User talk:Viridae

DON'T PANIC

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

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

Hey...

...That was a quick shower. :-)  Frank  |  talk  23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, not that quick. I am still sitting around in a towel. Viridae^Talk 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Southwest Mississippi Community College

Would you have any problems with me recreating the page as a stub and adding the problem templates (references, etc) to the page? I think it is a notable school, just the way it was done previously wasn't going to work, obviously. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems at all. Viridae^Talk 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX

Thanks. I thought I had done that. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No probs, assumed that was an oversight. Viridae^Talk 01:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Please see the very bottom of this section for the new message. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the template. I will use text from now on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX

[1] good call. ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu

I have come to tell you that Docu is way more valuable to Wikipedia than you are or could ever hope to be. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. What, you want to prevent Docu from using a signature you don't like? It's users like you that made me (and many others) leave the project. Shows how much you understand policy or care about the encyclopedia. Pzrmd (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Screw it, I'm sick of these threads. Before anyone says the lack of a proper signature isn't a problem, it undoubtedly IS a problem if so many people are complaining about it. And it will continue to be a problem until it is changed (and this endless cycle of complaints about it will continue) Lack of a link to the user or talk pages and lack of a time stamp is downright inconvenient for everyone who wishes to contact him, and given that he is an admin, it should be relatively easy for all users, not just experienced ones, to find his talk page without having to navigae there the hard way. He has never given any explanation whatsoever for the lack of a link and timestamp - and honestly a suitable explanation hasn't been apparent to anyone commenting on the issue before. One pigheaded admin shouldn't be the source of so many issues over something so bloody trivial. We wouldn't tolerate that from any non-admin. Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed. Simple answer. ViridaeTalk 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly went a long way didn't you. Always interesting to get comments like this from a new account that won't reveal who they were, and forgive me for not assuming good faith, but I have met plenty of users who were convinced of their being in th right and driven away by evil admins, when they were very much in the wrong. Viridae^Talk 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, and I will be editing from this account from now on. Let's make a comparison: Viridae Docu. Impressive. —Pzrmd (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Editcounitis much? Viridae^Talk 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Convenient one to pull out of the bag, isn't it. You're saying that there is no way of comparing the value of your amount of edits to Docu's 75,000+. You're not that special. —Pzrmd (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, anyone using automated tools can rack up edits incredibly quickly. I choose not to, and nor do I spend my entire life here. Secondly, as mentioned in the thread, Docus signature has had an inordinate number of complaints, causing a ridiculous amount of disruption. It is an issue solved very easily by Docu signing properly. Problem solved, no more disruption. Not doing so, not bowing to the will of the community over something so small is ridiculous. This view has wide support, as seen in that thread. Viridae^Talk 23:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Docu does spend his life here. You don't. It's the community's fault for being so petty and wasting its time on Docu's signature. —Pzrmd (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are blaming the whole of the wikipedia community for not liking the unconventional way one person signs their name? Viridae^Talk 23:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am, but it's not the "whole." Is it not possible that a chunk the community is wrong? And in the end, nothing was done, which says something. And Docu overall has made very little automated edits. But that is irrelevant. Assume all of Docu's edits were automated. You were still saying that there was no way to compare the value of your amount of mainspace edits to Docu's. —Pzrmd (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible, but not for you alone to say. Thats the way consensus works on wikipedia, representative group comprising of interested parties. Viridae^Talk 00:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(Talkpage lurker) User:Ikip. Hipocrite (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Thanks for the quick revert. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to say this as polite as possible (and trying not to brag...), but I think it was me that reverted the vandalism. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there was a bunch of vandalism. I think you both got to some of it (check the page history if you are curious). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems. (HAI TALKPAGE LURKER BRAD :P) Viridae^Talk 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter though. Viridae accidentally reverted to the part where I reverted the vandalism, but it was later reverted back. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

block

I saw you unblocked Betacommand. I am not writing to support or oppose it. I am only commenting that it is so sad to see a block log so huge. It is also sad to see that such block log belongs to an administrator. User F203 (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As explained, he is not an administrator. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

