User talk:Viriditas/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

CC

Hi Viriditas; as the discussion thread has been collapsed, just a couple of closing comments here:

• You have a point as to the "allegations" part of the edit we discussed. While there clearly had been a complaint preceding the ICO investigation, that "allegations" wording appears to have been new.
• The editor's talk page comment about "criminals" seems opinionated and gossipy, but excusable to me in light of the time it was made, on the day of the news reports on the ICO findings, which asserted that FOI law had been violated, and that prosecution was no longer possible because the statute of limitations had expired.
• Lastly, the Daily Telegraph is Britain's biggest-selling broadsheet; politically, it supports the present UK government. We cannot declare a mainstream paper like that an unreliable source on anything related to climate change; it is not a fringe publication, and the report that was cited was factual, dovetailing closely with the reports by the BBC and Guardian. We cannot exclude the views of a UK heavyweight like the Telegraph from Wikipedia and uphold NPOV at the same time (or hope to get editors to arrive at some sort of peaceful coexistence within this topic area). I agree it may not be a good source for science proper, but it is a top-drawer source for reflecting public opinion and covering current affairs, which is the context in which it was used there.

Cheers, --JN466 14:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Jayen466. The article by Nick Collins in The Daily Telegraph[1] doesn't appear to be accurate. When we evaluate sources for inclusion, one must ask in this case, does The Daily Telegraph have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on this issue? According to an analysis of the media published in scholarly sources, a pattern of bias, sensationalism, and misrepresentation on the topic of climate change was found to be associated with this paper. I've already given you a small sample of those sources, but you can find more details here. This particular incident is highly reminiscent of a similar problem discussed in a book published by the National Academies Press.[2] An example from that book illustrates one problem with The Daily Telegraph that occurred when the UK government released a report regarding climate change and health. The report stated, "We would therefore not expect more than a very few cases of autochthonous malaria in the UK over the next 50 years. Indeed one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to get malaria from an English mosquito." However, The Daily Telegraph reported "Malaria warning as UK becomes warmer: The UK is to be hit by regular malaria outbreaks, fatal heatwaves and contaminated drinking water within five years because of global warming, the Government has warned the NHS". This is incredibly troubling, considering that the climate change denial lobby (aka "skeptics") have, as one of their main complaints, the allegation that climate scientists are engaging in climate change alarmism. How bizarre it is, then, to see that one of the leading newspapers used to propound climate change denial claims, is actually creating them. Perhaps, this is not so strange when one looks at the facts. According to Owen Gaffney, an editor for Planet Earth, a magazine published by the Natural Environment Research Council: "Over a year ago I questioned a journalist at the paper [The Daily Telegraph] about how it reported and commented on climate science. He said the then editor did not believe the evidence presented by the climate research community."[3] Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think they are necessarily a good source on science fact, any more than papers reporting cancer cures etc. In fact, I've argued and am arguing that we should more clearly privilege academic sources on science fact, just as we do for medicine in WP:MEDRS. But we also reflect public opinion in our articles, and cover current affairs and controversies, and for that sort of thing, the Telegraph is a major source. Otherwise we may end up not reflecting a significant part of public discourse, which would be wrong as well. And if scientists criticise the media reporting, by all means, we should have that criticism too.

The Daily Mail misinterpreting Phil Jones is one such example: see [4]. Even though their report was a bad distortion of what Jones had said, it spawned a notable controversy, and readers would expect to find it in his BLP (or will add it endlessly to the article if it is not covered). I think that is how we get stable articles: by presenting all sides of the debate. Of course that is also what NPOV asks us to do.

As for this specific Telegraph article, I'm not that au fait with the e-mail controversy, but in my reading of all three reports, BBC News[5] The Guardian[6] The Telegraph[7], I didn't find the Telegraph deviating from what BBC and Guardian were saying; much of the content was shared between all three articles. --JN466 22:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph source wasn't used to show or quote public opinion. It was used to distort the findings of the Information Commissioner's office and to allege that a criminal act had occurred. This is not the first time the paper has distorted articles on climate change, and the links in my initial reply show that this has been going on for years, and is more than a simple one time mistake and retraction. Article after article misinforming the public on the subject of climate change produces a noticeable pattern, and many authors and scholars have written about it. The word "reliable" is often used to mean that something is "worthy of reliance or trust", and "conforms to fact and therefore worthy of belief". But the most relevant definition of "reliable" here, is a source that is "worthy of being depended on". This definition prompts us to ask, is this source worthy of being depended on when it comes to the topic of climate change? I leave the answer in your hands. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph said the UEA had "breached the law", according to the Commissioner, and the BBC and Guardian said that too – e.g. "breached data laws" (BBC), "breached the [FOI] act" (Guardian). Could you point me to any part of the Telegraph article that made the UEA actions sound criminal in a way that the BBC and Guardian did not? --JN466 22:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly can, and the differences are quite apparent, but that's not the point (I address this claim in the subsequent reply dated 00:06). The point is that this entire sensationalistic hoopla is based on a statement that Graham Smith made to Johnathan Leake of The Sunday Times.[8] This statement has been distorted and twisted in an attempt to argue that climate science is a fraud. Multiple investigations have dismissed all major allegations against the climate scientists. A response from the UEA to this statement and the errors that originated in the media from it can be found here. The rampant sensationalism and loud misrepresentation in The Daily Telegraph begins with the headline and continues until the end. Our article on the Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report puts to rest the misinformation about the glaciers promulgated in that news story. An open letter from scientists[9] on this subject best describes the problem:

Many in the popular press and other media, as well as some in the halls of Congress, are seizing on a few errors that have been found in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in an attempt to discredit the entire report. None of the handful of mis-statements (out of hundreds and hundreds of unchallenged statements) remotely undermines the conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

As for the claim that "criminals" working for the UEA violated the FOI this was actually in circulation well before the IOC published a letter, and the man responsible for bringing this complaint to the IOC, had apparently been at it since 2003. On November 23, 2009, Christopher Monckton himself wrote:

One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years. Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up...Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.[10]

