User talk:Viriditas/Archive 9

Older messages are in /archive1, /archive2, /archive3, /archive4, /archive5, /archive6, /archive7, /archive8

Picture of the day

Shirley Graham Du Bois (November 11, 1896 – March 27, 1977) was an American-Ghanaian writer, playwright, composer, and activist for African-American causes. Born in Indianapolis to an Episcopal minister, she moved with her family throughout the United States as a child. After marrying her first husband, she moved to Paris to study music at the Sorbonne. After her divorce and return to the United States, Graham Du Bois took positions at Howard University and Morgan College before completing her BA and master's at Oberlin College in Ohio. Her first major work was the opera Tom-Tom, which premiered in Cleveland in 1932. She married W. E. B. Du Bois in 1951, and the couple later lived in Ghana, Tanzania and China. She won several prizes, including an Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for her 1949 biography of Benjamin Banneker. This photograph of Graham Du Bois was taken by Carl Van Vechten in 1946.Photograph credit: Carl Van Vechten; restored by Adam Cuerden

Star Trek survey

Hello. Please see my Wikipedia:Non-canon Star Trek survey. Thanks. — JIP | Talk 13:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Mars Direct

I merged Mars Direct with the Case for Mars alone because neither page had any discussion on it and I didn't expect to generate much response. I had wanted to expand the Case page beyond a stub but realized it would be largely redundant given Mars Direct. I could have started with "for the first six chapters see main article..." but that seemed silly as neither page will ever be that large. I was planning on adding a second section to Case for topics in the book not directly related to Mars Direct. Two other things to consider before undoing the merge:

• The book makes clear that it is a summation of previous research and thinking and not an original idea, which I can state in the entry. I'm sure there are many books covered in Wiki that are the product of shorter published papers and theses and it seems natural the more robust and well-known work should be included even if it arrived later.
• The Case page now, with pic and review links, is better than the previous Mars Direct page.

Let me know what you think. Marskell 09:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see the expanded The Case for Mars page. Marskell 11:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll take no response as a positive response. Marskell 09:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't know a video existed which separates the entities more than a previous research paper does. Plz if and when you change don't include The Case for Mars in Mars Direct as this simply inverts the problem. Marskell 10:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

User:I-2-d2

Aloha, and welcome back. FWIW, I just saw the edits by 172.145.75.28 and your revert of the anon's edits. I don't know who the anon is, but it has been speculated that User:Coqsportif is a sockpuppet on WP:AN/I, and it is likely that User:I-2-d2 is one of them. --Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Aloha, and thanks. I've been reverting the edits by a clump of anons who have been marking both the image and user pages as CSDs and vandalising them in other ways. If there's evidence for sock puppetry by all means add the template with the evidence linked, nothing wrong with that (that is to say, I'm not really fond of the idea behind the sock puppet template apart from for epidemics like sollog, but there appears to be broad community support for it so who am I to object). --fvw* 03:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

We're probably on the same page. The sock template would certainly be more useful if there were a verified check user IP behind it (plus an arbcom decision) but given the response time required for such a request at present, and the proliferation of puppets of mass disruption (!) I'm afraid that Wikipedia is literally drowning in trolls and a solution is desperately needed. If you have any ideas, please share them. --Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, since you're a wikiexpert, can you take a look at the new Template:Attack I created, and offer any criticism, changes, or suggestions? That is to say, will this template be helpful? I think it might work well for newbies. --Viriditas | Talk 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, I get to be a wiki-expert, yay me. I'm afraid someone beat you to the idea though, see Template:No personal attacks. For what it's worth, I like your wording better, though it should be kept in mind that the blocking policy doesn't cover personal attacks.