You shouldn't make spurious warnings like this one. Someone might make the mistake of taking you seriously. Guettarda (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

calling another editor engaged in genuine discussion a troll is a personal attack. Repeat it and you will find out exactly how serious I am. Viridae^Talk 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. You're serious. I see. Say no more. Guettarda (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, could you explain how WP:NPA applies? And why do you assume that it was a "genuine discussion"? Guettarda (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You called another editor a troll, that editor was not, in fact trolling. Hence it is a personal attack. Why would you not assume it is a genuine discussion? Looks pretty genuine to me. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Nope, I didn't call another editor a troll, and I wouldn't call my throw-away comment a "genuine discussion". Which is why I deleted it - because it was a throwaway comment that was not going to further the discussion in any way. Dude, you're not making any sense. At all. Seriously. Guettarda (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Vent-Axia

• I was surprised to see that you have prodded the above as a 'non important company'. I would ask you to reconsider as they are by far the most important company within their market in the UK and are also very visible as sponsors of a team in a major UK sporting series. Thank you. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Never fear, Paste, I've deprodded it. They're dull, but notable. Fences&Windows 00:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop

Hi. For unclear reasons, you've taken an interest in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop. I find your edits unhelpful. If you feel this needs to be resolved by a clerk, then I suggest you take your own advice and contact one. Like I did William M. Connolley (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure edit warring on an arb case to remove comments by the opposing party, in the opposing parties own workshop page section will go down incredibly well with the arbs: [2]. The only reason I took an interest is because, as stated, you removed it when you shouldn't have. Viridae^Talk 12:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Viridae, you added this comment after you submitted evidence to the ArbCom case. You should instead have attempted some kind of discussion: you too have edit warred and needlessly escalated the situation. Why did you not leave a message with the clerk? You can still do so. So much for WP:DRAMAOUT. Mathsci (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A clerk has already been notified. Discussion shouldn't have been necessary, you don't remove another persons comments from their own section on the workshop page when you are the other person in the case involving them. Ever. The material is pertinent to the case at hand, which is why it has been added to the evidence page. Viridae^Talk 12:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and WMC, if you are reading this the next revert will put you over 3RR. (first removal was also a revert) Viridae^Talk 12:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd has placed his protracted comment back in a collapse box. A clerk might of course remove your evidence as being irrelevant to the case if you leave it as it is. Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Now why would they do that? Doesn't change WMC's edit warring in the slightest. Viridae^Talk 21:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends - Edit war

There is an edit war happening at the Fellowship of Friends article. Can you help? I noticed you were there before. Thanks UltraEdit (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article for two weeks. In future WP:EW is probobly quicker. While it is protected see if you can reach a common ground with those involved, or simply reach a consensus. You may also try a WP:RFC. Viridae^Talk 07:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. UltraEdit (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Viridae, the edit war which ultra edit claims is occurring is no more than the game of censorship played endlessly by the cult members of Robert Burtons, "Fellowship of Friends". Burton is a narcissist who uses his position of power to seduce and manipulate young men, claiming spiritual authority and superiority as justification. You may want to think seriously about helping him in the future.Wantthetruth? (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Viridae, we need help again. Please check the article. Thank you. UltraEdit (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Viridae, I have no connection with Fellowship of Friends but I recently found out about the organization from an article on Wikileaks. From the articles I have read since, including articles from The San Diego Union-Tribune, I earnestly believe the Fellowship of Friends is a dangerous cult. I also believe there is a concerted effort to remove any mention of this fact as a form of censorship. I ask you to please consider this when when you lock editing on the page because it only facilitates the groups attempts to whitewash their image and recruit unsuspecting people. Thanks. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Viridae, if you have the time, can you check the Fellowship of Friends article? Several editors are refusing to discuss the disputed text you are familiar with and keep adding it. Thanks. UltraEdit (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Where am I "edit warring", I'm already talking part in the talkpage discussion on the article and haven't edited it since the user messaged me. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Politics in England and England are two that I have seen. There are others previous to that. Viridae^Talk 02:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gone over the WP:3RR, thanks. There are no restrictions on me disagreeing on content edits? - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, having just come off an indef block you are on an incredibly short leash. Edit warring can occur without breaking 3RR. Viridae^Talk 02:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lay off of Yorkshirian. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian has nothing to worry about as long as he behaves himself. Viridae^Talk 12:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You may think so, but there is more than you who has been causing anxiety for him as of late. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Question 1

