User talk:Viridae/Archive7

DON'T PANIC

Unified login: Viridae is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

Archives Template
1:28/04/2006-25/06/2006 2:25/06/2006-26/07/2006 3:26/07/2006-24/08/2006 4:24/08/2006-12/01/2007 5:12/01/2007-14/07/2007 6:14/07/2007-14/02/2008 7:14/02/2008-06/06/2009

Leaving??

This doesn't actually sound like it will be such a good thing. Maybe you could stick around awhile. Something good will happen soon. I just know it. —BETA 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not permanent, its until I can hold myself to the standards I used to hold myself to again. In the meantime, people like SirFozzie and Alison are admins I hold in high regard because they always play fair. Good luck, I am going to see if i can get a DYK under another account name. Viridae^Talk 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Never good to see a good sysop give up their bit. Take some time out if you want, but I hope you do decide to return with this account and regain +sysop. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't leave for good - we need honest admins like you on the project. :/ krimpet✽ 01:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Your work is greatly appreciated. Rudget. 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 03:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Viridae, stick around and/or come back to us soon! GlassCobra 03:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys I'm back. Though I enjoyed the time with the other account more - and I enjoyed the article writing. I will do more of that, its definitely more staisfying. Viridae^Talk 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. :) Acalamari 23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't really gone as such - just reduced activity with this account to concentrate on writing with my not so hidden sockpuppet. Much more satisfying. Viridae^Talk 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also reduced my watch list to a quarter of what it was - about half was old afds etc but still, that wil help. Won't spend half my time rverting vandalism. Viridae^Talk 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cherso's inflammatory messages

Hi, Viridae.
Few minutes ago, you wrote on WP:ANI [1] (section Inflammatory behaviour) "No you are both in the wrong, you more so for attempting to get someone else banned fro doing something that you yourself were doing".
It's not fair to equalize me with Cherso. He said those things, not me. He crossed the line with that.
"...from doing something that you yourself were doing." That's not truth at all. How can you say such things? Have you ever been involved in my discussions that I had with Cherso? I've never sent such taunting messages to Cherso (I've never mocked to anyone because of losing of their territory). Please, stay focused on the problem - his inflammatory messages.
Also, I haven't mentioning banning at all. I've just said that Cherso's messages (and behaviour, because he referred directly to me, for no reason) are heavily inflammatory and that something must be done. I didn't say what should be done. You've mentioned the ban, not me.
We may disagree with someone, we may have disputes, that's normal (Slavs have saying: "Nema zbora bez spora." - "It's not the discussion if you don't have disagreeing."). We all could be wrong, nobody's perfect, we're all humans, after all. However, some lines should not be crossed (and Cherso did it with those messages).
I hope that you've understood what I wanted to say.
Looking forward for better mutual understanding, sincerely, Kubura (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

read, understood and largely disagreed with. You BOTH have inflamatroy messages on your respective userpages so how about we get the ball rolling by removing it from yours - then come back in a month or so if his are still there. Viridae^Talk 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For this edit.[2] Durova^Charge! 07:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC posted

here. Cla68 (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the talk page please ?

What sort of laughable bullshit is that. Your section heading is a comment, so if you're not happy to leave my comment there, I fully expect you to move your comment onto the talkpage too. Nick (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is acomment like all the other comments that can be agreed with like all the others. Please do the right thing and use the talk page for replying like everyone else who is not certifying. Viridae^Talk 11:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how RfC works. I can leave a comment even if I'm not a certifying body, as indeed a number of parties have already done. It's bad enough it's a witch-hunt, but to make it one in which members of your little clique are the only people permitted to comment is substantially worse. Nick (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the top of the page. Threaded discussion within the sections is discouraged. PLease utilise the talk page as requested. Its my section and I would prefer if you placed your comment in the appropriate place. Viridae^Talk 11:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And I would prefer you restore my comment. You didn't even have the decency to move it to the talk page, it's just removed. Shall I remove your comment too, just to even things up ? Nick (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on nick, that sort of attitude isn't helping anyone. It is up to you whether you want to put your reply on the talk page in a new thread or as part of another. Now please don't be silly, this is helping nothing. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And you removing a comment is helpful, I suppose. I've posted it as an outside comment, please don't go around censoring material you find to be unflattering. I'm entirely certain if the comment supported your stance, it wouldn't have simply vanished, would it. Conflict of interest and all that, dear chap. Now, because it's an RfC and all user conduct is open to scrutiny, let me have a little preamble I think to be rather pertinent to the situation. You shouldn't have removed the comment yourself in the first place, had you asked me to move the comment into it's own section or onto the talk page, I would have probably obliged, a straight removal (not even moving it to the talk page) is simply unacceptable. You surely know that that I'm online by the fact I posted the comment and reverted your removal all within the space of a few minutes yet you simply chose to revert without any sort of comment on my talk page, instead preferring to use a crappy edit summary. That's the sort of shit you're complaining about. I don't like to say it, but blundering about on an RfC like that when you're bitching about another user is most unbecoming of you. Nick (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I happent o like "crappy edit summaries" and using my crappy edit summary I posted a perfectly polite message directing you where to post such comments. You reverted without any summary at all beyond the automatic one - and you are calling my edit summary into question...? If there had been a supportive comment I would suppose it would have been in the endorse section immediately under my statement - where it is perfectly fine to have comments, as long as they do not turn into threaded discussion. If it wasn't in that I would have removed it as I removed yours, with a polite edit summary telling them where to put it. Assume good faith Nick, you have nothing to base your accusations on, so I ask that you stop making them please. Viridae^Talk 11:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of 217.70.21.183