As for how to rescue wikipedia, I'm afraid me and the community are on different pages (if not in different books) on that subject, which is one of the reasons I don't hang out here quite as often anymore. I'm tempted into a little RC patrol every now and then when I'm trying to avoid the things I should be doing though. --fvw* 03:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a subpage explaining your position and how it differs from the community? If not, I would be interested in hearing it. In any case, I've changed "blocked" to "banned" on the attack template. Thanks for your input. --Viriditas | Talk 06:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, as it's mainly people-need-to-change-their-mind-about-this stuff, not some simple procedural changes. In a nutshell, the problems wikipedia is currently facing are caused by it taking much too long for negative behaviour to get an appropriate response. This is manifesting itself amongst admins as well as the single-issue troublemakers. I think we (and when I say we, I mean them, but we sounds so much nicer) need to keep in mind that our end goal is making an encyclopaedia, and that there are some people (who may be well-intentioned) who do a lot more harm than good and that chances are, we cannot reform them into editors who are going to edit harmoniously. A lot of troublemakers who are currently not banned outright because they're also doing some useful work are a net drain on wikipedia as they make editing unpleasant for all the good editors and thereby driving away a number of editors and potential editors that could far exceed their output. If we quickly tell those who are causing trouble (as opposed to newbies of course) "I'm sure you're a wonderful person but it is felt that you're probably doing the cause of wikipedia more harm than good so we've decided not to take any further contributions from you", I think a lot of people's wikistress will go down a lot and wikipedia will revert to the kinder, gentler place it once was (yes, I'm one of the everything-used-to-be-better believers).

Once that is happening we should also start putting consequences to transgressions made by the editors who are in the balance doing good, like violations of NPA, revert warring, self-unblocking (what's with the recent spate of that by the way?), block-warring and severe wikiquette violations. Even the best of editors have moments of weakness, but as there are no repercussions apart from for chronic and severe violators, people are getting used to it and starting to accept it as normal. There's no need for huge penalties, but a slap on the wrist to remind people it is not acceptable.

Anyway, thanks for the invitation to rant, always nice to hear that someone actually wants to read this stuff. --fvw* 02:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Trolls

I'm always glad to raise a smile. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking a swing at Kam School? Comments please

Aloha! I could use some advice from you about a sentence JereKrischel inserted into the Punahou School (discussion) article, to the effect that Kam School is now the only place in Hawaii with an official racial discrimination policy. Both of us are new, I'm sure I've been trampling on toes myself with my starting efforts, so I don't feel it's my place to be high-handed about anything.

--IslandGyrl 22:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Mahalo! Thanks for the quick response. --IslandGyrl 23:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Hawaiian Monarchs

Hello, are you familiar with the Kingdom of Hawaii's monarchy? There's been a huge fuss lately over whether articles on Hawaii's monarchs are in the right location and there are some people who'd like to change the format used in naming the articles (e.g. one user wants to move the article Kamehameha I to Kamehameha I, King of Hawaii. We're having a (slow) discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style#Names of monarchs, and as a member of WikiProject:Hawaii, your views on the conflict would be most appreciated. Thank you! 青い(Aoi) 08:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will follow your advice on the issue. 青い(Aoi) 17:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My Response

I understand the policies, but I don't understand why no one asks Calton to lay off from his personal attacks. Look at his edit summaries, and his messages - I left a friendly note on his talk page initially, and *HE* started the personal attacks. What's up with that? Ray Lopez 11:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page... I was going to collect the anon ip's comments at the bottom under a new topic, attributed to the ip, but that would have probably been too mean... :) - ulayiti (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

While I don't think Acid (talk · contribs) is necessarily wrong in moving Milky Way to Milky Way Galaxy, I do think that his obsessive move warring (see contribs) without discussion is disruptive. He's been warned about page moves three times in the last five days on his talk page but TTBOMK the user has failed to respond to repeated queries. Can the user be blocked for disruption, or is there a better way of dealing with this? --Viriditas | Talk 11:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's had enough warnings now yes. There's no reason to block him now however, he may just not have logged in to wikipedia recently. If he returns and resumes the page moves a block would seem appropriate in my view, but let's hope that it's ended here. --fvw* 22:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits

Have you even read any Chinese issues of The Epoch Times? That article was going fine until TJive comes and reverted anything he does not agree with. He's the one that should be reverted.

Terri Schiavo

GordonWatts has started an edit war, violated 3RR, and gotten an admin to lock the article. He wants to insert language using weasel words to imply that Terri's transfer to a hospice was illegal or improper or something. I have proposed a compromise that we insert language from the Schindler's motion to the courts challenging Michael's guardianship. (which then says the courts dismissed the motion) Gordon won't accept it. He may also be interested in prolonging the dispute, since his version of language is currently in the locked version of the article. Your input would be appreciated. [1] FuelWagon 20:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The admin who locked the Terri Schiavo page has put in an article RFC. I've tried to write down a brief description of the content issues here. FuelWagon 13:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

thx re edits fix

I was going to fix Wagon's page, but was busy elsewhere - my cache clears each time, and I see the current version, but thx for the fix.