I realized that I left half an answer on question one, so I went ahead and fixed it. Sorry about that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ASE revert, FYI

Hi, Ase is dealing with retaliation from this vandal. The Barney Frank page was put on semi because they are a floating IP and it just came off semi a bit ago. -- Banjeboi 09:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Viridae's Day!

User:Viridae has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Viridae's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Viridae! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. Well deserved! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to say thanks for this, btw :) Viridae^Talk 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd unblock

I notice you've unblocked Abd. The obvious questions are: (a) why did you make no attempt to discuss this with me? and (b) given your evidence presented to the case, what makes you think you are uninvolved? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen on wikipedia, YOU are sounding off at ME for unblocking Abd, someone you blocked while being on opposite sides of an arbcom case? Ha! Viridae^Talk 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not sounding off, I'm asking you two questions, both of which you've failed to answer. Have another go, or explictly state that you won't answer them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"I consider the block by WMC invalid and as for Viridae, I do not consider the unblock as wheel warring". Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok answer to (a) No discussion required, it was patently obvious to anyone with half an ounce of common sense that blocking someone who is the other party in an arbcom case in which you are on opposite side is a truly awful idea. Furthermore, as demonstrated on Abd's talk page, Abd was no longer under any form of community based restriction to stop him editing CF related pages, but instead had continued the topic ban voluntarily, renouncing it publicly before making that edit. He was thus not under any formal restriction. Overturning that patently ridiculous block was a no brainer. Answer to (b) It actually didn't occur to me that I had presented evidence, until after I had overturned the block. The evidence itself is fairly trivial (in quantity) as far as arbcom evidence goes. I only presented it because you edit warred with me, on the case page itself. I briefly considered re-instating the block but that would be stupid bureaucracy. As far as the rest of the case is concerned, I have barely glanced at the case pages because they appear to be an impenetrable wall of insults. So yes, I consider myself uninvolved enough to overturn that particular block. Viridae^Talk 07:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers; naturally I disagree with them, but they are informative. Meanwhile, would you care to stop edit warring on my talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't even check to see whose page that was, just noticed a comment by you, with a comment removed without any indicationt aht removal was intentional, assumed it was a mistake. Viridae^Talk 08:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove that comment from your page WMC? It looks like a helpful comment to me. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a silly boy old fruit William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

??? Viridae^Talk 01:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (5). Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Block not logged yet

Please log your 12 hour block on me at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. It isn't logged yet. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundant

Are you planning on taking any more sabbaticals from the bit? You might want to remove the redundant rollbacker userright if not. Best, –xeno^talk 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I keep it around because if i do ask for my tools to be removed in a fit of pique its a pain in the ass not having it. Viridae^Talk 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because admins keeping redundant userrights inflates the number shown for "number of rollbackers". Not a huge issue, though. I'm sure if you do decide to take another abrupt break and forget to assign yourself the userright, an admin would be happy to do so. =] –xeno^talk 13:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

May I please have it back so I can adequately use it against this idiot in the future: 70.48.196.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

short answer, no, you have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted with it. Do the edits by hand, or get help. Viridae^Talk 05:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing the edits by hand was so ridiculously tedious. How can I not be trusted with it when since being granted it some months after the arbitration case, I had used it properly 99% of the time? And I am positive that once the weeklong block is up on that IP, he'll be editing the same things (without the edits to replace pages with the screed because the edit filter had been disabled and recently re-enabled). If I am not allowed to have userrights rollback, I would like a suitable alternative that is not Huggle or Twinkle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't want to lose it you shouldn't have mis-used it. Demonstrate correct edit summaries for reversions and it can be re-instated in a while. Viridae^Talk 07:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ASE Block

ASE is allowed to post about Bluemarine after a certain period of time to allow other users to post as well. Example...Bluemarine does something bad. ASE sees it, he can do nothing for, if I am not mistaken, 6 hours. He must wait for other users to see it. If, after that period of time no one reports it, ASE may report it. Disallowing a user to report someone to AN or ANI is violation of the user rules of Wikipedia and should be struck. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. And BM is not restricted from posting to that talk page. ASE needs to disengage entirely. Viridae^Talk 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher posted this one ANI:

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a ban from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages. He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Wikipedia collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator."