Hi Viridae, this was one of the IPs that was vandalizing Alison's talk page, and you beat me to the block. :) It turns out this is a TOR node, but you blocked it for three months, however. Shouldn't it be blocked for something like 5 years? Just asking because I don't want to change your block and end up making an error. Acalamari 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, I dont check for tor stuff because I have no idea what I was doing, I blocked for 3 months because it is probobly an open proxy and definitely being used by a sockpuppet. Remember Tor nodes change very frequently though. Viridae^Talk 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Viridae. For clarification though, when you say "go for it", do you mean change the block? Acalamari 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

if you thinkt hats the correct thing to do. However, knowing that Tor nodes change very frequently I would say leave it short. Viridae^Talk 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll leave it. 3 months is a reasonable amount of time (to me anyway). Tor is not my area of expertise, I'm afraid. :( Acalamari 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Alison's changed it to 6 months. :) Thanks for the responses, though. Acalamari 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A little help needed

Hi, user:Luftetari07 is removing sourced information and putting some (in my opinion) very POV text into the Kosovo War article and I've been reverting him, I was wondering if you could help us to sort this out? Discombobulator (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I gave him a 3rr warning, you are on the edge of that yourself, so don't revert further. I suggest you attempt to talk about it on his talk page or the article talk page, and it would also be useful to ask for opinions from other people - try a WP:RFC - or just ask for opinions on the talk page. Viridae^Talk 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Would you admin delete these two pages from my user space: User:Cla68/RfC/Sandbox and User:Cla68/RfC2/Sandbox? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted User talk:Cla68/RfC/Sandbox as well, but I'm not sure if you wanted that. Give me a yell if you want the undelete. Viridae^Talk 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Thank you for your input. What was the problem with Lir editing his own page? I have seen several objectionable user pages, but it seemed to me that these are left to the user.

Personally it seems to me that if Wikipedia doesn't want people to know the policies and guidelines, then it shouldn't have any. Conversely, if Wikipedia creates these, it surely expects users to know them? Correct? For example I commonly tell people not to J-walk in real life, but no one has accused me of being a police officer, or a lawyer. Most just assume I'm trying to prevent them being hit by a vehicle.

My interest is that Lir was able to offer quality edits to articles with in my scope of editing.

In any case, could you expand on "If he wants to be unblocked he has the means to do so."? --Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the last unblock request he was provided with the arbcom mailing list. Any admin that has dealt with him over this block has grown sick of his behaviour and given up. He can appeal to arbcom if he so wishes, as was suggested to him several times - instead he replied with wikilawyering garbage. Everyone has been very patient, he has been given chances, and a way to get himself unblock but has steadfastly refused to take it. It is his choice entirely at this point because the community grew very rapidly sick of his behaviour. Viridae^Talk 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so at least you seem to know what's where. So far I have seen about 6 editors actually involved in the ban, and about a dozen others "voicing". That, a community does not make.

Having looked at the history, it seems to me that when Lir returned from the previous ban he occupied himself with two concerns: his user page, and the Stalingrad article.

Consider the results of two editors contacting Lir.

1. Calton decided to summarily cleanse Lir's user page based on his own self-defined proclamation of a "defender of Wikipedia" role. Everything else seems to have snowballed from there. There was no attempt at all to understand were Lir was coming from, no attempt to understand him as a person; just ban and be done with it based on "history". If same approach was taken in real life, no one convicted would ever leave jails!

1. I had contacted him for the Stalingrad edits. As it turns out, he didn't know more then me about the battle because he lacked Russian sources. Having got that out of the way, we got along quite well. He outlined his intended scope of editing, and his sources, and I outlined the scope of category development based on work by other editors in the team.

How is it possible that where article editing was concerned, I, applying only the benefit of doubt, the guideline of starting with the premise of good faith, and having the objective of integrating Lir into a team which is working on developing articles, was able to start a fairly civil relationship with this "rogue" while Calton's interaction led to his ban within a day?

There is a missing policy in Wikipedia WP:BH - be human. Don't treat others in a way you would not want to be treated yourself. We are not just bits of electronic debris. We are not just avatars to be banned or unbanned. Lir could be your neigbour, or the guy who saves your kid's life three years from now, or the guy who marries your sister five years from now, or a Nobel laureate 20 years from now. He may have an attitude you don't like, but it may be just the right attitude to be an effective contributor to articles. He is very precise, and that happens to be what users of a reference work expect.

I don't have access to this arbcom list. I shouldn't need to. I would like to know what it was specifically that yanked a potentially very productive member of an editing team out of the project. Do you think you can help me with this?