We know that many editors used the sensationalistic media reports on Wikipedia to try to discredit climate science and scientists, and turned Wikipedia into a battlefield for their fringe POV. Many editors and administrators who should know better, turned their backs and did nothing. We now know that those editors and administrators were wrong to do so, and many editors like myself have called on our pathetically weak and almost nonexistent sourcing policies and guidelines to be tightened, and for the critical evaluation of sources by editors to be made the highest priority, especially in situations where "recentism" and manufactured media controversy becomes the driving force over facts. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To give an example from another field, I have edited and researched articles on various new religious movements here in WP. This too is a polarised field: scholars have been accused of being cult apologists, and scholars in turn say that the media reporting is biased and, often, factually wrong. When faced with a situation like that, I do not think we can wholeheartedly take sides, throwing our lot in with one side while leaving the other side to the wolves. Yes, if there is a clear factual error, we do not need to propagate it, but the Telegraph article we were talking about here does not strike me as an example of this, at this time. --JN466 22:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph article, from start to finish, is a polished work of propaganda, and is not fit for an encyclopedia. I'm sorry we disagree on this point, but there's no way around it. It twists facts to suit its agenda, and distorts claims to promote a POV. There is not a thing "reliable" about it. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, we don't take sides on the topics we cover. We use the reliable sources and let them do the talking. If there are problems with the Telegraph article, then we add criticism of it or contrary information from other sources that rebut it. Then, we let the reader decide who is right and wrong and where the truth lies. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I'm not taking a side on a topic, and you are mistaken as to how we use sources. We first evaluate a source for reliability. We are not trying to "balance" an article with competing sources between geophysicists and flat-Earthers, for example. In The Daily Telegraph article we see many problems with the reporting. For example, the article says:

• University scientists hid data
• The University refused to make its scientific data available to the public in breach of freedom of information laws
• Anthropogenic climate change is only a claim by academic staff

Those are only three out of many problematic claims in this source. Looking further, we see that The Daily Telegraph has a long history of misrepresenting climate change, and at least one journalist is on record saying that one of their editors "did not believe the evidence presented by the climate research community". The reliability of this source on this topic has been questioned. Knowing this, our job as editors is to pick a better source. It's really very simple, Cla68. Do you have an objection to picking a better source, or do you think our job as editors is to do random Google searches and pick whatever source we find? Evaluating for reliability means having information about the source, author, publisher, etc. We use that information to pick the best sources possible. What part of that process do you object to, Cla68? Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, all the three points you mention as indications that the Telegraph is unreliable also appeared in the Times, which seems to have broken the story, given that the Telegraph quotes the Times. The Times said, Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data; it said the university broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny; and it said The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. If the Telegraph's making these statements disqualifies it as a reliable source in your eyes, then by the same token you have to disqualify the Times as well. This is not the solution. --JN466 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not qualified to pick and choose the sources we use, beyond a certain, basic level. You know that truth is elusive. That's why our policy is written as it is. I've seen this kind of debate before in other articles. The article about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, for example. Editors there disagree about how many people were killed in the bombing. They are always attacking each others' sources when they produce different numbers. The book Downfall by Richard B. Frank gives a much lower number of casualties than some other book written by a peace activist. So the supporters of the peace activist start attacking Frank's book, saying that he has a political agenda for his numbers. So, the editor trying to use Frank's book responds in kind. As a result, nothing useful results. You know what the answer to the disagreement is? You use both. "Frank says that ____ died in the bombing, but so-and-so disagrees, saying that _________ died." Then the reader looks at both and decides who they think is correct. Same thing here with the Telegraph. "The Telegraph reported that the CRU scientists violated FOIA laws, but [some other source] says that the investigations found that no actual laws were violated." or something like that. That's how we do it. Otherwise, we'll be arguing about sources all the time and the article won't get completed. Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We have plenty of good sources at our disposal, none of which need to include The Daily Telegraph. I would like to hear you expand on what you mean by "we're not qualified to pick and choose the sources we use, beyond a certain, basic level". We're certainly qualified to pick and choose the sources we use. Those qualifications are inherent in understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and in Wikipedia's code of conduct (etiquette) which arbcom describes as "Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum". I would say that choosing the best sources is part of that standard of behavior, wouldn't you? Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How do we know what the best sources are when they otherwise meet our definition of a reliable source? Our personal biases come into play. If I have to choose between the Washington Times and The Japan Times, which one do I use? I subscribe to the Japan Times so I might choose it for that reason. The Washington Times, however, is better known and has a wider circulation in the English speaking world. The Washington Times however, is owned by the Moonies, so does that disqualify it? The Japan Times, during World War II, was sometimes a propaganda mouthpiece for the Imperial Japanese government, so does that disqualify it then and/or now?

The Guardian does a lot of environmental reporting, so does that make it better for covering the CRU donnybrook than the Sunday Times? If so, who says, us anonymous Wikipedia editors? I don't think so. In fact, Wikipedia's policy on it is deliberately vague. We might think that one source is better, but then later it turns out that it wasn't. I'm currently heavily using a book by Fred Pearce in the CC articles, because he appears to be more neutral on the CRU affair and aspects of it, like the Hockey stick controversy than other writers, like Andrew Montford, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Pearce is right. How do I know? Unless I was present when the scientists wrote those emails, when Mann and Briffa did their proxy research, and when UAE received the FOIA requests and tried to decide what to do about them, how do I know what happened? I rely on the reliable sources, all the reliable sources, to try to help me figure out and decide what happened. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating sources has little to nothing to do with personal biases, and everything to do with eliminating personal bias. Sorry, I don't have time to explain this to you in detail, as I'm out the door, but I suggest you look at basic research guides, which are available all over the net.[11] Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That guide is for books and journals, not newspapers. Anyway, WP's bar for reliable sources is much lower than that guideline recommends. Also, I have seen books which would do well with that guide still get rejected by some WP editors because they simply don't want the book used, like the Hiroshima example I gave above. That's why we have to try and report what all the reliable sources are saying when there is disagreement on what the "truth" is, as is obviously the case with the CRU incident. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• As an aside, both of you may be interested in the current WP:V proposals and discussions, at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Academic_and_media_sources. I am sure we could have a lively and potentially fruitful discussion. :) --JN466 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke

Hi, Todd appears to be totally over involved with Malke to ever use his Admin tools against her? Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know much about either editor, and I was surprised to learn of Malke's block log. I'm pretty much in the dark on this one. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Typo