Says right there....talk pages. Blantant and clear violation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Misquote more? How about including the rest of what he said: "with the clarification that it does not apply to Talk:Matt Sanchez. Should an extension of the topic ban be needed, we can always discuss it later. Thatcher 23:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) ". Neither the ban as imposed at the time, or the clarification Thatcher has proposed includes that page as part of the sanctions. Viridae^Talk 00:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A little snappy are we? So, what we are doing is blocking someone who reported a user violating a edit restriction no one wants to uphold (let's just get rid of the damned thing) instead of blocking the person who actually violated the edit restriction. If you are to block ASE, you must block Bluemarine as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

HE. DID. NOT. VIOLATE. THE. EDITING. RESTRICTION. Get it? ASE did, blatantly. He gets blocked. Simple. Viridae^Talk 00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I was right, you are snappy tonight. I can shout too. BLUEMARINE. DID. VIOLATE. HIS. EDITING. RESTRICTION. Feels good, doesn't it? I think you are one of BM's enablers. You are doing everything in your power to prevent anyone, it seems, from reporting BM. I think a WikiBreak is in order for you. Come back when you get your head on straight. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been told, by multiple people that he was not restricted from that particular talk page, you have partially quoted Thatcher saying that he wasn't banned from that talk page (though conveniently missing the part of the quote where it was pointed out) clearly indicating you have read it. How many people do you need to tell you that it wasn't the case. Perhaps you need a topic ban too... Viridae^Talk 01:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice...threats. Go for it. Topic ban me. Got any proof I require one? No, you will be laughed off ANI before you finish your post. Don't threaten. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a threat. Viridae^Talk 02:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so as we say in my family "wasn't a threat, was a promise"? Gotcha. Anything else you would like to add? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor was it a promise. Viridae^Talk 08:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) If it wasn't a threat or a promise, why'd you say it? Unless you were trying to intimidate someone. That could be the only other reason. Didn't work by the way. I still defend ASE and think he did nothing wrong, still think BM violated his edit restrictions, still think you are one of BM's defenders and enablers and still think this is a big witch hunt to make others look the other way from what BM is doing. So, why'd you say it? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor was it an attempt at intimidation. I said it, because you are being so strident in the face of otherwise unanimous opinion that BM did not violate his topic ban and ASE did (hell even ASE knows he did, he said so when he posted, that i briefly considered that you might be heading the way of a topic ban yourself, unless you stopped to smell the roses. You claim to be his friend, but your efforts to get him unblocked by (dishonestly or mistakenly) talking about a supposed ">6 hours with no action" provision to the ban which never existed, dishonestly quoting thatcher (above), completely ignoring the blatantly obvious and the almost unanimous (save for yourself and ASE) agreement that BM did not violate his ban and the incredibly strident way you argued for him to be unblocked have only served to INCREASE the drama surrounding ASE and therefore re-affirm the reason for the ban. Indeed if you are is friend it might be best to stop arguing like you have been, and instead concentrate on getting hinm to realise that disengaging completely is not only best for wikipedia, it is the safest thing for him to do, because under the new ban conditions he has exactly three blocks left in this argument before it is indef. And given how close he came to a ban last time, I predict that this one will stick. (and as for me, he should be glad it was me who performed the block, because given the previous violation 2 days earlier, many other admins would have made it much more severe that 31 hours). Viridae^Talk 09:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he understands the restrictions before him, like you said he understood enough that he was violating them when he posted (even though I think it is silly he can't bring something to ANI, but I will leave that for now). If he is going to violate the restriction, there is little I can do to stop him. I can tell him not to, but that is all I can do. What I am trying to do is to defend him against what I feel are restrictions that aren't placed on any other user on Wikipedia. As far as I know, there are no users under such restrictions that they can not report a user to ANI or AN or even email an admin about that user to report them. I think we should look at ASE's own statement that he emailed an admin and nothing was done, so he took it to ANI himself. Why give him the option to email an admin if the admin won't do anything to begin with, even emailing back to say "not a violation".