I have also offered a to mentor Lir for a 6-month probationary period. This was not something proposed or attempted before. Is there a problem with this proposal? There is a very competent MilHist Projet admin who is also a co-ordinator who will be more then able to ban Lir should he "misbehave" within the realms of the project. Lir agreed to only participate in editing articles and in discussions on article talk pages only.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't that that would work. Lir has been a troublemaker for the whole time I have known him. He is unable to not troll and needs to be gone. No amount of mentoring would do the trick IMO. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Therese, we don't know something won't work until it is tried, right? I think Lir was not the only guilty party, however his personality may be contributing as much to him being a productive editor a very bannable one. Would you agree that the troublemaker label had been applied to some outstanding individuals in history?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir was provided with a framework under which he could be unblocked (stop being disruptive, to paraphrase), he refused. Until he stops refusing he will stay blocked as far as I am concerned. On another note, although a dozen people may not be the whole community, it is considered representative of the community because it is those people who bothered to weigh in on the situation. Viridae^Talk 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir has communicated to me that he is only interested in working on articles. How can he communicate this to the community?

Neither I, nor others on the project were aware of his spat with Calton. And this is what I meant. The ban was executed so quickly hardly anyone had a chance to step in and mediate.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

see WP:AN where the block is being discussed again. Viridae^Talk 10:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Viridae, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 RfC sandbox

Hi -- Regarding this deletion and/or this one -- could you please undelete the page(s) and their history insofar as they contained substantive contributions by others than Cla68? For reasons of transparency I think the edit histories of any pages preceding the live RfC need to remain available to the community. Thank you. Avb 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted this request before, but apparently my account has been compromised as an impostor "Avb" reverted some of my most recent edits starting with this one. Avb 10:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wondered what happened there. Can you please ask Cla68, its his userspace I would prefer if he had input. Note that should the pages remain in the userspace too long they are half as likely to be MfD'd as attack pages anyway. Viridae^Talk 10:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just by the way - thats not an imposter (not sure if you were joking). Either you performed the reverts or someone else has access to your account. Viridae^Talk 10:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask Cla68. As to "impostor": I would think it's obvious I did not make those edits. Someone else did: accessing my account without my knowledge or consent and editing as if he's me makes the hacker an impostor. It's actually rather serious as I have never given my password to anyone so there has been a security breach on my side (i.e. he's hacked into my computer over the Internet) or on WP's side (security hole related to change password request from third party). Avb 11:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Imposter generally means someone who has spelt account name to look like yours: ie Jimmy Wales and Jimmy WaIes (the second L is actually a capital i). I would say it is highly unlikely there is a security breach at wikipedia, I would simply suggest you change your password. You may have left your account logged in somewhere or a relative has access to your computer - it happens reasonably frequently. Viridae^Talk 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were using WP-slang. I meant the real life use where an impostor will generally use the exact name. Avb 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you hit the "rollback" link (assuming you're one of the users who has this capability) by mistake? If it's somebody else hacking into your account, then they can't have changed your password since you can still get into it yourself, so they might have somehow discovered or guessed the password but not changed it. In that case you might be able to keep them out by changing the password yourself, to something nobody can guess. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a few rollbacks in a short space of time though. Viridae^Talk 12:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the various suggestions. I've asked for a checkuser which will at the very least tell me if the edits originated on my computer or elsewhere. Avb 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

After the helpful input above I could trace the problem to the combination of a different user on my computer and the use of the DownThemAll plugin for FireFox. In short, no impostor, no hacker, no problem. Avb 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If AvB wants the pages undeleted I don't have a problem with that. Cla68 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GRBerry restored the relevant pages, and I have now checked the things I wanted to know. Avb 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

File:Raf Tomatoes.jpg

Here are a lot of tomatoes for you for you! Tomatoes somehow promote WikiLove, and are tasty, and hopefully all of these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh thanks. Viridae^Talk 23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 00:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cockpuppet

lol! Lawrence § t/e 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

lol pure mistake - i have a python wrapped around my left writs - it makes typing difficult. Viridae^Talk 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone always blames the snake. ;) Lawrence § t/e 06:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LOl really dropping myself into it here. MUst be careful of the inuendo! Viridae^Talk 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One handed typing, playing with the python? TMI! TMI! (grin) SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I think I'm going to put little Linguine (yes that is the pythons name) back and shush up for a while. Viridae^Talk 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

good on yer, viridae.... (and an early contender for year's best unblock summary.....) Privatemusings (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My blocklog! Well, maybe it needed a joke. Thanks for looking into it. Mackan79 (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would have been wiser...

...for an admin not involved to unblock. It would also have been cleaner to wait and get opinions from someone not already involved in the MM case. It would also help if Mackan79 posted the rest of the email or consented to its posting. I am concerned that excessive factionalism is blinding a number of people who are against Mantanmoreland to other issues.

I always entertain the possibility that I may be wrong. I don't believe that a number of people ever entertained the possibility that I may be right. This was not a good way to end it - Mackan79 hasn't done things which would help convince me it's a mistake, and the rest of the community hasn't weighed in. I would prefer to have a situation clear enough for me to either ask Arbcom or another senior admin for a re-block, or where I can see I was wrong and apologize for a mistake. We're not there.