In this comment you state "This was after the ICO reported: "We regret that the ICO made a ....", it was actually the Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee that reported.[12] . . dave souza, talk 07:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

fell gleming

Thank you! I appreciate your initiate in coming into this dispute. I have multiple issues with FellGleming, and not a lot of time at the present moment. When I log back in, I'll have a good list of issues to work with. In the meanwhile, you can check the recent history of Linda McMahon and Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010--Screwball23 talk 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Do we start by opening a subpage or just put up the RfC straight off?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Start by creating a draft in your user space, and work on it there. Ask your mentor to help you if you don't know how. That page will act as a repository to put your draft together and for diff collection. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Will you post there too? If other editors with the same issues see it, should they post there as well?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Start the draft in your user space first (User:Malke 2010/History2007). Also, you should consult with User:Moonriddengirl on whether this is a good idea. You need to spend some time collecting diffs and writing arguments in your draft before I can decide if I will participate. You also need to show that you have tried to resolve the dispute under discussion with History2007. As I said to you before, try to focus on the problem at hand, by describing what is wrong and how you want it to change. You should also be willing to admit your own mistakes and to describe how you intend to do better. To be truly neutral, you may want to open a joint RFC on the problem instead of just focusing on History2007, such as User:Malke 2010/Catholic articles or something similar. In fact, I think you would be more successful at this point (after all the unpleasantness) by focusing solely on the problems with the topic, rather than just user behavior. Talk this over with Moonriddengirl and see what she thinks. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I filed an Fof regarding you

Here [13] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FG

FG obviously needs a FoF proposing. Can you be bothered, or shall I? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think they already tried. At this point, we're talking about something much, much larger than that. I've been looking over at the diffs I have so far, and it looks very, very bad for Fell. I've been trying to engage in civil discussion as much as possible, and I've also been making use of the noticeboards to let other editors handle the problem. This alleviates the pressure of trying to solve the problem by myself. I would recommend going in this direction rather than cluttering up the current arbcom case which is already too large. I have already collected enough evidence to open a separate arbcom case against him, so I would leave it be for now and just focus on putting out the fires. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate WP:CANVASS also? My, oh my. Fell Gleaming^talk 11:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, Fell. My door is open to you, my fellow editor. Would you be willing to help me solve this problem once and for all, and work together to fix the articles? The only reason I am pursuing noticeboard reports is because you refuse to use sources accurately and appropriately and edit harmoniously. That's all I'm asking you to do. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change and James Randi

Hi. I was just rereading some of the talkpages relating to the Climate change case, and I came across your comment concerning climate change and James Randi (which I am sure I saw when you posted it a couple of weeks ago but did not focus on at that moment). I am not aware of the incident you mentioned and, although it has nothing to do with my views or voting on the arbitration, you have me curious. If you have a link or can point me in the direction of what you were referring to, I'd appreciate it. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes and I'll find it. It was a pretty big deal when it happened. Viriditas (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it was pretty easy to find: Randi's original blog posting was posed on December 15, 2009, called AGW Revisited. The next day, PZ Myers almost had a nervous breakdown (kidding!) and expressed his shock and dismay. Randi took a few days to think about it, and later issued a major correction to his original post in "I AM NOT "DENYING" ANYTHING". All three of those posts are great reads, especially the comments. Viriditas (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the links. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Loose Change (film)/GA1

Thanks for the update, your effort and time is appreciated. I would have challenged several of SilkTork's points, particularly on "unsourced contentious statements and quotes", as the criticism section was fairly good, but other loose ends kept me from doing so. Perhaps early next year. - RoyBoy 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I like how you did that

I like how you integrated the Jaynes and Rafipy (spelling?) references. Your wiki referencing skills are outstanding. I think the review is going pretty well, and I lay that at your feet for having suggested the expansion in the first place. Mahalo.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 05:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is reading very nicely, especially through the lead which you've been working on. I'm wondering if "palu," or "master navigator" in the lead should be "pwo" per this diff? I don't have any printed sources to clarify that, but it sounds as though you do. I could take another look at Metzger if required.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize that the sources are confusing here. Lewis (1972) uses the term ppalu, while many others use palu to refer to an initiated navigator. Pwo, as I understand it, is the name of the initiation rite itself. More in a few hours. I'm on it... Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Found this. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent!  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For comic relief, see the Google Translate version of the page on Mau in Japanese.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 08:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not bad, actually. I'm going to make a change to the layout to make it clear that palu refers to a "navigator". Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fox "News" Ch.

Hi, I hope you haven't given up on trying to balance the FNC article lead. Too many entrenched supporters there scare off alot of editors, it seems. I took a break this past summer after getting fed up with what appears to be concerted group efforts in conservative activism. I don't know what the next step in dispute resolution is. The core group ignores past consensus and outside editors on noticeboards. Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate what I've said, summarizing my position from various discussions on the matter, I am not concerned with allegations of political bias, as I don't think that is the only criticism that should appear in the lead. My concern is with Fox News presenting themselves as an organization devoted to journalism, and this is the most serious criticism that deserves attention, IMO. I don't really care if they are rooting for the Republicans, as they do 24/7. What I care about, and what I believe is the strongest criticism against them, is that they are trying to present themselves as an actual news organization while at the same time, failing to follow basic standards of journalism and news reporting. If a physician, attorney, or any other professional for that matter, did not follow the basic standards of their practice in regards to servicing the public for the public good, they would lose their license. Why is it then, that Fox News gets a free pass on violating basic standards of reporting on the public airwaves? That's my concern. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand and share your concerns. In mentioning the conservative angle, I was merely giving the context of my earlier frustration. Two basic standards of journalism which FNC violates regularly (and with some relish, apparently) are neutrality and fact-checking. I couldn't get the regular wiki-camp of 5 or 6 pro-FNC editors to compromise on the issue of adding "at the expense of neutrality" to the lead, so the fact-checking may be even trickier -- either FNC doesn't bother to check facts, or they simply ignore what doesn't serve their interests. Or both. So I'd be pleasantly surprised if the editors here give up any ground on the overall journalistic purview. Outside help seems like the next big step. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be fair, those complaints could also be accurately applied to MSNBC. Conservatives aren't the only ones with an agenda to pull...--Novus Orator 05:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about MSNBC, and anyway the nature and degree of criticisms against Fox News is like that of no other media org. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid making Tu quoque fallacies on my talk page. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

V- I'm afraid you're playing into their game at FNC, continuing to discuss as if you have a chance of convincing any of them. The pro-FNC camp believes all criticism of FNC is partisan and therefore qualifiably debatable. This has gone on too long. It's time for outside action -- ie, next step in dispute resolution. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we look at this objectively, FNC is centre right, MSNBC is hard left, and CBS is centre left. Just because you loathe an opposing perspective (in this case Conservative bias) does not give you leave to engage in WP:POV editing and initiate WP:ANI discussions against those who disagree with you...(See WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JDLI)--Novus Orator 05:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Joanne Nova

