feel like Jim Bartels should have an article here, although I don't have the interest or time to create a new article from scratch about him.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is bad. Don't do it. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I assume so. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of things you can do. You can notify people (like myself) that you don't have time to create the article and point them to links like you did above. Maybe make a mention on the project page and see who will help out. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I am going to create a stub for now just because of his importance in our lifetime. And see from there. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that may not have been a good idea. I don't know if this figure is notable to Wikipedia standards and there may be some issues with sourcing.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Viriditas, you're a resident of Hawaii. Is Jim Bartels notable enough for a Wikipedia article and did I write his article in a non-neutral light?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good, but for those who ask, try to explain why he is notable, using the sources. He is famous as a local historian and curator. Further expansion should make this clear. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you know how I can source he appeared on the 2003 documentary Conquest of Hawaii? Can or the documentary itself be used to sourced this? There is no secondary sources which mentions this but one can see and hear him in the video. I think finding books or news articles saying a person appeared in a video or movie is hard and never used for other articles on obscured stars who made cameos on Wikipedia, most are not even sourced showing a list of filmography. Am I allowed per Wikipedia's rules and policies to reinsert it as a sentence needing reliable sourcing? An article this size certainly does not need to have every sentence sourced with reliable sources, this is only a criteria I see on feature articles. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


And thanks for letting me know about the discussion (I suggested naming it Anti-war, peace, and conflict studies). I love the quote on your user page going to the moon and discovering earth, I must have heard that before but never 'got it' until looking at your page. Thanks for that too! Randy Kryn 13:20 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny, you left me a message just as I was writing you on your page. :) Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I just saw that too. Yes, it's a nice sounding name, but I really think Anti-war has a meaning all it's own and could be included in an expanded title, no? There was a discussion of this somewhere (I almost never participate in these discussions, thanks for the alert) about redirecting peace activist to Peace movement which is only half-the-story. Sure, most anti-war activists want peace (or will hold their breath until it comes, RIP), but are focused on anti-war. Peace is a larger, more general term, imnho, and can include many things relating to nuclear issues, etc., yet war is war, as the retired Generals will tell you from their death-cots, and is a separate animal entirely. I like the idea of a larger title though (although I didn't even know a group existed and am usually not a group joiner on-line), so you've been thinking deeply about this it seems. Study anti-war no more? (lol). Randy Kryn 13:28 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Left a note on my talk page. I've been on a little anti-war roll since you wrote (check my contributions) and was wondering where I'd put my 10,000 edit and, thanks to you, used it to put the 'Anti-war' template on Phil Och's "The War is Over" page, one of the great songs and stories from Ochs' career. A sincere thanks. Randy Kryn 17:00 2 July 2014 (UTC)
How cool is that? Randy Kryn, have you thought about adding the anti-war project template to the talk page so that the project can see what is under its scope? The footer template in the article alone doesn't make it show up as part of the project, so we don't know about those articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
(back from studying war no more) Hello. Except for the first line of your post I have no idea what you mean (what talk page, template, scope, articles, etc.), I'm not an active participant in any project here so have never gotten into the details (who arranges the parties and prints the tee shirts?), coding, or language. If you have a couple of minutes please explain, or just give me an example and I'll be happy to assist at some point. How active is the anti-war project, and what happens if someone jumps to the war project? There is one anti-war page I've played with, National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, that needs further expansion on each of its sections, as it covers and takes Wikipedia responsibility for several major anti-war demonstrations from the '60s. Has the group looked at that one? Thanks for dragging me away from the home-fire and into the trenches. Randy Kryn 10:56 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You're running the task force for Antiwar movements. :) I will have some questions for you soon. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Chip Berlet[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a slight delay[edit]

I don't won't you to think I am ignoring your concerns so I wanted to mention that I have to take off for a while and may not get back to editing that article until the evening as there is a great deal of content and some other sources to add. I don't have an issue with calling Pauahi a legacy of the Kamehamehas. It could even be said (and possible referenced) that she was one of the more important legacies of the family, but certainly not the only part of their legacy. I don't have any bias for or against. While these are all distant relatives of myself I have no specific beliefs or understandings. Everything I know or learned has been in the past year. My only real concern is that the article be accurate and well sourced with proper context and information, prose etc.. Be back later this afternoon to begin.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I have about the same or similar content with more encyclopedic tone and reliable sources. I am still reading through that source I found that is really great and will be adding more content in a bit, but as always these things begin to branch out and I find other sources to also use along side, since the one source has tons of stuff on exactly how Pauahi is established as a legacy of the Kamehameha's so I tend to like to have other references as well. So, basically I am using this source as the over arching reference to most of the content and then expanding on sources further to back up claims so as to not use a single source for large chunks. I guess we can do that but, I like to see additional references when the content becomes very lengthy. Let me know if you have any concerns.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii material[edit]

Vol. 9 of "mythology of all races" is available at Quite a few other documents relating to Hawaii are as well. It would certainly be possible to ask that the most useful of them that are available in .djvu format be added to wikisource, where I could at least start the effort of transcribin them so material from them could more easiily be added here. Feel free to add or request addition of files that you think would be useful and let me know which if any get added there. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a task for the WP:HAWAII project. I will take a look. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anglican Pacifist Fellowship may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <ref> Anglican Pacifist Fellowship website.]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Mauna Loa (Molokai)[edit]

Well, I suppose there'll always be someone who does not know that Molokai is a separate island and not in the Big Island. Just as there might be someone who does not know where Ontario is, so might think that London, Ontario refers to the place in England.

WP:NAMB tells us that you would not need a hatnote at all if the only possible confusion was with Mauna Loa. You would not need a hatnote note because the title Mauna Loa (Molokai) is already clearly disambiguated. But you do need a hatnote because the much greater risk of confusion is between Mauna Loa (Molokai) and Maunaloa, Hawaii, which is also on Molokai.--Mhockey (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. And while we could have both in the dab, I don't think anyone searching for Maunaloa, a town of 376 people, is going to confuse it with a volcano. They do not share the same name. On the other hand, Mauna Loa on Molokai is the same name as the volcano on the Big Island, and the talk page shows that they were indeed confused after you changed the dab. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what bit you don't agree with. If you disagree with WP:NAMB, I suggest that you take it to the relevant talk page. Mauna Loa (Molokai) is not the same name as Mauna Loa, just as London, Ontario is not the same name as London, so does not need a hatnote. (The reverse is not true, because Mauna Loa could refer to the volcano on Molokai, and London could refer to London, Ontario.) On the other hand Maunaloa, Hawaii could certainly be confused with either volcano, which are both in Hawaii, so it has the right hatnote. You and I may know that one is spelt as one word and one as two words, but don't expect everyone to know. Put Maunaloa into Google and you'll get the volcano.
I don't think it's necessary to have both in the hatnote, but I have no great objection to that.--Mhockey (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)