All of that said, no wheel warring. Good night. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No george, it's transparent to many that it would have been wiser if you hadn't blocked in such a slapdash and poorly thought through manner. Consider applying your reasoning above to your own actions, please. I also really feel an immediate, and unreserved apology would speak well of you, as it is undoubtedly appropriate, and it's a bit embarrassing to have to bring it up again, to be honest.... say sorry. Privatemusings (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are so clearly wrong its not funny, you even admitted yourself that the block was based on a mistake. If you applied the same standard of evidence to the MM case you would be the person most active in calling for him to be banned. Thankfully you don't and the evidence there is quite considerably better thought through. Really george, you screwed up, its pretty damn clear that that is the case, be a big man, apologise and move on. Viridae^Talk 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

In User talk:Durova#In keeping with your past efforts, I discuss the Don Murphy deletion situation. I would like to point out to you that Don Murphy can get people to want to deal with him by either being nicer or being even more trouble for us (he could go all Daniel Brandt on our ass). Let's not demand nice; he has alternatives. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your inappropriate deletions of Don Murphy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Don_Murphy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bongout (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"As before BLP deletions MUST go through DRV before they can be restored." <-- Not when they are bullshit. John Reaves 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool it John. Viridae^Talk 02:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm plenty cool, you're the one looking at getting desysopped. John Reaves 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the precedent for undeletion of BLPs without discussion greatly favours you getting desyopped. Viridae^Talk 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I think your decision was an erroneous one. DS (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please. That's the third threat of de-sysopping in as many days. It's getting absolutely ridiculous :( - Alison ^❤ 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You may, I don't. See the DRV for my reasons why. Murphy is a barely notable individual who doesn't want an article. No reason why he should have one then. Viridae^Talk 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I really think you should consider restoring the article, and using AFD. It appears like end run around AFD discussion here. Will you consider reversing yourself? I think that would be the correct way to go. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No i disagree, per my reasons stated on the DRV page and those of Squeakbox and Durova in the same forum. Viridae^Talk 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to echo John Reaves comments above (except about being desysopped, since I'm not sure if I would come to that conclusion based on this alone). -- Ned Scott 03:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on the wheel war issue, but if some kind of amicable agreement can be worked out I'd be willing to nominate the usual way. This would be a holding-one's-nose-and-acting-on-principle-for-consistency's-sake nomination because there was a very nasty thread about me in particular on Mr. Murphy's site forum about half a year ago. Still, an open offer is an open offer, and I estimate that he meets the dead trees standard. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If Don Murphy is not notable, why is he covered prominently in these articles: The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, and LA Weekly. He even plays 10 Questions. RTFA (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread on the BLP talk page in regards to all this. Lawrence § t/e 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the DRV is clearly going in the direction of overturning your deletion, perhaps you could save some time and just reverse your deletion? _(1 == 2)^Until 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

On this case, we agree. FCYTravis (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP watch

No problem with you adding to this, but can you use a link to the debate in the edit summary, that way people can watchlist if for new debates.--Doc^g 23:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Viridae^Talk 23:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Time For Smiling!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou :) Viridae^Talk 06:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I sent you an email. :) -WarthogDemon 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hullo. I am looking to overturn this last go round on AN and am trying some WP:DR to that end. I think you were premature to block my Alfadog account. The account was/is legit under WP:SOCK and I cannot see anything that you were aware of at the time that would support a block. I did use it improperly three weeks ago to make some minor WP:RCP edits but I do not think you were blocking me indef for that. I would like you to please unblock the account. I know there is a degree of mootness as Ryulong's proposal would reblock but I would like you to please undo your bit and then I will talk to Ryulong. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In support of my suggestion to you, let me mention that Ryulong has withdrawn his restrictions on AN. I will not characterize or paraphrase his statement out of courtesy to him but I do maintain that no abusive sockpuppetry occurred. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi Viridae! This is regarding the message I left a few days ago on reporting agaisnt a user who sends me inappropriate emails, just because I left him this message. Can you please guide me on what can be done about this. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison ‎(checkuser, Administrator)

How did you arrive at this conclusion? See here. Dorftrottel (troll) 09:37, March 31, 2008

She handed up her tools a few hours before i wrote that. They were reinstated a day or so later. Viridae^Talk 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Commented on your talk page - Alison ^❤ 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing diffs

Could you check something for me? According to these comments at the bottom of the New antisemitism article talk page, some edits were made to the article's lead on 13 March and then the articles was protected [3] the same day. However, when I look at the histories for both the main page and talk page, I don't see any edits being made between 12 and 16 March. Something doesn't seem right there. Was anything admin deleted from that article or talk page during that time period? Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be edits missing between 17 and 28 March. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Were the edits lost after a redirect? Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With help from Cool Hand Luke I've figured it out. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah saw he was giving a hand. Grateful to help any time. Viridae^Talk 07:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try not to cross-post next time, just was eager to figure out what was going on. Cla68 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NO problems at all, I was at work when I first saw your note so i didnt have the time to go delving. Viridae^Talk 08:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the MediaWiki:Watchdetails page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —David Levy 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! - Alison ^❤ 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (well, I laughed :) )

