User talk:Viriditas/Archive 11

   Discussion Conventions

• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
• Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
• Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Older messages are in /archive1, /archive2, /archive3, /archive4, /archive5, /archive6, /archive7, /archive8, /archive9 /archive10

Picture of the day

The house sparrow (Passer domesticus) is a passerine bird of the sparrow family Passeridae. Originally native to Europe, the Mediterranean Basin and a large part of Asia, it is now found in most parts of the world and is the most widely distributed wild bird. It is closely associated with human habitation and resides in both urban and rural areas. The house sparrow is a small bird with a typical length of 16 cm (6.3 in) and a mass of 24–39.5 g (0.85–1.39 oz). Females and young birds are coloured pale brown and grey, and males have brighter black, white, and brown markings. It is sometimes considered a pest but is also sometimes kept as a pet or used as a food item. This male house sparrow was photographed in Prospect Park, New York City, New York.Photograph credit: Rhododendrites

Have a good xmas matey!

Sorry about all the stupid crap that's gone on, but - Marry Xmas anyway :-) Anjoy your wikibreak - hope to see ya soon! Spum 15:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, wrong person :-/. Merry xmas Viriditas, i'll take a look at Vegan nutrition. Meanwhile - fancy helping me out with one of my projects? I need someone such as yourself to write some rules and guidelines up for a wiki i've started for game cheats and hints, i'd be delighted if someone as experienced with policy such as yourself would be able to draft up some stuff :-) </shameless> I'm happy to add people to My wikiproject, such as the person who posted on my wikiproject - bet, i'd prefer they registered a nickname so i am able to chat with them more "solidly".
Cheers Viriditas, have a Good xmas and new year, take it easy and have a nice wikibreak :-) Spum 14:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a merry Chrismas, Viriditas, even if all the evidence seems to indicate you are having a crummy Wikibreak ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Canaen

I put a checkuser request up on Kelly Martin's talk page. Enough is enough. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Haizum

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haizum. freestylefrappe 22:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not edit my comments again or you will be blocked. If you disagree with my statements present your own view of Haizum's behavior. freestylefrappe 23:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that's not how it works, and your comments are a violation of WP:CIV. You either provide evidence (diffs, links) for your claims, or you don't make them. You were apparently misinformed about my role in Haizum's dispute. I asked you to correct your error, but so far you have refused. I am not required to defend myself from unsubstantiated claims. You, however, have the burden of proof. If you can't provide evidence for your allegations, then you should remove them. --Viriditas 00:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Last warning. Do not spam my talk page, once again I ask that you explain your actions in the outside views section. I've seen Haizum's talkpage. Clearly harassment. freestylefrappe 00:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. I have never harassed Haizum at any time, and your claim appears to be spurious and without merit. Simply stating a claim over and over again doesn't make it true. Either provide evidence, or remove your claim. Thank you. --Viriditas 00:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on your remark on Freestylefrappe's page

Please bear in mind that the RfAr on Freestylefrappe is only in regard to alleged abuse of administrator powers and behavior inappropriate to an administrator. -- SCZenz 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If the threatened blocking was indeed unjustified by Wikipedia:Blocking policy, adding evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence would be appropriate. Read through the instructions and try to follow the organizational format used by the majority of the entries there. -- SCZenz 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've probably given all the advice I ought to give, since I'm the principal claimant in the RfAr. If you have any questions, though, feel free to ask me—if I can't answer them, I'll send you to someone who can. -- SCZenz 01:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove accusations made of you, even if erroneous and/or irrelevant, from an RfC. Just state in an appropriate section that you disagree, and let the truth come out. If you really think the accusation is unjustified and its presence greatly bothers you, and you've already requested its removal, you can make a post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see if someone will intervene to help. I can't possibly do so, being already in conflict with Freestylefrappe. -- SCZenz 01:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome for the advice. I really think you ought to get help on the RfC problem from an unvolved admin. This is not a good time to start an edit war with Freestylefrappe. -- SCZenz 03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- SCZenz 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Cauliflower sandwich

So there I was stub-sorting food-stubs, when I come across cauliflower sandwich. I gotta say, {{afd}} was my first thought, especially after a google search didn't seem to indicate this was a big phenomenon. In fact, I get only 24 unique google hits for "cauliflower sandwich" - wikipedia. What's the scoop? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"Arnabeet Mekleh" gets far fewer google hits. My feeling is that the information should be merged to Cauliflower; I never meant to imply it didn't exist, but it seems a little esoteric for a page of its own. But I leave it up to you; I know you are a good editor. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right that a google-search isn't the end-all be-all of notability; it's just a crude measuring stick, doubly so with concepts like this that might go by multiple names. Books, in general, are better than web pages, certainly, and any book references would help a lot. (Although I would add that I personally - this is just me - tend to frown on cookbooks as references, both because they tend to get people into the bad business of putting recipes into Wikipedia and because a lot of cookbooks aren't particularly well-researched.)

The actual results if the article were to be nominated for deletion would of course depend on who showed up that day to vote :-) If the article doesn't list its own references, by default what can be found in google or google books search is likely to be what people base their notability and verifiablity decisions on. (It's also the case the "non-notability" as a standard for deletion is not actual Wikipedia policy, so there are some who would vote "keep" just because it does provably exist.)

I just saw your latest addition to my talk page, and it does feel like moving the page to "fried cauliflower" might be a good idea - it's a broader concept and could include the pita sandwich. Personally I still think a section in Cauliflower would be better.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving articles to better titles is always ok in my book. But, I think merging the article with cauliflower would be like mergin Baba ganoush with eggplant, or Neapolitan sauce with tomato. I don't see a reason to do so, although you may have good reasons. Is there an issue with stand-alone Wikipedia articles on ethnic cuisine? I'm just asking, as I haven't followed the issue closely. --Viriditas 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's just gut feeling, partially based on my perceptions of the notability of fried cauliflower, and partially on the more transformed nature of Baba ganoush and Neapolitan sauce from the original vegetable. I could easily be wrong on both counts. But to me, it seems more like this would be having a separate page on "boiled potatoes". (I know, I know, if you count french fries and home fries and tater tots, we have at least three on, basically, "fried potatoes", so what am I complaining about?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Fried cauliflower works for me. Thanks for the discussion! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nollaig shona duit

Hi, Viriditas. Nollaig shona to you as well. Thanks for always being so friendly to someone whose POV you probably don't agree with! And I wish you all the best for the coming year. AnnH ^(talk) 00:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Haizum

He looks like a troll to me. Encouraging him just makes it worse, Viriditas. Better to invite everyone to step back, tone down the rhetoric and take it easy. My view is that Wikipedia works a lot better when editors take "revert bad edits, ignore trolls" as their motto, and try to stay cool when the editing is hot. I tend to think that those who start dispute proceedings are doing it less to resolve disputes and more to get their jollies from the process, because it's so easy simply to ignore someone who's pissing you off. Anyway, happy holidays to you. -- Grace Note.

Quadell's Sham Nomination

There is a growing concensus that Quadell should not become a bureaucrat! You can flip your vote here you know!