Rather than tagbombing the article to this extent, perhaps AFD is the best route to go here? That will at least solve the notability issue. NW (Talk) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning for going this route (which started with a prod notice) is explained on the talk page. As I said there, I edit from a wellspring of good faith, and believe that the active contributors should be given a chance to meet the objections raised and improve the article. Like you, I am not a fan of using the multiple issues template, and I use it sparingly. However, whenever I do use it, I discuss my reasons on the talk page. Recent examples of such use include Oklahoma Republican Party[14] (see Talk:Oklahoma_Republican_Party#Article_issues) and Hawaiianize.[15] (see Talk:Hawaiianize#Article issues) I believe I have used this template in the way it was intended, and not as a "tagbomb". Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping

You have e-mail. Cardamon (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

There is a discussion thread in which you are involved and you may respond here. TFD (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos from Flickr

Starting to get some responses to my Flickr search for photos of Hōkūle`a, Mau, Nainoa and the like. Here's a pic of Hōkūle`a File:Hokule'aSailing2009.jpg. I have one of Nainoa in a group File:JasonLeeNainoaThompsonLayneLuna.jpg but it's pretty small, especially when cropped down to a version with just Nainoa File:NainoaThompson2003.jpg. Am promised more to come. Kahuroa (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Josh Billings

I've moved the essay back to the spot its author, Collect, had originally placed it, per his request at my talk page. I've also move protected it.

Your actions to unilaterally remove the article from wikipediaspace multiple times against the wishes of the author are edit warring. If you disagree with the location of the essay, then you are welcome to seek input at an appropriate page, such as MfD. Furthermore, I have no idea what part of WP:Userfication you are referencing in your edit summaries, but I see nothing relevant in the current version of that page, nor any recent changes suggesting anything was recently removed.

I get the fact that you and Collect aren't on the best of terms at the moment, but please endeavor to keep your disputes civil and seek third party input rather than playing tug-of-war with Wikipedia pages. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Direction of ANI thread

Hi, Viriditas! It's very pleasant to be able to agree with you on some things after the previous conflicts we've had. I appreciated the "smile" on my talk page; I should have said so sooner, but have been pretty distracted lately with both real-life and on-wiki tasks. So let me say "thank you" now; it was a friendly and wholly welcome gesture. Thanks, also, for withdrawing the comment another editor had taken exception to at ANI. That saved everyone a lot of sturm und drang, I think.

I was wondering whether you had a direction in mind at this point for the ANI thread you initiated? It's my impression that most editors would support either a 1RR restriction, a topic ban, or (?) possibly both, pending the outcome of a RFC/U. But it's also my impression that the structure of the discussion there seems to be kind of sprawling, or perhaps splintering would be the right word: there's a lack of clarity as to how to move forward, I think, because of the variety of opinions expressed.

So would you like to propose a final straw poll, asking editors something like the following?

Pending the initiation and outcome of an RFC/U, please indicate whether would you now support:

(1) a topic ban with topics covered to be determined by subsequent discussion,

(2) a 1RR restriction

(3) both

(4) neither

I make the suggestion because you initiated the thread, and the privilege and responsibility of helping to clarify its consensus thus seems to me to be yours, most appropriately. Or perhaps it would be more productive to just go back through the thread editor by editor, and count/summarize already-stated preferences in a table re these four options? I like that option, actually, and think it would be a good one if it were done in way that would be transparent as to how opinions were counted. Perhaps a column briefly quoting each user where any ambiguity might be perceived would be helpful, although if it gets too long no one will read it. Very nice work, btw, on the JBS talk page. I've always been impressed with the work you'll undertake to find reliable sources, with your speed and skill in doing so, and with the very high quality of that work overall.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction won't solve anything, as we've recently seen on Fox News Channel, where four users reverted all edits that introduced material they didn't personally like. The time to act has come and gone. I think we have done all we can do at this point. The report is in the record and can be used for further dispute resolution if he returns. The problem, as I see it, is not with FellGleaming. It's with Wikipedia, and the inability of administrators to care enough about the quality of the encyclopedia to recognize a problem and do something about it. Until we have a higher class of administrator, and editors who are willing to take a minute out of their day to research the problem, we will have more and more FellGleamings in the coming days. When an editor like this can get away with making bad edits for so long, we can't really blame him. We have to blame ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse editors of Trolling, and remember to assume WP:Good Faith..And, as a change of subject (I really do want to cooperate) Would you like to help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2010/October?--Novus Orator 07:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have too much on my plate at this time. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can tell :) Hope to work with you at a better time...--Novus Orator 07:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Gliese 581 g

By happenstance you've been editing Gliese_581_g, which I had fun reading today. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Accidental deletion

Sorry about that - it was unintentional... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Small world

I just read about the new planet, "Gloaming" and I checked Wikipedia and of course it's here. But I saw your name and Gwen Gale. That's so cool.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you! How are things? Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. I'm working on a couple of articles at once so I'm busy. I forget, do you do any of the military history?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not so much, no, but I want to thank you for thinking of me! : ) Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Other planets

Hi Viriditas, you added a statement to the Gliese 581 g article to the effect that there are planets between Gliese 581 g and the parent star that are not tidally locked. The content of the Tidal locking article suggests otherwise. I don't see any support for this idea in the other articles on the Gliese 581 system, either. Do you have any reference(s) to the effect that planets inward of Gliese 581 g are not tidally locked? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not make those edits. Look closer at the diff. It shows me making a copyedit. Taking another look, it appears that I accidentally restored edits made by User:24.78.166.69[16] based on another edit made by User:Hibernian[17] I'll fix it. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it.[18] If there are any more problems, please let me know. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the issue. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Viriditas! I want to say ... congratulations (!!!!) on your work on Gliese 581 g. I just noticed its mention on the main page, looked at its contribution history, and saw that you'd played a major part in its development. You know I have some objections to your overall manner of interaction with other editors here, but that in no way diminishes my great respect for the very high quality of your scholarship. I wish we had more editors with your respect for sources, and more editors who are willing to undertake the extraordinary level of in-depth research that you're willing to undertake. Even your most vociferous opponents would be disingenuous to deny you your rightful kudos for that extraordinarily admirable characteristic. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm only helping out with cleanup and copy editing. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that... How do you add pages to your watch list? CJISBEAST (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I know of at least three ways, there may be more. Depending on the skin you are using to edit, you might see a "star" to the right of the History tab at the top. Click it. When it turns light blue, you will be given a message saying the page has been added to your watchlist. Another way is to change your preferences under "watchlist". A third way is to use popups. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks CJISBEAST (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You can also press [alt-shift-w] on your keyboard. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

watchdogging the FNC camp

Hey, I'm curious about your chart Fox News Channel reverts and disruption .. I could add plenty from own experience. Namely, one in particular who continues to troll the FNC talkpage and derail arguments with petty squabbling. This past summer I didnt recognize his disruptive comments for what they're worth, so I engaged/fed the troll. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's just a table. You could try creating your own subpage and documenting the problems you encounter. I wouldn't dwell too much on the past at this point, but work forward from here on out. Remember to take the higher ground and avoid reverts. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Also meant to ask: has anyone requested CheckUser on the half-dozen accounts camped there to defend the article from balance? I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them works at FNC. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who they work for, but we should be keeping tabs on how often they pop up to revert. Can you make a list? Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusation

Regarding your personal comment about PoV in the latest Earth edit, see WP:Civility. I strongly recommend you tone things down.—RJH (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminding an editor to adhere to WP:NPOV is not a personal attack, but I'm sure I could be nicer than, let's say, you, when you left a personal attack on my talk page accusing me of pushing the evil, nefarious agenda of the Mediocrity Cabal. Anyway, I believe you've already met Mr. Kettle, so there's no need for a round of introductions. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the PRT article. I valued your input and I think your suggestions are good, but I am not going to spend any more time here. I am maintaining my account only to maintain my watchlist, to protect a few select pages from vandals and POV. ATren (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez

Since this began I've taken time to look through this users user and talkpage history. Until a period of inactivity he was warned for incivility on a large number of occasions going back years, in fact if you notice due to a decision (on WQA iirc) a suspected sockpuppeteer tag was placed on GabrielVelasquez's userpage only to be deleted. A second more recent one by another user was also removed.

I think this goes beyond just the IP sockpuppets as well, those arguments on Talk:Gliese 581 g have been particularly revealing. For example K. the Surveyor (talk). A relatively new user, not long after GV came back, with a healthy interest in Central/Latin America...and Gliese 581 g (what are the chances?!). And most noticeably of all GV quotes this users comment like they are his own as is offended [19] despite the fact I replied only to his account.

Just thought these comments might be useful when reporting this user. We are not talking about a one-off, but persistent disruption through repeated incivility and sockpuppeting going back some time. Given the comments and edit summaries this user has written I'm aghast an admin hasn't done something about this already. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In progress, believe me, in progress. I'm writing it right now. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Safe to assume that was another IP sock, [20]. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

IP question

If you can't get confirmation from the individual involved, then I think an SPI is almost the only real option. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

re FNC

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wonderland questions

Hi. If you still have the Alice in Wonderland DVD/Blu-Ray, could you help verify (if it's even on the special features) some of the statements in the cast list? They have a "citation needed" beside them. Also, what part (the time) of the DVD's special feature, "Effecting Wonderland", does it say, "Stayne's body was completely CGI with only Glover's head being live-action". Thanks! Mike Allen 05:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a few hours. Obviously, someone added a citation needed tag after I nominated the article. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... I did that. I went through and did some cleaning and found those were unsourced. I started to just remove them.. but I wanted to first check with you to see if it was included on the DVD. A Google search showed nothing. The GA review process hasn't started yet. Mike Allen 07:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do, but just keep in mind, if a reviewer sees that, they can automatically quick fail. Best to move anything you find questionable out of the article and on to the talk page. That way we can address it on talk without jeopardizing the assessment process. Only my opinion, of course. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, didn't know that. I'll fix that---thanks for letting me know. Mike Allen 07:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mau Piailug - Passed GA today

Congratulations, Viriditas! Nice work on Mau Piailug which passed its good article review today. Good collaborating with you.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

For your part in Mau Piailug's GA. Well done. Kahuroa (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your great edits and eye for good images surely helped to get us there. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption

User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Project reorganization

A while ago we had a discussion on possibly fixing up WikiProject Hawaii, which didn't come to much. I've taken it up now, and have begun improving the main page. However, I'm no so involved with all of the project processes, but most of them seem to be poorly organized and somewhat redundant – General vs. Requests, for example. The back material needs to be put together better. ResMar 23:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree. Will take a closer look later tonight and get back to you. Mobile at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, at this point the actual code work is finished. Now you have to go through the pages and fix everything up. In fact, I think some new pages should be created and old deleted. Just a thought =/ ResMar 03:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:KNOW listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:KNOW. Since you had some involvement with the WP:KNOW redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Image requests by language

By different request boards I mean by different language Wikipedias, not by nationality.

Regarding your example, if most of the Canadians visiting Hawaii speak English, then there is no special accommodation to make because they already use the English Wikipedia. They already see the request templates and pages used on EN.

Japanese people by and large use the Japanese Wikipedia. Unlike Canadians, the Japanese don't regularly look at the EN pages. In order to make Japanese aware of Hawaii photo requests, you have to post your photo requests on the Japanese Wikipedia.

When I had a photo request for Continental Micronesia's headquarters in Guam, I made sure to post that request on the Japanese Wikipedia as well as the English, because I knew many Japanese tourists visit Guam. Sure enough, a Japanese man came and took the photo: File:Guam International Airport Old Terminal Building2.JPG

You want to make the Japanese tourists aware of Hawaii photo requests as much as you want to make Hawaiian residents, American tourists, and Canadian tourists aware of those requests.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your thought process on this doesn't hold up, and several editors including myself have a real problem with it. You really haven't thought this through. While this kind of obsessive image requesting may sound normal to you, 99% of editors aren't going to do it. We're in the business of practicality here. I understand that you think you are being helpful, and I got that. But you need to think outside your head. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"several editors including myself have a real problem with it." - What problem? Your post talks about a problem, but it doesn't say what it is.

"While this kind of obsessive image requesting may sound normal to you, 99% of editors aren't going to do it." - I learned that "obsessive" is exactly how it should be done. When you search for a job, do you send your resume to one company and hope it hires you? No, you send your resumes to several places and you wait for at least one of them will give you a. Likewise with an image request you do not post it to one place. You do not use the "non-obsessive" method because it is far less likely to be fulfilled.