Here is my proposal, I won't put it on ANI cause it isn't going to fly, but this is what I would like to see.

ASE is banned from posting on the Matt Sanchez article and talk pages and User:Bluemarine user and talk pages.

If he sees a violation of policy, vandalism, etc. by Bluemarine and after 12 hours has elapsed (giving time for other users and admins to report themselves), then (and only then) would ASE be allowed to report it to ANI or AN.

One instance of a violation of the "No Report for 12 Hours" rule and the rule is rescended.

ASE may email an admin of his choice before the 12 hours is up and let them know what he sees and allow that admin to look into it and if they see fit to take it to ANI or AN. It would be recommended that ASE go this route before taking it to ANI himself. We can always see what who he writes in the email archives setup.

ASE would have no contact with Durova since he appears to have a conflict with her, with personal attacks being flung around. If contact were needed, a neutral party could pass the messages along or take care of the issue themselves.

If any violation of the terms were to take place, ASE would be blocked for 48 hours, then 1 week, then 1 month, then 6 months, then indef.

Sorry for the length of the post, but I wanted to incorporate what is being discussed now and some of my own ideas. What do you think? Could that be done? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am off to see Inglourious Basterds, will reply when I get back so don't hold your breath. Viridae^Talk 09:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy, I hear it is supposed to be good. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The movie was excellent, and somewhat long. For the proposal, I can see where you are coming from, ASE is under an unusual restriction, but he certainly isn't the only one restreicted from commenting on the other anywhere - Childofmidnight and Baseballbugs are similarly restricted. What it comes down to is this, the community has decided that letting ASE comment about BM is a bad thing because it brings way too much drama. If ASE disengages completely, edits any other area he is knowledgable about he will have a productive time here. Thus far ASE has shown himself unable to do that. Now he is being forced to, so the benefit of restricting him completely from commenting on BM in any way, far outways the benefit (in my opinion) of allowing him to report violations, particuarly if they are minor ones (ie if BM makes a single uncontroversial change to his article and noone notices, oh well. If he starts disrupting it someone WILL notice. I have the same opnion about site banned users). Viridae^Talk 21:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AllStarEcho_restricted

As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bluemarine

It is now clear that any editor questioning Bluemarine's behaviour will be threatened with a topic ban or a block. I believe that this is unacceptable and amounts to a threat to misuse admin tools in a dispute. Please desist. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, any editor adding heat not light to an already drama filled situation will be threatened with a block, and that includes you. The threat will be followed through if it isn't heeded/ For all the talk, it isnt BM causing the drama here it is those on a crusade to get him. Viridae^Talk 12:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

BM made a personal homophobic attack on an IP editor - you have chosen not only to ignore this but to remove a warning about the attack. DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How is that homophobic? Or for that matter seicer's comment earlier? Viridae^Talk 12:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Very tenuous connection on the first ("fetish site"/"unrequited attraction") and almost non-existent in the second ("drama-queen" is not a homophobic statement, but was maybe a poor choice of words given the climate). –xeno^talk 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Context

Please see my comments at Bluemarine's user talk and the related ANI thread. Durova³⁰⁶ 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Was threatening me, yet again, with a topic ban really necessary? You couldn't just let me get the opinions from everyone, have Ncmvocalist write the note about no striking other user's comments and let everyone move on? You had to threaten? Had to? Like I said on ANI, go for it. If you think you can get the consensus to put a topic ban on me, go ahead. All you will be doing is allowing a user, BM, to do whatever he damn well feels like whenever he damned well feels like and go completely unchecked. Is anyone even watching his edits as they claim they are? So, you want to threaten, back it up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to add more heat than light to that situation I will do just that. Viridae^Talk 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