Now, on a different note, we need your help Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo and Talk:Terri_Schiavo for TIME-SENSITIVE votes -- hurry, please! Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

thx for adding me to wikipedians in CALI

I am wondering how could you categorize me to wikipedians in California? You have seen my edits in the area before or you just added a quick tag right after I updated my profile. Geographer 01:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Han Chauvinism

Back in June you put a POV check on Han chauvinism but there is no explanation why you did it. Could you elaborate on reason so as to give people a pointer on fixing it? Otherwise the notice should be removed.

Bathrobe 05:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can see where you're coming from now. I think tagging it for lack of references or sources, as you have now done is a better solution. Thanks!

Bathrobe 15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Viriditas, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Occupied territories

Why did you restore that dreck about "Most nations exist on territory that once was considered occupied?" It is just stupid, something like including "most humans breath air" in the homo sapiens entry. Please explain yourself. Marsden 16:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Talk: page there. Also, please don't duplicate content in various articles; the disambiguation link at the top leads to the article discussing the West Bank and Gaza. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo memorial sect.

Please discuss before reverting. A lot of work has gone to allowing room for change on the page without being unilateral. Regarding the particular section, Wikipedia is not a memorial and it shouldn't look like a scrapbook. We don't need three pics—particularly not two of the same object. The words on the headstone are redundant given that they're clearly legible in the pic; if you want to re-insert them at least use normal font. Marskell 12:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If you don't explain in talk, a revert is harmful. - Taxman ^Talk 12:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

So next time I need to change a single letter typo I should revert the entire thing even if cancelling larger changes. C'mon. Marskell 12:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I'll admit I left the brusque note above because I felt "there is no such word as 'momentos'" an unfair response to my comment on the revert. However, there is an upside: I was reminded about the Mars Direct discussion and un-did my merge. Marskell 09:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Lomilomi

I worked the article over a bit. I toned down the political aspect, and added what I knew (just as a Hawai'i resident) about lomilomi being more than just massage, practiced in home settings, etc. Please take a look and see if there's any clumsy language or inaccuraces. Zora 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It's egotistical of me, but I really must add that I helped produce that Charles Nordhoff Gutenberg text to which you linked. Zora 05:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Titicut Follies

I attempted to fix the POV issue that you pointed out with Titicut Follies. Please take a look and make further changes if you think its still not satisfactory. Thanks! --Brian Z 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the vandalism

I've been reverting lots and lots of linkspam, not to mention Muslim piety, and someone is obviously mad at me. Mad enough to create an account just to vandalize my userpage <g>. A great day, though not as exciting as the day on which I was called an "Islamo-fascist bitch" (by one anti-Muslim editor) and a "Zionist enforcer" (by a pro-Muslim editor). Cheers! Zora 03:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian birdies

Aloha matey! I'm super busy right now trying to whip the albatross article into shape, but I should be able to find time to help you with the hawaiian bird articles. I've added a taxobox and even found a government PD image for the Great Frigatebird. I'll need to do some reading before I can meaningfully exand the article, but I'll get round to it, promise! Sabine's Sunbird 03:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

AH was a vegetarian

Truth be told, WP often does resemble a battleground. The only reason AH's vegetarianism is ever disputed relates straight to his dreadful (and deserved) reputation as a genocidal sociopath. The historical evidence for his dietary habits after he became chancellor is overwhelming. Stories about his meat-eating trace back to conflations with pre-1932 accounts or political smears. I'm considering nominating the entire article for AfD, not out of frustration, but through the dawning realization that the true vegetarianism of most people on that list is for the most part no more "100% verifiable" than AH's. Wyss 11:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the text written by Nobs on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--Cberlet 13:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

List of vegetarians

I'm worried that my last edit summary sounded confrontational and I didn't mean it to be, so I apologize in advance if you do read it that way. That said, I'm not sure you understood my edit (which includes a note on the dispute). I'm also concerned that this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, that lots of people are listed as vegetarians on this list, or excluded from it, according to a possible PoV bias and sloppy cites. Wyss 00:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The merge tag

You left the following message on User:Jossifresco's talk page:

Aloha. I just wanted to leave you a note that User:Wyss has removed your merge header. Please add it back in when you get a chance. --Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, User:Shanes removed it. We all make mistakes. Let's try to cooperate on stabilizing the article, ok? Wyss 04:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler

Viriditas, it was my suggestion to User:Wyss that he create a Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler article. I did so because I honestly think it is just the sort of article Wikipedia should have. Hitler's vegetarianism is an unbelievably common squabbling point for veggies and our opponents, and its the type of question for which people like to turn to Wikipedia because no other encyclopedia is comprehensive enough to cover it. And I don't think a lengthy treatment of it is really suitable for List of vegetarians, or for that matter, the main Adolf Hitler article. As for the link to Institute for Historical Review, I think we should assume good faith and accept that Wyss found them while searching for info on Hitler's vegetarianism, and then removed the link as soon as he was told that they are, essentially, Nazi nostalgists. Babajobu 08:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I was horrified and more than a little embarassed when you (Viriditas) told me who they really were. Wyss 18:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Greenhouse image

Since when does an article need to have a "direct" connection (whatever that is) between the title and an image? But since you question the relevance: The article very clearly mentions and describes the Greenhouse Hitler had built to keep him with vegetables and fruits during the war. This is that greenhouse. So it's an image ilustrating a passage in the article. And an excellent image at that. Shanes 10:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, on Shanes' talk page you say the photo was taken for propaganda purposes but it was not. It's a still from personal 16mm colour home movie footage taken by Eva Braun (who had a lifelong interest in photography) and didn't turn up until after the war (indeed, it would have been bad propaganda for them to publish pics of AH's private greenhouse when most Germans had to put up with severe food rationing). I would like you to please ponder this in relation to less-than-civil stuff you've said previously about relative knowledge of the topic and so on. Wyss 22:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Snail eating caterpillar

Aha, I remember that edit. It was a while back, and I figured it would be useful for readers if an easier to remember name redirected to the somewhat obtuse scientific name.

After doing some research, here's my conclusion: the article has got it wrong. The hyposmocoma molluscivora does not have the common name "Snail Eating Caterpillar", rather, it is a term often used by publications to describe the caterpillar. Googling, however, for "Snail Eating Caterpillar" gives more hits, so I'm not really sure what to do. You can move the page to the redirect (and fix the double redirects), or unbold + decapitilize the "Snail Eating Caterpillar" on the article.

This is one of those kinds of things where the very content of Wikipedia's article can influence reality, so use your judgement. ;-) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

AH "veg"

In quotes so as not to annoy you... thanks for the additional sources (including the stuff on Theo Morell)! Wyss 06:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

hey

Thanks for helping me :) I'm very new to this. Ladysway1985 17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cultural references to Jack Kerouac

I was half waiting for others to chime in; if we're the only two really paying that much attention to Jack, then I'll go ahead and do it tomorrow afternoon EDT.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Heads up: your friend was right

I told the idle guy that "You are vindicated on the vegan article page: I repaired the damage my friends, SlimVirgin and Viriditas did --but you ALL were wrong to not cite your sources: I fixed that as well --yes, as a struggling vegan myself, I too find it hard to deal with gelatin caps, but I listed the alternatives -and cited my sources.--GordonWatts 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"

--GordonWatts 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Bob Jones University

Reporting of an opinion must be explicitly stated as such, and not depending on the reader infering the implicit asumption that it is an opinion. Please discuss on further before making another revert. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 22:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)}

Again, statements of opinion must be clearly stated as opinions. The article does not explicitly state that the rules section contains opinions, so it is prudent to clarify when opinions are mentioned. I see little reason to make an objection to this, can you please supply a reason why this should not be clarified before you make another revert. The Abercrombie & Fitch rule is the only rule providing the university's reasoning behind it, if we are simply presenting the rules, then we should remove the mention of their opinions about Abercrombie & Fitch, and state them elsewhere in the article.

Can I also remind you of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)}

Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas

Howdy...we've been working on some changes to infoboxes and formating in the protected areas project you may be interested in. Check the links to 'general" and "status sections as we'd appreciate your thoughts.--MONGO 05:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Shran

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.. It's a general alert to the community to try to guide this prolific editor away from the dark side. Add whatever you like. -Willmcw 07:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the watchlist

Hey Viriditas, thanks for letting me know about the hawaii watchlist. I'll definitely pay attention to it for vandalism. Aloha! --JereKrischel 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Chill on the diary thing, dude!