If you want me to "think outside" my head, you need to tell me why it's such a problem. Why it is inappropriate. Your post does not say why it is a problem.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii#Image_requests WhisperToMe (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

John Coltrane protection

The request for protection has been denied, rather precipitously, I would say. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, we will work this out. Have some patience. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It works

Someone has been reading Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

wtf? Not ok. → ROUX ₪ 02:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. Why is he blocked anyway? Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He's not blocked. He retired while blocked. The block was for violating an interaction ban, compounded by abuse of his talk page and of the email facility while blocked. The block has expired. The usertalk page was deleted at his request, and against policy. DuncanHill (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's all very hard to believe. I have had nothing but good interactions with him, even when we were in disagreement. Plus, he's done a lot of work here, and I don't see anyone recognizing his efforts. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you've never had an abusive email from him then. His good work seems to have been a very long time ago, but it still seems to be used to excuse his attacks, lies and general disruption. Any other editor would have been banned long ago for what he has done. If Brad hadn't had his talk page deleted, there would have been an Arbcom case last time he retired while blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to delete abusive email that I receive, and he has never sent me any. I'm not aware of his alleged bad behavior, so accusing me of using his good behavior to excuse it tells me there's something not quite right with your version of events. Viriditas (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I forward them to Arbcom when they come from blocked admins. I didn't accuse you of anything, I was commenting on some of those who were defending him. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

saw this

Loved it. [21]. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He's a good person and he's done a lot here. I have no idea why this community turns their back on good, long-term contributors and kicks them out the door. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He is a good person. He's not banned, right? He can come back if he wants?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He is not blocked, he is not banned. He retired in May when he was blocked for edit-warring and breaching an interaction ban. His talk-page and email access were disabled during the block (now expired) for abuse. The user talk page was deleted at his request. It was very likely that he would have had to face an Arbcom case if he had not retired. He is not an admin, and would not regain tools automatically if he chose to return (per NewYork Brad). DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know the details of that. I did run across him a time or two and thought he was a very good person. I was sorry to see that he was no longer an admin, etc. I knew only that there had been some kind of edit war, etc.  :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at WP:AWB/Tasks.
Message added 16:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry,  Not done for now. More Details on the page. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Dove

Aemanops8135 has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Posting to aaaronsmith

Sorry, but I don't quite understand your statement. It's under an old item on my page, but seems to refer to something much newer.

Also don't quite understand the request for references. I understand the idea, but don't quite get what you exactly mean - this time.

No hurry, but please "elucidate" (like that word?) a little more.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Between a technical mistake of mine and simple misunderstanding, I didn't get it. Now I do.

aaaronsmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii watchlist

Is updated. Rich Farmbrough, 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. You've been very helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gift economy

Hello! I want to know why I can not suppress the paragraphes on religious gifting (that is not really gifting) in the article on GIFT ECONOMY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gift Economy 12 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Use the article talk page to discuss it, first. Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For looking after my talk page, and sometimes mopping up my messes, I give you this barnstar. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate that. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Enjoy your day. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)

I found your article to be well written, and found no problems in promoting it to GA. Congratulations! Wildroot (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but I didn't write it. Using this utility, you can see that the top active editors are User:MikeAllen, User:Bovineboy2008, and User:Emtigereyes. I'm only the nominator. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Conduct

I'm concerned with the attitude you have been showing to other editors. Not just me, but Davidpatrick and Veriss1. You are removing article talk page material, you are not retaining material in your own Talk Page archive, and you are hindering discussion intended to improve the Juan Williams article. I would like to be given a good reason why I shouldn't block you for a few days to give you time to review Wikipedia:WikiBullying, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and WP:CIVIL as suggested to you elsewhere. 23skidoo (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that you returned to Wikipedia after a four month absence to disrupt the talk page as a meat puppet for Davidpatrick and Veriss1, in the process restoring false BLP-damaging claims about Juan Williams that were made a year ago to a thread that is not longer active or relevant. I'm also concerned that you failed to acknowledge that I specifically require permission ("deemed appropriate") to move my comments, and that Davidpatrick did not ask for it. This is enshrined in the talk page guidelines and is best practice, so you should already be aware of this. As for bullying, you appear to be threatening to use admin tools in a conflict you are evidently involved in on some level or another, and specifically using those tools to further harm caused to a BLP by reinserting false claims about a living person on the talk page and restoring off topic comments and personal attacks tells me that you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. First, do no harm, that's what you need to remember here. I also fail to see how your edits have improved the discourse on the talk page or coverage of our article on Juan Williams. If anything, you have enabled two editors who have been inserting problematic content in main space, and you have encouraged the addition of false negative material about BLP's by restoring a year-old discussion, and by repeatedly restoring personal attacks against talk page guidelines. I'm really confused at what you are trying to achieve here. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your accusation of me being a "meat puppet", along with your abusive posts on other people's talk pages and summaries beyond the scope of WP:CIVIL has earned you a one-week block. 23skidoo (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually just block someone you are currently in a dispute with? Seriously? → ROUX ₪ 06:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty concerned about the propriety of this block. I've asked for clarification at User talk:23skidoo; I'll await an answer there before taking action, assuming a response is forthcoming at some point. MastCell ^Talk 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned.

• (status) (del/undel) 06:13, October 26, 2010 23skidoo (talk | contribs | block) blocked Viriditas (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Accusation of meat puppetry without proof) (unblock | change block)"

This is not a valid block, 23skidoo, and I urge you to undo it asap. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of User:Viriditas. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've unblocked you per the consensus at ANI. I've also cleared our autoblock. Might I suggest you keep your head down for a little while? Perhaps find another (less controversial) article to work on for a few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the unblock and the good advice, and thanks to SV and others for their help. I'll take a little break now to get some distance. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A DYK