...and I will see your adminship is pulled for misuse of tools. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For proposing a topic ban? Good luck with that. Viridae^Talk 13:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, for threatening other users with topic bans when they try to keep your buddy (obviously you are in cahoots with BM) from following his restrictions and even going so far as to tell him you will "will stop situations like the one...above and the subsequent drama occurring". That is essentially telling him he has protection from any and all AN and ANI posts against him. That is a misuse of your admin tools and that is what I will report you for. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, good luck with that. I have had little or nothing to do with BM outside of this particular issue. All I want is an end to all the drama. Viridae^Talk 13:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Homer, I believe Viridae's comment was meant to gently pull you from the path that you have seemingly set yourself upon. Bringing minor issues straight to ANI is not necessary. Accusing people who disagree that edits are problematic of being a Bluemarine enabler, or, even more farfetched, his "buddy" is not constructive. I would suggest disengaging for now, feel free to email me if you want to talk about this in private. –xeno^talk 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nicely done, you railroaded a good user by broadly interpreting something he wrote. You read into it what you wanted it to say. You got a good user blocked and now life is grand for you. You are a waste of space here at Wikipedia and a reason I have dropped some of my responsibilities here. You have made Wikipedia a place that isn't work spending time. Pathetic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You are of course aware that that block was confirmed by consensus aren't you? And that I didn't apply it or reject either unblock request? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridae (talk • contribs)
    • I seen no consensus for the block and when ChildofMidnight says it is a bad block, then we have problems. You got your way, you drove away an editor you clearly have issues with....you should be proud of yourself. Do a jig. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • THat was not the aim at all, perhaps you should assume good faith. The aim of the topic ban was to prevent the disruption that was occuring. ASE was given every chance to moderate his behaviour on his own terms, but he was apparently unable to do so. The community decided that the topic ban was the best way to achieve the reduction in disruption because ASE wasn't going to achieve it himself. It was imposed, he broke it, repeatedly and wifully, despite being told that the only way forward was to disengage completely. It is his fault and his alone that he ended up blocked, given that he was given every chance to modify his behaviour but instead he tried to game the ban. AS for the edits that led to that last offence, he wouldn't have known about that IP if he had taken the page off his watchlist, and the edits by the IP in question, the edits be brought to ANI were pushing a view that was favourable to him as opponent of Bluemarine's. It doesn't even need broad interpretation of scope of the topic ban to see that that was inappropriate, when the topic ban was designed to remove him entirely from the issue. He is of course welcome back any time provided he abides by the topic ban. (and personally I predict that 1. he will be back, the majority of editors that quit with a big fanfare like that don't stay away long and 2. he is probobly reading this). Viridae^Talk 12:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride adminship

[3]. Why?--Jac16888^Talk 12:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Viridae probably misclicked "rollback" accidentally. I undid it since there is no logical reason why they should have done it. Regards SoWhy 12:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

yes was browsing on my iPhone and obviously hit rollback and didn't notice. Viridae^Talk 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, figured as much--Jac16888^Talk 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

• Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerning this article and its talk page: in May, 2008 they were both semiprotected by you and jonny-mt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I've proposed that they should both be unprotected and watched with great vigilance to see if the problem has gone away. --TS 22:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, had forgotten i had protected it. I am on my iPhone so hit another admin up to unprotect. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just been doing a bit of TPS so I've hit the button. Hope you don't mind Viridae. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Viridae, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

South Bay (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth (book)

Hi, I like the large friendly letters at the top.