Did it even work? It might have been reverted by the time I refreshed my watchlist because I didnt see anything. Edit conflicted when I went to revert it cos I couldnt see anything. Viridae^Talk 05:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, heyyo to you, too :) And little Linguine, which is a totally awesome name - Alison ^❤ 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me - must fire up photoshop when i get home and do that image :P Viridae^Talk 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. —David Levy 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to User_talk:Zzuuzz

April Fools joke? I hope? ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 11:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Viridae^Talk 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

{{unblock|Someone lacks a sense of humour. Or to be boring and technical - not even a hint of a warning that was going to happen.}}

Thanks :) I only have 20 minutes left here and that will be used to sleep. I might never have noticed the block to be honest. Viridae^Talk 12:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You were previously warned by David. I've been looking through your April Fools Day contributions, and several are not acceptable. See this, and this. Those could have directly damaged the encyclopedia if they hadn't been reverted. Your following edit here would probably only have confused people, but was quickly reverted. A joke is only acceptable if it can stay up there without damaging the encyclopedia. If people have to revert you, you are wasting their time. This edit is unacceptable because it is a generalised personal attack. This edit and this one may be funny to you and others, maybe even the people you named or played the joke on, but if not, then you would need to apologise to them and at the admins noticeboard. There is being funny, and then there is taking a joke too far. Please consider this for next year, or any other time you feel the need to be funny. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NURSE, WE NEED MOAR KITTEN'S, STAT! Viridae^Talk 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you not notice my username? I eat kittens for breakfast. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

YOu are going to have to explain that one :( Viridae^Talk 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to look up Carcharoth in a popular online encyclopedia. This is quite handy because it helps demonstrate that humour depends on the person trying to understand the joke. Which is why attempts at site-wide humour don't really work very well. Of course some people are always going to try, but maybe you could help explain to people next year why April Fools jokes shouldn't be allowed to get out of hand, and shouldn't extend to site-wide pages like the MediaWiki namespace. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thinked you dropped this somewhere...

Here, I think you dropped this somewhere. Maybe a kitten will help turn that frown upside down! Viridae^Talk 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that I don't find site-wide vandalism (and personal attacks against those who revert it) funny must mean that there's something wrong with me. —David Levy 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there is one thing that I find laughable: the idea that you needed a "warning" that vandalising millions of pages could result in a block. —David Levy 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely does :). It seems the first kitten didn't work. Looks like we are going to have to try a pile! Viridae^Talk 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now they are cute my good man! Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MediaWiki:Tagline edit warring, an ANI thread I started involving actions taken by you. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bollock notice

You are hereby bollocked for 9 hours for having a sense of humour. How dare you. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		LO fuckin' L -- Ned Scott 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad about the wikidrama, but thanks for at least trying to make the site a little more enjoyable.  :) This place is way too argumentative and unforgiving most days. — Omegatron 01:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been reather amused byt he claims that fiddling with the mediawiki namesopace can actually break anything. Viridae^Talk 01:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It's the articles that need to remain untouched; changing the page headers is harmless when it's obvious. I have to agree that the "sticks up their ass" edit was out of line, but so were the blocks and uncivil responses it garnered.

I just noticed Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Day, where we can hopefully prevent this kind of nonsense next year. — Omegatron 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabals

There is a new discussion regarding the cabals which were brought up at MfD last week. I've started an informal consensus survey which I hope will help us come to a conclusion on whether the cabals should remain deleted. You can express your opinion at this page (link). Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin intervention

There is a dispute at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Request for edit by an administrator. There are two self-proclaimed "critics" of LaRouche, Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who edit Wikipedia as Dking and Cberlet. They have posted a lot of subtly defamatory material, where whenever LaRouche makes comments that are critical of bankers or medieval nobility, they "interpret" these comments as veiled anti-Semitism. In the dispute in question, they go beyond this to the point of attempting to present their "interpretation" as fact, and they are resisting the proper attribution of an "interpretation" originating with Dennis King to King. Will Beback, who is an admin, has a long history of assisting them, and in this instance is attempting to deflect all discussion away from the issue of attribution, using diversionary tactics. I believe that this is an open-and-shut case of BLP violation and requires action without further debate. I am asking you to take a look at it. Thanks in advance for your attention -- Terrawatt (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to take stock of that situation already after someone else asked me to check it out. Give me some time its difficult to sort out. Viridae^Talk 06:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin, User:Happy-melon, has agreed to make the requested edit if one other admin concurs. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

You know 192.168.0.1?

Well,um, could you please tell me about that?

Me again

not precedding that, i think that was automatic.

Is that adress a permanent one, or does the "owner" change periodically?