Viriditas, I put John Osborne Varian into the nomination pile for DYK. When the above kafuffel is settled, can you peek at the expanded article and comment or add additional sources? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 01:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This is a good article for looking at while keeping one's head low, LOL! I'd be very glad to have someone with an interest in the article to help expand it, particularly finding a free-use image of Varian (there is an Ansel Adams photo of him, but it was in Getty Images, so I think not free use...) Likewise, the article that inspired this one was Sheila Varian and I am contemplating whether to take it to FA (it's GA now) and am unsure if its sourcing would pass muster there. Also would value a non-horse person reading it to see if it's gibberish to the uninitiated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I can't be all that much help right now, but I'm not really liking this place all that much and I need to spend my time doing other things for now. Hopefully, I'll return to this topic in the future. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I know how it feels to come out of a wiki-battering; I had a bad tangle with a sock hiding behind an anon IP who filed an ANI on me a few weeks ago. So you have my sympathies. But it's also good to hear from some of the nice people and to be invited to do something fun, so if "fun" might involve peeking at the Varian article, the offer is open! And also, remember the old pseudo Latin adage about not letting certain categories of human beings get you down! (smile) Montanabw^(talk) 03:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll consider it, if there's a carrot and a kiss on the nose involved. : ) I looked at your ANI report and all the rest -- I can't believe what you've been through. You're right, I feel a lot better now! :) :) Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, wiki-carrots anyway, and the kiss on the nose is only for your horse! LOL! That ANI was actually the third time that user (the first two under a user name) had tried this. (about once a year it seems to occur, same user) I spotted the anon IP as the same person by the weird twisted feeling I got in my gut ... my stomach recognized the pattern even if my brain failed me at first. But I have also learned that I have a LOT of good friends on wiki, even though I've never "met" any of them in RL and most not even via email! The bad apples don't really have to spoil the whole barrel. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, what happened to you stinks to all high heaven. I wish I could offer some hope that things would improve, but I'm losing that myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang in there, Sandy! You are one of the good eggs too! (And Veriditas, of course!) Bottom line is that I suppose we all have to remember that the internet is just a really big city, and wikipedia a major neighborhood where you have your difficult people, annoying people, pain in the butt people and even (in the residential neighborhood sense) "block wars" just like anywhere else. (I say this as our neighbor's children all seemed to enter middle school at the same time and also recently all acquired baby ATVs and dirt bikes -- and the last two summers have been horse riding hell due to two-stroke engines racing up and down what was once our quiet little road...I've turned into the neighborhood grump who threatens adolescent children with calling the cops. I don't even like me on those days, but I also don't like horses coming unglued when a mini-motorbike gets to just that particular not-street-legal dirt bike pitch, right as I'm holding up a hind leg...) And both kinds of neighborhoods sometimes even have your certifiably seriously disturbed and deluded people. (so far, I've only met one person on wiki who was crazier than one of my former co-workers in RL... ) Ah. Maybe someone just needs to stop the world and let me off! (Wasn't there a country western song with that title??) =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 00:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have no interest in being at loggerheads with you. I am sorry we got into an edit war. Before things escalated on the Juan Williams article you enacted a compromise that I thought was good and responded to positively. You moved the content from its own section into the W. Post section. I thought about that - and as you may recall I went along with that. My preference was that it have a sub-heading within that section so that it wasn't just buried there as though it was a minor matter of zero import. Your concern - as I construed it - was that it not be disproportionately featured. The primary difference between us on the article was how important the matter was/is in the scheme of things. You don't want it to be misrepresented in emphasis as though it was a Bill Clinton level scandal. Valid concern IMO. I don't feel that any case of harassment should be treated as if it was a parking ticket and it doesn't matter. That's why I was trying to work with text from the W. Post report as the best way to cover it. Anyway - I thought I would let you know that I hold no grudges and want to move on and I would like to work cooperatively with you. I will try to be less sensitive to what felt like very brusque comments that hurt my feelings. Davidpatrick (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I was operating under the assumption that the place was on fire and I had to put it out. Now, I see this as a merciful opportunity for SV to get involved. She's pretty familiar with BLP. Plus, you asked for the opinion of a woman. Disagree with you about the long form; we can express the entire incident in one or two sentences, no more or less, and I support Collect's version. Have you evaluated these sources? Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Apology accepted. I think it will be good to have a few people chip in (if there is interest). SV would be welcome. She left me a helpful note yesterday which was much appreciated. There is an editor called Goethean who I've not encountered before yesterday who (judging by range of topics edited) seems to be a serious longtime editor - and yesterday contributed. Perhaps if we have a dialogue about it on the article talk page with others offering views we can arrive at consensus. Personally I'm thinking that a one or two sentence coverage would not do justice to the gravity of the topic but I will approach this with an open mind. As for the sources - we can discuss more on the talk page but my initial thought is that the W. Post story has obviously got the most weight. It's by the Post's own media writer and it goes out of its way to present Williams' side quoting his apology in detail - and also the opinion of those at the Post who didn't feel that the apology conveyed the full story. The other article was written by someone who does seem to be a credible writer without a political axe to grind. But we can always look deeper. See you on the article talk page. Thanks Davidpatrick (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Juan Williams

I agree entirely about the "Disciplined for verbal sexual harassment" section. As for the tidbits related to the NPR incident, I believe this is a significant turning point in his career and will always be regarded as such, and I think that the comments about Williams provide context. I looked over all your edits, and I strongly agreed with the vast majority of them; you're right that the article was being used as a sort of political soapbox. That said, I think those details are more important to the biography of Juan Williams, and would be included even if there was an article about the incident itself. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

CitationTool

See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#CitationTool.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there've been scattered discussions, but it'd take a while to find them. There's also Wikipedia:Link rot.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to have Wikipedia:Bare URLs as a separate project article? I would like to see it merged into link rot. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. That page doesn't have much in it. You might add your voice to the Bot request.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'm like oil and water over there. Trust me, you don't want me on that page. :) Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Live Aid

the BBC retraction was not a small ordinary retraction, it involved many, many BBC stories stretching acrosst several of their programs. Wikipedia cannot be a credible encyclopedia if it leaves things like this out. I dont care if it is just a single sentence or two sentences, but it has to be in the article otherwise i is a sham of an encyclopedia. i didn't repeatedly add stuff in there. i actually removed a bunch of my writing, and then modified the writing of someone else who had added similar stuff to what i had added previously. please check the history. Decora (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and as I've already explained to you several times, both on the article talk page and on your user page, the BBC has retracted many, many claims and stories, and this one is no different nor is it notable in any way. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Notification

I think you may have violated the 1rr restriction on Climatic Research Unit email controversy last night and reported it to the Arbitration enforcement board here. Hopefully will only result in a warning, but one has to be careful of this sort of thing, even when reverting a likely scibaby sock. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 12:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ended with no action and strong endorsement of zero tolerance for scibaby socks from uninvolved administrators. Hooray! Sorry for the trouble.... Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Kerouac's religious beliefs