I notice that you're the admin who protected Heaven and Earth (book); I'm not involved in the issue at all; I merely came across the {{editprotected}} on the talk page here, and the requestors agreement to wait until the protection was lifted; just thought I'd mention it to you out of courtesy. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider your almost 1 year full protection of this article. The recent "edit war" was with a pile of Scibaby socks. Semi would have been more than enough. -Atmoz (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Move protection expires in a year, as per the previous protection level. Edit protection expires in 7 days. Viridae^Talk 08:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was late. Full prot is still overkill. -Atmoz (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is appropriate till editing disputes have been sorted out as they are meant to be, using the talk page. Viridae^Talk 20:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC Speedy

Please justify why you declined the speedy on the RfC talk page, thanks. (I'm not watching this page) Verbal chat 10:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Always answer at my talk page, you can check back when you feel like it. Basically, that criteria doesn't apply to legitimate attempts at dispute resolution. This is, assuming god faith, a legitimate attempt. Viridae^Talk 10:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Viridae, you know that if people aren't willing to accept the attempts before to resolve, then all we would have to do is post in Bishonen's page "Please explain why you aided Geogre's sock puppetry and resign". RfC/U have run with far less than what is posted, and it is clear that two people were trying to resolve these disputes over a year. The statement is to make sure that RfC/U was not the first place the problem had gone to. Seeing as how there were multiple WQA, ANI, and even ArbCom cases filed, this was not the first place nor could it be considered such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Viridae - there are no clerks nor official way to claim that the two diffs were not appropriate. They are not done by "consensus". I would like you to point to some place at WP:RFC where it says that what you did is appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Answering both statements/questions. You would have to do more than "Please explain why you aided Geogre's sock puppetry and resign", you (and others) would have had to make a concerted effort to resolve the problem before taking it to RfC - dispute resolution on WP is not a race to the finish. If there is an issue that still needs resolving after a concerted effort has been made with informal dispute resolution, then you should have had no problem finding someone else to certify that RfC (someone who was involved in THAT dispute mind you). As to how the decision was made, that is outlined below. Yes it was made without a call for formal consensus, but it was made 24 hours after I pointed out the insufficiencies in the certification, and indicated that it would be deleted if they weren't remedied. Several people agreed with my assessment. There is no formal system of reviewing RfC certification, it is left to the discretion of the passing, neutral, admin. I was that admin. That said, logic dictates that for a RfC to be certified by people that have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, those people MUST have tried and failed to resolve THAT dispute, not any random dispute involving some of the parties to the RfC. Viridae^Talk 07:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What did you just do?

What you do? Where cupcakes go? Naughty little user! bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

Quick routine check

05:01, 11 October 2009 Viridae (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 4" ‎ (Improperly certified RfC has been up for 48 hours.)

I have a copy of the original content in front of me. As a routine check, can you point out where the certification of the RFC was flawed, according to you?

Thank you for your time!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The diff provided by the second certifier as evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute had nothing to do with that dispute at all, but with an unrelated content dispute involving some of the participants in the rfc. I warned on the rfc talk page that unless a proper second certifier was found it would be deleted, none was forthcoming and it passed the 48 hour mark in that state. (iPhone editing, will reply to the query 2 sections above when im on a real computer tonight) Viridae^Talk 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you looked it over carefully before you acted. Thank you for doing that! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A block of yours

This states that the name was a sock puppet. I expressed concerns about such things before on my talk page. Some believe it is my sock. Can you confirm for people (not necessarily here, but that is fine) that it is not me. I only have one secondary account and it is publicly acknowledged and used for open access when I work out of libraries. I take the secret account thing very seriously and it seems like you have knowledge already to make a statement in regards to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

to the best of my knowledge that isn't a sockpuppet of yours (and I don't think it is seriously believed by anyone there either). Viridae^Talk 20:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering

Hi, you once knew me as HighInBC. I was wondering now that the namewatcher bot has had a couple of years to run if your opinion of its function has changed since this discussion. I am always curious about people's opinions on my bot's functions. Do you think it has been a net gain for the project, or do you think that it has been a distraction? Chillum 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Threats

"If I had known you were under a civility restriction you would have been blocked a while back. Knock it off. ViridaeTalk 11:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)"

Don't make threats like that on my talk page again. There is no "civility restriction". If you are going to make claims, make them with diffs to back them up instead of making direct violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