Check my contribs to see my response about the Anne Frank 4RR thing. Uncle Ed 02:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I demand the explanation

You've sent me a message quoting my statement "I've already explained all these things in detail, but I can't spend my time in dumbing down the nitty gritty details for you." I demand what exactly was the personal attack here? Is "dumbing down" an offensive attack? I think this issue is starting to grow out of control. Why for instance are you interested in retaining the copyvio images? Is it because of the fact that you support his "vandalism" which has already been reported? And you are making personal threats on blocking based on a nonexistant personal attack? Because I think there's something shady going on here.

I demand an apology for your haste in calling me so. How are the other statements considered personal attacks? I think it's best you know the entire story before dashing a reply in anger. I'm not afraid because I don't pirate images of other sites and have never used any profanity anywhere, so you're being rude for the sake of protecting your common interests. Idleguy 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are also rude to me IMO. So why don't you apologize first? Citing a comparison with dolphins is rude? Are you out only to create mischief? Or the fact that SlimVirgin initially said that those images were deprecated which I pointed out as false (aka lie)? I state facts blandly but never abuse. If facts are hurting you maybe you shouldn't read them and find yourself on the wrong end of reality. Both of your are obsessed with these subjects and are trying to suppress the facts.

you can assume good faith for a few articles/images, but not for a plethora of photos he's uploaded? Are you suggesting that copyvio images should stay? Idleguy 06:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Boone

Viriditas, thanks for reverting the "Scottish-American" edits by 155.84.57.253. However in the Daniel Boone article you also reverted my changes, which I have an explanation for on Talk:Daniel Boone. Since you've been around WP longer than I have, could you take another look at the Folklore section of this article, because I don't think an encyclopedia article should have commentary of this sort. Let me know what you think -- MarkBrooks 14:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries, thanks ... MarkBrooks 06:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks as though CantStandYa has been going through and un-reverting the Scottish-American reverts. I don't really want to get caught up in that war, so I'm going to do my edits to the Daniel Boone article again but leave the categories as is -- MarkBrooks 02:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Tilting at Windmills

I'm not clear why you reverted my correction on the redirect page for Tilting at Windmills. A user entering the title of that novel should be redirected to the page for that novel, not to the page of a novel by a completely different title. The phrase itself only appears once in the body of the Don Quixote article. For now, I've replaced the TaW redirect page with a dab page that links to both articles, but I think we should consider making TaW permanently redirect to The Eternal Quest and either putting a dab on that page or just relying on the link to DQ in that page's opening graf. | Keithlaw 13:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: "Tilting at windmills primary refers to Don Quixote, as any google test will prove." A Google test may show that the phrase "Tilting at windmills" is associated with DQ, but it will not say that it refers to Don Quixote. Nomenclature on Wikipedia should be based not on associations but on real-world nomenclature - and "tilting at windmills" is not a name for the Cervantes book. In addition, among the first ten results for a Google search on "tilting windmills book," the Branston book appears twice, whereas the book Don Quixote appears just once (for its Wikipedia entry), with one hit each for the Hibbs and Macgowan books. | Keithlaw 16:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyrights

I am aware of copyrights but was under the impression that bios (not whole books, but general facts) and bibliographies were well under fair use. I generally go to the writer's website and get what they make as public information. Do I merely need to rephrase sentences? I also thought that fair use involved non-financial gain. Wiki is non-profit, so I would think we're protected? Surely the writers you cited would not mind a listing? If nothing else it would lend prestige. I have decided to try making entries on more contemporary writers and magazines. Surely a signed release is not needed, is it? If so, I will not even bother, for it's a shame. I did my first yesterday and cited the website. I have seen many fansites for celebrities used as info for their wiki entries, which were verbatim, and most likely done by their PR people. Is not that a violation? I can go back and rephrase some of my prior edits, if that's what it takes. I'd not want to engender lawsuits for Wiki. But, I have a number of ideas for writers and websites and even some scientists to do pages for. I realize quoting from a particular theory or book might not be allowed- I believe it's the essence clause, or some such, but if the person's website, which is likely to have the most thorough and accurate bio info, is verboten, then how to claim it for the public good? As I usually Google info on entries and add here and there from the top sites or an interview, need every website be quoted? I state this because I usually check the histories and have seen such is almost always lacking in articles that are old. I am not trying to exculpate any error I made, however, if so, I am one of thousands who has made this error, and I've seen far more blatant examples than mine, which are mainly bios, and not direct quotations. Please look at the one entry I made storySouth and tell me if this is cited well enough. I think it is. If not, then I will just stick to editing, but I think there are some fairly well-known artists under-represented; especially women and minorities. It would be a shame if I cannot include them. If not a problem, I will use it for a template for any future artist/scientist/mag/blog entries I plan on doing. I did not realize this was a problem. I saw you posted yesterday, but have seen that often on other user pages, and thought you simply were angry at some edits. I have seen too many edit wars and have not the stomach for them. However, if legal issues are involved I will correct any inadvertant errors over the next few weeks before I attempt my next new entry. Basically, I need to know a) can bio info be used if rephrased? Surely, "A was born in 1925" is not copyrightable? b) the extent of citations since many artists or entries have voluminous fan pages. I wd tend to think this is public info if so vastly reproduced. c) If so, I would ask you to see many other entries for pop stars, film stars, and the like, because they seem to have much blatant copyrighted material--song quotes, etc. as well as promotional stuff. Far more so than mere bio info. Red Darwin 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Viriditas,

Thanks for the message. I am having fun poking around. I hope my contributions are useful. So far I am limiting myself to minor edits. When I get more confidence I might tackle editing an article. We'll see how it goes. Baby steps.

Schmiteye 03:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist

Hi, Viriditas, thanks for your message. Obviously a good article on the Eucharist would explain what a host is, although I'm not saying I think the Wikipedia article on the Eucharist is particularly good at the moment! The thought of creating a separate article for the host wouldn't have occurred to me except for recent attempts to put "bread" into the Terri Schiavo article. However, a good Catholic encyclopedia – or even a middle-quality one! – would almost certainly have a long article on the Eucharist and a short one on the host. The article on the host would cover such things as size, shape, the requirement that only wheat and water (or wheat, water, and yeast for the Eastern rites) be used. A Catholic article on the Eucharist would cover such things as the Institution, the history, the graces that come from it, etc.

As far as I know, Protestants don't call it "host". I'm not even sure that Eastern Orthodox people do. Interestingly, the word "host" doesn't appear at all in the article on the Eucharist (at the moment).

On the one hand, I don't think there was really a need to start changing the article to clarify that the host refers to the Eucharist in the form of bread. I think that since it was already linking to Viaticum and Holy Communion, it would have been obvious to those who were not familiar with Catholic sacraments. On the other hand, if we are providing extra clarification, I don't think it should be through putting the word "bread" into the article. The normal word used in that context is "host". I think it would be better to have a short article explaining what a host is, rather than directing to the big article on the Eucharist, and leaving the reader to wade through it. (The word "host" definitely should be in that article, and I intend to put it in.)

So, I don't think that "host" is fully covered in the Eucharist article. And since the Eucharist article covers various Christian churches, I think that inserting a lot of Catholic information about size, shape, matter, form, etc. would upset the balance. On the other hand, I think that there should be a short article about hosts.

Anyway, my idea is to expand the "host" article, linking it to Eucharist, and to clarify the Roman Catholic section of the Eucharist article, linking it to "host". You're not the only one to think that a redirect is appropriate, however – within minutes of the creation of the "host" article, someone did redirect it to Eucharist. And if I am overruled on this, I'll take it gracefully – as long as the the Terri Schiavo article doesn't say that the priest tried to give her bread!