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just doublechecking who's calling the police

I jost got a note on my talk page straight after I posted on the AN/I thread. Are you calling them or me? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has done it already. Viridae^Talk 01:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, right. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to User:Viridae who valiantly made an unpopular decision, which took a lot of bravery. Inclusionist (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you so much for unblocking me. I was reblocked again. The hypocricy on wikipedia jsut makes me gag. I would have no problem being blocked if the rules were the same for everyone. there is an RfC that resulted from this incident. (travb) Inclusionist (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Message

		Thank you
		I would just like to say thank you for your efforts regarding the potential suicide thread on ANI last night. This may have been a poor taste message or hoax, but if it wasn't hopefully...... we may have made a real difference. So thank you and if ever there is anything I can do to help you in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. Khukri 08:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My username change

Done, done and done! --Wiki-page-protector (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

Thanks for restoring User:Sherurcij/cars for me, but it seems it got deleted again immediately by some other administrator on the prowl - any chance you could re-restore it? At the very least, I want to save it - though I really don't see why it's any different than hundreds of other WP Userspaces that store articles which aren't accepted on WP yet - I briefly tried making it a "List of" in the articlespace, but it got AfDed and moved to my userspace (which is fine, it still needs more work, needs to be merged with a list of similar things, whatever - I can accept it doesn't belong in the mainspace yet - but I have a problem with the notion that it shouldn't be allowed to be an ongoing project. I've been on Wiki for four years, the fact I go a year without editing a particular project hardly means I don't have plans to one day come back and use the information. Much thanks! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can provide a copy for you off wiki, but I suspect it will not be useful for me to re-undelete (see WP:WHEEL). I suggest you ask for it to be undelete at WP:DRV and say exactly what you just said to me. Viridae^Talk 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2

How was this page improperly certified? Can you please email me the deleted information? You can respond here. Thank you. Inclusionist (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know as well, or be directed to the discussion. 4 people had signed and now it seems to have vanished. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On principle I am happy to give you the material on a deleted page: here, even though the outcome of my doing so is likely more time wasted. However, I am afraid that it does not look to me like two different users coherently complained about the same issue and showed that they had tried to solve it with WMC. So I would agree under the rules with the deletion for improper certification. --BozMo talk 12:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, the only person who was not discussing the same issue, was not the initial supporting signatory. All names on the article are discussing the state terrorism page except Uber. Travb I think can speak for himself above if his issue had to do with the events on state terrorism page and we can ask Giovanni as well. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Love being called wrong. However see User:Travb/deleted-rfc#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. There are two names but not two sets of evidence that they have both tried to solve it with WMC. I suggest (actually I don't suggest this because I think moving on would be better but you know what I mean) restarting at the beginning and including diffs of evidence of people trying to solve it with WMC. Bear in mind that general complaints don't count as trying to solve it; you need at least to have proposed something. I did not do the deletion for improper certification because I had commented, and there may be other good reasons for the deletion but that one is glaring. --BozMo talk 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you followed the difs you would see all of those signatory people had attempted to resolve the dispute, which is why I stated you were wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the next step would be Arbcom. As violations of blocking policy and protection policy are not issues that require dispute resolution. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When you have quite finished disagreeing you might realise that actually I am trying to help you understand what was filed wrong. You need to put the right diffs in the right place. If you think these steps were satisfied by your RFC do appeal the deletion or by all means go to whoever you think you ought to go to next. --BozMo talk 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of appealing, which is why myself and all the signatory people are on this page, you do realize Viridae is the one who deleted? And I already stated I may take it to Arbcom, so I am not sure what your point is. Further there is only one section to list attempts to resolve, so they were placed there, and like I said above, and you seem to ignore, you can see if you follow the links that were in that section, that other editors did attempt to resolve the issue ... In the future fully investigate a situation, however I do appreciate your attempts to clarify the situation even though your understanding of it was not complete. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The said user has a long history of inappropriate blocks and has been warned many times. There was no reason to delete the RfC except to please the said user. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fluff

During the moves and redirects, I think the talk page may have been misplaced...or else I'm just not seeing it? APK ^{yada yada} 09:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll look thanks for the notification. Viridae^Talk 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok it is back where it was supposed to be - it didnt move when the article moved. Viridae^Talk 09:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I too was wondering where that had gone. I blanked the redirect I found there, but was looking in the wrong place for the talk page. I see that all is now right with the world. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste does not violate the GFDL. Moving content from one part of a page to another part of that page or to another article is done all the time and is an obvious desired intended consequence of using the GFDL. The GFDL requires an actual copy of that license to accompany the GFDLed item and you will notice that we don't have a separate copy per article, just one for the whole wikipedia. The whole wikipedia can be legally considered one item and copying from one article to another is no more illegal than moving a sentence within an article. But ethically and for purposes of being able to extract specific articles we do our best to maintain article specific lists of authors. To that end current best practice is to note in the edit summary and sometimes also on the talk page where content was moved from so at a later date the top five article editors can be reasonable determined (Include the top 20 by edit count and size of edits will probably get the top five, for example). WAS 4.250 (talk)

That is for merging and splitting. Where possible, to keep things simple, we try to use the "move" function provided as part of the software. In this case, it seems an admin was needed, but all that required was patience. Anyway, all fixed now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Evening