The fact that Wikipedia Review, who hates me, is supporting me on the issue shows how incredibly wrong people like you and Jehochman are being. Your incivil attacks on my talk page only verify it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And Viridae, seeing the above post by Chillum definitely makes your post inappropriate. At least have the decency to hide such things like that before making such blatantly inappropriate posts like you did on my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The post from Chillum above has absolutely nothing to do with your appalling behaviour of late. Knock it off, or you will find yourself blocked. shouting NPA and civil at me will cut absolutely no ice. Viridae^Talk 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you are under a restriction Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community Viridae^Talk 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Wikipedia Review people who hate me have sided with me over you is a pretty good indicator that you have no authority here nor grounds to stand on. Your claims about my "appalling behavior" have nothing to do with reality, and a quick check comparing our contribs will reveal nothing but invaluable content contrib where yours reveals making policy violations and hiding behind threats. Furthermore, it was rather obvious that 1. he lacked the authority 2. the response on my talk page against him showed how embarrassing inappropriate his action was and 3. the Arbs ruling on the matter about a case and specifically his actions verify the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And Viridae, I have already talked to two arbs and the comments from Chillum to you makes you look incredibly bad. Your judgment is not impartial and you really shouldn't have made any statements regarding me. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, perhaps this is an acnestis for you, but the issue here is not Chillum, but your reaction to it. Two separate issues. Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at WR and other places is that people have inappropriately tried to get rid of me to hide from the Chillum issue. Seeing as how I was impeccable at making sure I had no personal attacks or incivil comments, the responses are even more inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally think you were wrong to bring up the Chillum issue. The problem is that you won't let it go and are reacting way too emotionally to what others are saying, especially those who disagree with your stance or the way you're making your opinions known. I would suggest that you propose, on the talk page, adding language to WP:ADMIN addressing the issue. Then, please don't take it personally if anyone disagrees with you. I have made several proposals on various policy talk pages and I think few, if any of them, were implemented. I had to accept that. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"problem is that you won't let it go" Really? It has been 24 hours, and most of the time I have been under heavy attacks and even at ANI. It would seem that his defenders were the ones that wouldn't let anything go, even with multiple threads closed down and people telling them to stop their disruption. "reacting way too emotionally" I haven't reacted with any emotion. The thing is, I edit purely cold and there is no emotional attachment. Hence why people say I am unbearable. Hard to have lack of emotion as your major detraction while simultaneously being emotional. I asked a question to Jimbo. I wasn't proposing -any- proposal. I don't see why I would post anything at WP:ADMIN. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? which arbs would they be? I would be really interested to know who they are and what they said. I would be very interested to see which arbs were supporting the level of disruption you have caused recently. In reading Chillum's comment above, you have added two and two and come to a conclusion that it equals 50000. That was the only direct contact I have had with chillum (to my knowledge) since his days as HighInBC. I have neither supported nor decried his possible drug use while editing. You however have turned wikipedia into a battleground at every step, you have repeatedly accused people of personal attacks and civility violations where none were apparent, increasing the heat of the conversation markedly. You have wilfully shown bad faith at every step (this is one such occurance). Now either back off, stop the disruption or you will find yourself blocked. (note that a warning is only a threat if you intend to keep behaving in the same manner) Viridae^Talk 06:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm not even going to bother. You made a claim I was under civility restriction even though if you even bothered to look at the page, you would see that 3 people clearly were against it and only 2 supported it. If you want to claim that is "consensus", then there is no possibility of discussing anything with you, let alone reasoning. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think you are under a restricion, you had better ask for the log to be removed. Until that goes, the restriction applies. Viridae^Talk 10:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not how "restrictions" work. Merely being on the list does not imply anything. It is a courtesy collection. -You- know that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WHY?

I don't get why I got an ANI on me..I just feel he was the assistant founder as opposed to the Co-Founder is a better choice of words.--Trulexicon (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That changes the meaning dramatically. Sources and consensus has long held that ssanger and wales are co-founders of wikipedia. You, judging by your contributions, have completely refused to accept this. Viridae^Talk 11:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does; I'll give you that, Sanger is subordinate to Wales in the founding of wikipedia..but I still accept the fact that Sanger helped."--Trulexicon (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)