By the way, I seem to remember that you were friendly with Professor Ninja. You may not have noticed that he's back. His mother died in July. Hope all is well with you! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Insanity

I don't know you, nor do I care to. You are clearly trying to push some agenda--political, editorial, philosophical, for I see that most of your edits are reversions of many other editors. This is your right. If you think that an edit is bad you can change it, as can I , darwin, or any other editor. The only reason I found your link was because I, and several other users have recently been the victim of impostures, and your paranoid rant I came across. Talk of suspicious! Only a few hours later I am the victim of impersonation to discredit me. Then, Alabamaboy, who others have accused me of being in collusion with, is also targeted. That is suspicious in the highest. I have also looked into some of these other things about impersonation and it would seem that someone with a grudge, and much Wiki experience can do so. Have I interacted with other editors? Yes- some positive and some negative. But you are afont of misinformation. This whole insane idea about me and darwin gor started because you are utterly clueless about copyright law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

I would suggest you actually bookmark the page and read not only that section, but others. I wonder how many good edits you've undone because of your ignorance? Even those I've argued with, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marine_69-71 this admin, admit that the entries we've clashed over are better because of my help. And another admin gave me a barnstar. Yet, you're God? Even though you don't know basic copyright law. As I told the Shakespeare editors, my main goal is to reduce these monster sized entries. Since you are obviously oblivious to copyright law, perhaps you should stick to text as well. The same goes with your pal Mel, who apparently has also made a habit of harassing others, as User Don Diego states. As with the Shakespeare crowd, you cannot defend your own edits, so you resort to slander and innuendo. As I did with them, I say, worry about your own quality of edits and leave others alone. If you dislike an edit, revert it, but to impute ill motives, slander others, resort to cabals or the like is wrong. As I told the Shakespeareans, when they accused me of being Alabamaboy's puppet. I am not. I likewise am not Red Darwin, nor his puppet. I wish the same could be said for you and Mel. As proof of your insanity, or inability to actually read, you further claim that darwin and I state similar things on copyright. Yet, clearly, he's as clueless as you are! I know these issues and have worked with them for years. This inability to even grasp words leads me to believe that your edits are prob not good, and the many people you and Mel have harassed have legitimate reasons to be angry. You seem paranoid, and if you are the impersonator- clearly insane.

To end, I wish you nor anyone any harm, but please do not try to stop me by slander, innuendo, or impersonation to get me in trouble with others. I cannot prove that you were the vandal that impersonated me and Alabamaboy and others, but, to quote you: it 'is either an amazing coincidence or highly suspicious'. Perhaps you have the technical skill and programs to continue to harass me and others you have issues with, but surely you have better ways to spend your time? After all, so many articles are in dire need of trimming, clarification, and the like. And please, look at copyright law, or any other issues that other users have, before you undo good edits, and engender ill will. A litle caution is always wise. That said, I desire no contact with you, save should we meet editorially. However, if another impersonation arises, I at least have my suspicions on record. Iago Dali 15:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Chat

How you doing,Viriditas? Seeing the number of users involved in the dispute I've asked User: Michael Snow to look into the case and the issues involved. Michael is a very respected member of the community and can deal with the issues involved better then I can. Tony the Marine 22:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi There

How you doing? I noticed the following posting on my talk page, Your edits and edit summaries are nearly identical to Red Darwin (talk • contribs), and the time stamps of both users appear to reflect a period of logging on and logging off. You're either posting under multiple accounts or you are not. The fact that you have directly responded to a question posed to User:Red Darwin (the copyright issue) and reiterated points that he made on my talk page [1] regarding copyrights and biographical articles is either an amazing coincidence or highly suspicious. --Viriditas | Talk 11:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

Now I know that we do not know each other, but I'm highly respected in the comunity and this seems to me like an uncalled for accusation. Pardon me if I'm wrong. User Dali asked me to help him investigate an impostor that has affected him and has posted in my talk page his feelings about the situation. I believe that the imposter is not only after him, but is also impersonating many other users. I have no control over the posts made in my talk page and then on somebody elses talk page. My conclusion is that there is a joker impersonating many user's who either have an "I" or "L" in thier user name and that it is a random act. I hope that things between you and Dali can be settled in a freindly way. Tony the Marine 16:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

I will crosspost this at these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marine_69-71 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iago_Dali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas

Wow! Leave for a few days and WW3 breaks out. First, let me address my concerns:

Tony: We have never interacted before but I see you are an admin. I am concerned about all this business of imposters. Have I been impersonated? If so, what recourse do I have? Apparently, I am embroiled in a dispute between these two other users and some other peripheral people.