Thank you for graciously acknowleging my contribution and the smile on my talk page. As to the edit on the Catholic writers article, I don't think it is any way POV. As far as I can see it merely factually accurate. For example, David Wills in the carefully sourced journal Beatdom says that although Kerouac was not orthodox "He continued to maintain his belief in Catholicism throughout his life.". Matt Theado in Understanding Jack Kerouac quotes Ann Charters saying, he was "born a Catholic, raised a Catholic and died a Catholic. His interest in Buddhism was a discovery of different religious images for his fundamentally constant religious feelings..." His Buddhism was conflated with or syncretized with his Catholicism. He never abandoned his Catholic faith. Consistent with this, Kerouac himself said the Buddhism had "almost" as much influence as his Catholicism. His approach to Buddhism is similar to Thomas Merton, with whom he had much in common but who was more orthodox. He did, however, by 1960 abandon Buddhism (William French Kerouac p. 15), as many authors note. Kerouac himself said that he "quit Buddhism". This was precipitated in large part by his nervous breakdown: "...I realized all my (years of studying) Buddhism had been words, comforting words, indeed, but when I saw those masses of devils racing for me." (Tom Clark Jack Kerouac p. 192. If this does not comport with your understanding, please demonstrate to me otherwise, as I intend to edit the Kerouac article accordingly. Mamalujo (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We appear to be talking past each other, so let me start at the beginning. On List of Catholic authors, you changed the entry for Jack Kerouac from this:

Jack Kerouac - Beat author of On the Road; son of French Canadian immigrants; born and reared a Catholic, experimented with Buddhism and later returned to Catholicism

To this:

Jack Kerouac - Beat author of On the Road; son of French Canadian immigrants; born and reared a Catholic, works are deeply imbued with Catholicism, experimented with Buddhism and waned in Catholic practice but never left the faith, disillusioned with Buddhism after nervous breakdown in 1960

This is where the problem is. It is not NPOV and represents your own opinion formed by cherry picking sources to promote one view over another. Furthermore, you seem to be a bit ignorant of Buddhism, as one can be a practicing Buddhist and a Catholic at the exact same time. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've neutralized the list entry and I've removed the disputed part. Please use the list talk page for further commentary. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not ignorant of Buddhism, my wife is actually a convert from Buddhism and I have Buddhist family members. In fact, I have been to a temple more than once recently. "[O]ne can be a practicing Buddhist and a Catholic at the exact same time" -I think I said as much in my post above, and if it is true that he was both, to say he "returned" to Catholicism would be misleading (indeed false because it is pregnant with the assertion that he left). What portion of my edit do you believe is inaccurate or cherry picked? And what would you cite to refute it? Cheers. Mamalujo (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've explained on the list article talk page. I believe I've already solved this problem by neutralizing the entry in its entirety and removing the POV. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made another edit. As I've said, saying he "returned" is false and misleading. Also, I think your comments on the talk page re the lede are mistaken. His works are in fact deeply imbued with both Catholicism and Buddhism. Your comment on the talk page seems to say that the influence of Buddhist spirituality on his work should remain in the lede but the Catholic spirituality should not. Kerouac himself said that Buddhism was "almost" as influential on his work as Catholicism. Mamalujo (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made a mistake, and I've asked you to keep this on the list talk page instead of duplicating this discussion in two places. My edit said nothing about returning. It simply said, "born and reared a Catholic". I need to ask you to pay closer attention to the content you are editing. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As for your comment about the Kerouac lead section, you are mistaken on that as well. You are attempting to claim that Kerouac was known for his writings about Catholic spirituality. That is simply not true, and it is POV pushing on your part. In fact, I would challenge you to find a single, secular source that makes that claim. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo, you say your wife is a convert from Buddhism. Could you tell me, in your opinion, which opinions, beliefs, thoughts, ideas, feelings, tenets, or practices she has changed due to her conversion to Catholicism? Please do not respond with, "well, she no longer goes to temple", give me a concrete, specific thing. I ask, because I do not believe that there is one. Let me make this clear. For example, if I take refuge in the Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha, and at the same time, enter the catechumenate with the intent of becoming a Christian, where is the contradiction or spiritual conflict? Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Catholic authors

Hi, Viriditas. While I agree that Mamalujo's addition of extended comments to the listing for Kerouac is WP:UNDUE weight as well of dubious WP:NPOV status, your deletion of the long standing neutral mention of his buddhism in its entirely is also unjustified. That is the version that should stand unless there is consensus to change it. I am formally warning you not to violate WP:3RR in letter or spirit. There is only one template, so my apologies for the ugly red triangle. I am warning Mamlujo of the same thing. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the article talk page, I support the original, long standing version and reverted to it originally. However, when Mamalujo insisted on his POV, I removed the mention of Buddhism in its entirety and explained on the talk page. This is actually best practice; in other words, revert, then modify the edit to reach a compromise. Obviously, things did not go smoothly. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why you changed versions. I like the yellow smiley you used - I think I'll copy that.μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand, and thanks for getting involved. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Fcsuper

Please note that I've explicitly changed the scope of the ANI on Fcsuper to include you as well. Whatever problems you think Fcsuper is causing appear insignificant to your repeated, lengthy comments about him. --Ronz (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note, that is completely false, and according to your edit history, you and Fcsuper have a history of supporting each other. Please stop pretending to be neutral, as you aren't. You appear to support tendentious editing and IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Very sad, Ronz. Looking at the talk page, it is clear from the very beginning that Fcsuper began attacking rather than responding to my discussion about content. I am glad you contacted me, Ronz. At one time, I thought you actually were a neutral participant on Wikipedia, but now I see my good faith has once again failed me. This is the second time you fooled me; there will not be a third time. I don't like assuming bad faith about people, but in this case, I will have to. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Big earthquake

Big earthquake on Maui: 6:34-35pm.

4.6, wow. http://tux.wr.usgs.gov/Quakes/hv60192186.html --Ronz (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty serious because, according to civil defense, magma is apparently moving under Maui. Nice knowing you guys. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate Fighter/GA1

Hi. First off, thanks for taking the review. I've responded to some concerns on the review page, so whenever you've got some free time, feel free to take a look. I just want to say, if you feel that despite my comments, certain things are necessary, then let me know. The last thing I want is for this to fail and have to wait another 3 months to get a re-review. Cheers. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry. It might be better for your stress level if you work on other things for the next few days, at least until I finish the review. You sound like you are committed to the article passing, and from experience with past reviews, as long as an editor has that, there's a very good chance the article will pass, since you have what it takes to get the job done. Viriditas (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that people who contribute to the reveiw were not supposed to edit the page, but that the proponents of the nomination are supposed to do it. Racepacket (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you are confusing the primary contributor/editor proscription with the reviewer. Reviewers are encouraged to fix general problems. See WP:RGA. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected. Racepacket (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)