Evening sir - long time no see! Just checking in to see how things are? Haven't had the chance to catch up with you in a while. Hope everythings cool, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

heyo - yeah good good. I am a bit less active these days - life > wiki. Viridae^Talk 01:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll be joining that club very very soon. PhDs mean more than anything wiki-related unfortunately.... Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PhD? Nice one - I have been tossing that option over - love to go back and do another on of my honours supervisors projects - but my field is pretty small so a PhD might limit my employment to a handful of research labs around the world. Viridae^Talk 02:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you probably have it watchlisted, but FYI just in case you hadn't seen it, FM has added a section about you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Viridae. --B (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’d like to say that I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project; however, I’m not sure whether you feel I am Voldemort or Harry Potter in the BADSITES situation. Please feel free to elucidate. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither actually - will explain by email. Viridae^Talk 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks. Risker (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

I would like to call your attention to this deletion that I disagree with and User talk:TimVickers#AIDS denialism where I comment on it. You are the second person I have notified. I will also notify FT2 then walk away and let you guys sort it out. Thank you for helping Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC )

A rhetorical question

I intended it to be more of a rhetorical question, but point taken nonetheless. Still, one can hope, can't they? --Dragon695 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that one - I laughed :) Viridae^Talk 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You have flaunted your incorrect use of flouted :)

Which Tony corrected, and I uncorrected on the grounds that one does not change the evidence of others, even to correct nits. Tony is correct about the usage, you should go restore the correction in your own name :) ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2008 Omnibus Editor and Administrator Conduct Review

Good luck! All I can say is wow! This is going to be a real whopper of a case. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been added as a party to the merged case. If the case was accepted separately, you'd have been a party to that one since you initiated it, so this only makes sense. Hope you understand. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I always extecped to be a party in the JzG case wether I initated it or not. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorftrottel has suggested here that the parties might like to make a fresh statement now that the evidence has been thrown in, and the community is trying to decide what proposed remedies are appropriate.

I have created a new area for this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties. Please consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A salient question

As someone who has tangled with Guy and observed quite a few of his other conflicts, I'd like to see something noted:

I have repeatedly seen Guy compelled to make some sort of acknowledgment that his behaviour has been out of line, but I have never seen him apologize to an immediate victim; at best he apologizes to the rest of the community.

I simply cannot see him as ever really reformed until he not only starts apologizing to some of his victims (though I must agree that sometimes his behaviour, though objectionable, is in response to the objectionable behaviour of others), but also starts walking through the process of apologizing to past victims. —12.72.72.242 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have OTRS?

And if yes, can you check the alleged email on the Marsden talk page? (ps. kudos on protection, the last thing we need is another two people blocked for edit warring...) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. Try Guy or Krimpet or possibly Alison (she seems to have every other userright!). No probs on the protection - they are obviously good faith, just need the ins and outs explained.c Viridae^Talk 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Or jump on IRC. Viridae^Talk 12:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I ended up getting Daniel (here). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw that. Good work all round. Viridae^Talk 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cla68

I've scrambled my password. Are you so petty as to not allow me one parting comment? Raymond Arritt 74.9.242.66 (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its a pretty petty comment. I was not however aware of the scrambled password. There is no garauntee that you are who you say you are however so please sign it like it is above. Viridae^Talk 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

A neutral bystander's observation:

I concur in your temporary blacklisting for now since the site's been hacked. Given all the controversy around this site, however, any permanent blacklisting should be based on wide community consensus. In that spirit, as soon as this site is back on line and safe, it should be removed from the blacklist.

From my observation of wiki-politics, there will be a tendency for that blacklisting to become de facto permanent the longer it stays in place -- sort of like setting concrete. The burden of making a convincing case vis-a-vis its blacklist status will tend to shift to the person removing it; to date it's been on those wanting to add it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It was removed as soon as the site was unhacked, which was my intention too. It was better that I, a WR user, did it because there was less controversy that way. Viridae^Talk 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

acknowledgement of evidence

Do you have a link or links to where you concretely acknowledged specific parts of the evidence presented against you in the RfA as valid, something along the lines of what Cla68 did here? I didn't find anything to that effect on the evidence page, where it should imho ideally be posted, or at least linked. dorftrottel (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, just now noticed that Jayvdb has created this section. dorftrottel (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TV template

Hello... a request. In your summary for the discussion regarding the use of flags, you stated "As there appears to be an established protocol that they are used I guess that means no consensus for removing them." I'd like to ask that you remove that statement as it does not reflect the actual situation, (There is no protocol regarding the use or non-use, hence the problem.) I think it is sufficient to say that there is no consensus, and encourage further discussion (as you've already done.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to Unprotect Joe Scarborough

Please see talk page. We have consensus. Thank you. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A guy from NET is harassing me

This guy http://en.technocracynet.euDISABLE/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=358 Network of European Technocrats - Jure Sah . He is this guy here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:89.212.75.6 DustWolfUser talk:89.212.75.6 .

He showed up out of the blue and put a spam sticker on the Technocracy movement article and also my user page... I feel like he is stalking me or harassing me. Could you look into this? Maybe ask him to leave me alone ? I explained to him that it was not me that put the NET site up for deletion. Thanks.

