Jump to content

User talk:Viriditas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Heyitspeter (talk | contribs)
Who are you accusing of being an SPA?: Teabagger astroturfing is prohibited on this page.
Line 73: Line 73:
-[[User:Hawaii Samurai|Hawaii Samurai]] ([[User talk:Hawaii Samurai|talk]]) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
-[[User:Hawaii Samurai|Hawaii Samurai]] ([[User talk:Hawaii Samurai|talk]]) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:Good work. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas#top|talk]]) 09:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:Good work. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas#top|talk]]) 09:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

== Who are you accusing of being an SPA? ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&curid=25160837&diff=370298857&oldid=369296352] [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote the tag, and submit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Heyitspeter my contributions] as evidence enough that I am not a single purpose account. Also I do not understand what you mean by "Story was retracted". I am reverting your removal pending further explanation.--[[User:Heyitspeter|Heyitspeter]] ([[User talk:Heyitspeter|talk]]) 02:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:59, 27 June 2010


You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

New images that are questionable

Hi again I have mulled over posting these pictures for a while now so I did it and can you reviews them, if there are any issues over the copyright.

Hawaii Samurai (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I'll take a look later tonight or Sunday. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii

I've done what I was able to do on the articles. Like all else in Wikipedia, anyone is welcome to add what they consider verifable content and resources. Excuse me??? "...before I bring this to the attention of the reliable source noticeboard" sounds a little harsh there. Honestly, I've done what I can do with resources available to me. There is no more juice to be squeezed out of that guava.

Let me be fair here about the question about my interest in music. It's more of historical interest, as I search for things that do not exist on Wikipedia. Not just music, but that's what you've seen. On the subject of music in Hawaii, I feel the historical foundation builders of Hawaiian music are being lost. If you click on the Musicians from Hawaii category, I have done a great deal on a number of individual listings to build them up. Some others, either it's somebody who possibly is promoting their own career, or someone who wanted to put up an article and did not have whatever was needed to convey the subject matter. Information has been scant. WikiProject Hawaii is in need, straight across the board. In the area of entertainment, it's like whole generations of entertainers, in particular the foundation musicians, are disappearing into the wind. So, that's it - I have been trying to catch what I could that I feel is disappearing with time.

I feel very sad that the cultural history of Hawaii is not being adequately represented in Wikipedia.

Sometimes, I find names of entertainers that have only one or two lines with no references. The Hilo Hattie one where you deleted the reference to the bankruptcy of the stores (I don't object to the deletion), you should go back and look at the history before I started working on it. The entire article was about the stores and the bankruptcy - an indication that perhaps the generation that watched Hilo Hattie perform has died off, and now nobody knows anything but the dress shops.

If you have not done so, you are welcome to look at my user page User:Maile66 where I have listed articles I have created, and those I have worked on. The music and entertainment issue in Hawaii just happened, as I was looking for anything on John Kameaaloha Almeida and found there was nothing about this artist to whom so many hula dancers in Hawaii owe so much. After that, it became one click lead to another, finding poorly constructed or non-existant subject matter.

Currently, I am trying to tweak the Frank Fasi site - another accidental find. It needs a lot of work. Like they used to say - you either love him, or you hate him. This article was put together by those who loved him, and there is another side to the Frank Fasi story. It's a matter of resources as I find them, and a way to tell it from the NPOV.

You classified John Kameaaloha Almeida as a living person - he's been dead for decades. I corrected that.

Also on Tau Moe, where you took the capitalization off "The Tau Moe Family", I put the caps back. It was the actual name of a touring group, but in taking a second look at how the article was worded, I can see how you thought otherwise. I've done some revamping on the wording, so maybe it's more clear. Another one of those sites I've tried to punch up.

P.S. - totally on a different subject, I have serious doubts about the purpose of tags. I've been through probably hundreds of sites where tags were put on by whoever, and the tagger went on. Why not stop and try to correct whatever they were tagging in the first place? The tags stay there for years and years. It's like Wikipedia has become this huge trash bin of tag littering. It doesn't look good on the articles, and it really doesn't seem to add anything in the long run.

Maile66 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu IZAK (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aspartame again

I am trying to insert some NPOV into the Aspartame and Aspartame controversy pages. You seem to have had input in the archives, so perhaps you could put these pages back on your watchlist, and even contribute if you have the time and energy? Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lord

If you have time, could you look at the assessment ratings on Jack Lord. It was downgraded from a B to a C over a year ago. Considerable improvements have happened since then - some by me. Also, would it be appropriate to archive the discussions on the Talk Page? They're all very old and probably not relevant to anything about the site now. And if there's anything I personally can do to further improve the page, please offer suggestions. In the references, I have some from Internet Broadway Database, because that's the only place I could find info on Broadway plays he'd done. On the Filmography, I did a collapsible, sortable table, because he had such a large body of work. Just when you have time, please. Maile66 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself can look at the WP:1.0/B criteria. After glancing at the article, I think it is very close to B class, but doesn't quite meet the criteria. When I have time, I'll say more on the talk page, but you can look at the six criteria and work on the article as well. You might want to start with criterion 1, as that seems to be an obvious problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the Talk page for Jack Lord. Jack Lord has been dead for 12 years - it has him as a living person. I'm not sure why it says that, because when I look at Edit, it says "living=no". Can you change that? As for criterion 1, I believe you are referring to inline citations. Most what is on there now came from me in the last couple of months. You have a more experienced perspective, but it looks pretty well referenced to me. Maybe it's the specific type of references I've used????? I'll follow your guidelines when you have time to be more specific. Maile66 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did it again! This time I added "blp=yes" in the wpbs header by accident. Sorry. Yes, I'll have more specific comments on the talk page later today/tonight, but for example, "Early years" has a lot of unsourced material, as does the career section. You might also want to make sure the little details are filled in. I looked for the name of his spouse in the infobox and found it empty, for example. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: [1] Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Lord

I posted a commentary on the article talk page. I'm mostly concerned with the non-standard filmography table and some of the content still needs referencing. You're right, it's close to a B-Class, but not quite yet. I left suggestions to improve it, hopefully it will be taken in the spirit it was given. Thanks for asking me. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a great review! Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the review has been very helpful. I've corrected most except the table,which will require some work. I've deleted some small things I could not reference (had already tried), such as the ebay reference and what other actors he worked with at the Actor's Studio. I'll spend some time on the table. Wowie-how I wish I'd had the table information before - it's great info to have for the next time around. Thanks for doing this. Maile66 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Honolulu Strangler

Sorry about the sources my main source was the book Honolulu Homicide. I have been busy, I need to finish it up and add the references. -Hawaii Samurai (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]