Iago: It seems that I have been tied to you by the user below, who seesm a bit overeager regarding copyrights. First off. Thank you for posting that link on Copyright Law. I looked it over as well as the Wiki link and I say that you seem to know your stuff. I think I may put a link to it on my page for future reference. I admit I was a bit "clueless" as you said. However, it seems my edit style has sent Viriditas into a frenzy. That is because I am guilty of aping your style. I had come across some of your edits a while back and liked how concise you made many of the entries. I agreed with the contents boxes being too long, and liked your basic "template", I would call it, of making an entry with a life, career, bibliography, and links section. I thought it made things far more readable, and after comparing before and after edits I decided to "steal" your style. I did not feel this was wrong, and I admit editorial plagiarism, however, it was not my intention to get you into hot water. I also mimicked your summaries. The truth is that I have stolen some techniques from other editors--such as sentence structures, rhetorical flourishes, etc. I am a career writer and have been trying to hone my editorial skills in hopes of an upcoming career opportunity. That said, I did not realize this could be deemed "suspicious". Hopefully, I have masqued my other editorial plagiarism better. I am sorry if my faux pas or indiscretion has somehow caused a party or parties to target you or me. However, after looking over the laws you cited I have to agree that Viriditas has gone overboard. I don't know if he's been sued over such matters, but clearly he is wrong on that score, as well as his attempts to link us. As for my plagiarism, please take it in the imitation is the highest form of flattery vein. I simply think you've done very well at trimming many articles full of rumors and innuendo, as well as unprovable facts. However, I have not your stomach for conflict, nor your ferocity.

Viriditas: Thank you for your concern, and I hope Iago is wrong about you. I can state that you are wrong about me. Whether you believe this is your business. However, I would urge that in the future, before you undo the edits of others you actually be informed of what you speak of. Clearly, erasing additional information serves no purpose. If you have concerns I would state you rephrase the edits, not wipe them out entirely. Also, a bit less paranoia would work- on both yours and Iago's parts. A little common sense can go a long way. Other than my editorial plagiarism it seems to me your imagination is on overdrive, and has been long before this "incident".

To all: I actually, before this all began, was proud of my first entry that I made, on storySouth magazine. I was actually getting restless just editing anyway, and wanted to do some entries on underrepresented and minority literary magazines, writers, artists, and even some environmental entries. Tony, I see that some of this might be up your alley, so I hope you may help me in the future. That said, I fear I may have erred with my first entry, above. It does not come up in the search function when I type it in. Need I register it somewhere? Did I err? Could you please see what I did wrong so that it does not come up? Any help that can be rendered I would appreciate, however, I suggest Iago and Viriditas chill out, and please keep me out of your wars. Again, if my editorial plagiarism seemed suspicious, it was inadvertant on my part, and the blame is mine, not Iago's. I will try to limit my "plagiarism" in the future, and stick with making some articles for a while. I'm sure that we all had the best of intentions and all share some blame. For my part, again, I apologize. But, please, Tony, let me know of this serial imposter- this concerns me far more than yet another edit war! Cheers, Red Darwin 18:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen a UFO, alien ?

Have you seen a UFO,alien ? Did you report this? Got disrespected,ridiculed because of this ?

I travel the whole US as a prospector,Metal Detecting Enthusiast, and when not working, I look into the area's history, especially its paranormal history. I have had some CE-1s, one really bad CE-3+ when I was a kid. Some people think it is funny to disrespect other people when they have had bizarre encounters with the paranormal. I am NOT accusing you of anything at all. SOME people had told me personally that should there be alien contact, a worldwide rebellion will break out. I will NOT repeat the obscenity laden version of that statement. Peace.Martial Law 23:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)

Had a keypad error.Martial Law 23:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Seen a UFO/Alien ? Hope not, you'll get disrespected,worse !!!!

Thats right, you see a UFO/alien, you will get disrespected,worse.

I travel the whole US as a prospector and as a Metal Detector Enthusiast, so when NOT working, I look into the area's paranormal history. I was told that SOME people think it is funny to disrespect other people who has had a paranormal experience. Do people disrespect others because they had lost a loved one, had a fire ? It should be no different here, but it is because the occurrence is of a unknown nature, people think that the experiencers should be disrespected, instead of the incident being investigated.

Because of the disrespect going on, other factors, other people has told me that should there be alien contact, the people will revolt. I will NOT repeat the obscenity laden statement at all, due to Wikipedian policies on obscene,profane matter.

Peace.Martial Law 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)

Two appearaces, same subject:

The reason this happened is that I was unfamiliar with your talk page formatMartial Law 23:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)