Check again

This user Special:Contributions/Beyonce9481 you just blocked, its pretty evident from the very first edit its a vandal only account. Its your choice but lets see what happens in 24 hours :) Monster Under Your Bed ^{(talk 2 me)} 11:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep - probobly won't be constructive. But I prefer to give them once chance - after that they will be indeffed whoever deals with them (if they come back) Viridae^Talk 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Social Networking!

		The Barnstar of Social Networking!
		Congratulations! [4] giggy (:O) 11:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I LOL'd Viridae^Talk 11:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Thanks very much for the kind words. — Dan | talk 04:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

The first edit of 3 I have made to that page wasn't an undo, it was just a normal edit. I have only done two undos there, so how can I have hit 3RR? Also, the particular thing I have reverted seems to be something that User:QuackGuru is likely to revert now. We have a difference of opinion, and he won't listen to what I (or another user previously) have said on the talk page.I hope though that it's not needed and that he doesn't revert, but any chance you (or someone else) could have a gander at Talk:Jimmy_Wales#lead_sentence_and_cite_.22failing_verification.22 and weigh up our arguments? Thanks and sorry, I am acting in good faith and don't mean to be a nuisance with this. Deamon138 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

“ Reverting involves returning a page to a previous version. In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined more broadly as the undoing of another editor's work by returning any part of a page to an older version. - WP:REVERT ”

So your first edit, while not using the undo, was essentially a revert. Viridae^Talk 08:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, I won't revert that page again today. Deamon138 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

revert

Sorry, I reverted this. I understand your intention but this looked annoying on top of the page and not at all aesthetically pleasing :) --Irpen 01:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh but did you get the reference? :P Viridae^Talk 01:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For posting "Don't Panic" in large letters at the top of a heated discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe thanks :) Viridae^Talk 01:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully understood the joke and appreciated it too. But I just thought that that page is better off without it. At your own page it looks great though. --Irpen 02:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Coolio :) Viridae^Talk 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Given the fct that we were in conflict when this tragedy occurred, I find it extremely noble of you to reach out and attempt to comfort me. Your words have helped to sustain me in an impossible situation. I will never for get your kindness to a Wikipedian in distress. Jeffpw (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Username

Yes, it is a reference to a Dire Straits song, although it says that on my userpage.--Les boys (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Didnt read your userpage. Went straight to talk. I love Dire Straits. Viridae^Talk 07:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Refactor?

Perhaps the more academic bovine feces would suffice...? Durova^Charge! 12:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I do overuse that word, on wiki. Thanks :) Viridae^Talk 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ty :) Durova^Charge! 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like a little bit of Latin to pretty things up a bit :) Or use another language like I do. Nobody's ever going to guess what "cac tairbh" means! :) - Alison ^❤ 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprising

The reason I summarily reverted your edit to the Albanian pederasty article was the edit summary you posted: "(rem questionabl pro pedo material)". You should not be surprised if this sort of comment invites that sort of reaction. I, however, am very surprised to discover you are an admin. I do not think it right that you should permit yourself such remarks when in a position of authority and presumably charged to control exactly that kind of behavior in others. I have taken the text you have reverted and placed it on the talk page of the article. Please drop by and express your objections. Haiduc (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What led you to protecting United States intervention in Chile

Was there a request? Where was it posted? --DHeyward (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There doesn't have to be a request for protection to be instated. The reasons for protection were given when the protection was instated (and are pretty obvious) Viridae^Talk 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What brought you to that article? --DHeyward (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page. Someone gave you a 3RR warning. I saw that, checked the article history, determined that you hadn't broken 3RR but there was a slow motion edit war in progress and there had been for about 5 days and protected the article. Viridae^Talk 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting IP stalkers is not a "slow motion edit war." Semi-protection would have been a better choice so that established editors can still edit. I'd also prefer that you take my talk page off your watch list. --DHeyward (talk)

No reason for the latter, i have hundreds of userpages on my watchlist and it is and was an edit war over content. Salker is a seriou scharge - take it to RFCU or ANI as appropriate. Viridae^Talk 12:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'd prefer you remove my talk page from your watch list. I don't believe any good can come of it and your judgement is seriously lacking if you think reverting this IP and this IP constitutes an edit war that requires protection instead of realizing they are IP meatpuppets/sockpuppets of the now banned User:Giovanni33. Their only contributions to WP is reversion of my edits without talk page commentary. Please reconsider both my requests. --DHeyward (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence that that is a banned user, take it to RFCU. If not - it remains an edit war. An edit war between a registered user and an IP requires full protection. As to your last request - no. Viridae^Talk 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV - Sloan Bella

Just advising you of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 11#Sloan Bella, since you had previously deleted the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Viridae^Talk 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IM PANICKING

Comment by indef-blocked user removed, revert if nessecary. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of Dyinghappy

Hi. Please respond to this user. You blocked him without warnings for sockpuppeteering, but he claims to have not done this. Of course, they always do, but I can't find any diffs anywhere that suggest he is. Apparently, many emails have been sent to you as you requested, and he's getting a bit upset. Given your history with upsetting other editors (User:MONGO and User:Dheyward) I wonder if this block is valid. Thanks for your time. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)