User talk:Violetriga

Talk to me...
Recent archive Add comment	My view of this talk page I will usually reply here, not on your talk page Comments will not be edited except to reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy Obvious spam will be deleted

Celine Dion

Hi. I saw that you removed the New Fac sign from the Celine Dion talk page. The old FAC failed, but I reopened the nomination. Is this not allowed so soon? Also, Ive been getting a hard time from many other editors who believe that the Celine Dion article does not properly analyse her music. Ive done all I can, given imformation available and article length appropriate. Ive also read other FA articles, and the material provided in them are no different (I modelled the Celine Dion article from the Kylie Minogue article which is a featured article). If you are not too busy, could you provide some feed back. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 01:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I hadn't noticed that the FAC was a second one. I merely went around and fixed those that had the FAC notice but had been failed (the nomination archived) - I've replaced the tag while the current nomination is ongoing. violet/riga (t) 09:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Order

I noticed you recently changed the order of the DYK submissions on Template_talk:Did_you_know, however, the page says the articles nominated should be listed "under the date of creation (not the date of submission)." Articles like Mexican Fine Arts Center Museum and Gang injunction should have stayed under Dec 1, even though they were submitted on Dec 2. Just a heads up. - AKeen 17:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I forgot to check that! Apologies. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marilyn Manson

I've tried to address all of your objections to this article. If you're now ready to support the nomination, please do! If not, let me know what specifically still needs to be fixed so that I can get your vote of support. Thanks! --keepsleeping say what 01:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Havengore, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article castaway, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

There's a sucker born every minute

Thanks for deleting Thereis a sucker born every minute - I created it through a slip of the finger and had already asked another admin to help fix it, but you got there first! Thanks again, CLW

No problem - I noticed your message to Brookie and thought I'd lend a hand. violet/riga (t) 11:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my unasked question

From Talk:Bollocks:

According to QI this term came about from "Box Deluxe", with "Box Standard" converting to "Bog Standard". violet/riga (t) 11:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know the origin of the name used in the title of the Third desk... joke article. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castaway

As you were right to note, I did read the Straight Dope article you mentioned, and did consequentially list several people there mentioned in my ill-named "todo" list. Judging by its contents, this list could have been better named, as there's no way I'm ever going to write all of the articles listed in this ever-growing list; a far better, if somewhat longer, name would have been "articles which Wikipedia should have but I'm presently too lazy to compose or to submit elsewhere". Of course, this name would have won me no copy-writing awards. I appreciate the heads-up, and will make my own contributions to castaway in the hopefully-foreseeable future. — Itai (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing refs

Hi! I noticed that List of Friends directors doesn't seem to have any references, and you've written almost all of it. Please could you add some when you get a chance? Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oo that's going back a bit. Just added the one reference used for it - cheers for the reminder. violet/riga (t) 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External peer review

Great idea to link to the Wikipedia:External peer review from article talk pages (such as Talk:Quark). Do you think we should do it for all the ones in the list (perhaps creating a template to make the process easier) or just the ones that showed there to be no errors? violet/riga (t) 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think a template would be in order, along the lines of {{externalpeer|Link to peer review page|Name of source that peer reviewed it|Description of their results}}. To be onest, it was totally spontaneous and inconsistent (I didn't bother adding it to any of the other pages. Glad to see you liked my idea. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need some feedback

Can you have a look at some of my lates creations? Yechi Freie_Arbeiter_Stimme David Edelstadt 770 Eastern Parkway Daykart 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why you're asking me, but I'm happy to pass comment. All your articles are well written and are an excellent contribution to Wikipedia, so thanks for that. One thing you need to do is to fully cite your sources - it's important that you show where you got the information from in order to prove that it is correct. Again, thanks for your contributions and I hope that you are enjoying the wiki experience - should you need any help then do feel free to ask me. violet/riga (t) 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBSD

Sorry if this made sense to you, but I couldn't really get it meself; why was the OpenBSD article's feature canditacy marked as a failure with all three objections turned and one support? Is there some numeric mark the number of supporters is supposed to reach? Also, if there is such a limit, why would you not make a comment one way or the other to make the article better. Sorry if I sound the ass, but that just didn't seem right. Janizary 01:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is actually made by Raul654 and I merely tagged the article with {{facfailed}}. Having looked at the nomination there is only one explicit support (at least only one that stands out) and, while the objections seem to be dealt with there are not enough people showing their acceptance of the article. It is frustrating when this happens, I know, but I believe a renomination is is order - perhaps in the new year since too few people will be looking at it around this time of year.

The article looks great and a lot of time has been put into it - I'm sure it will get the recognition it deserves next time around. violet/riga (t) 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Eras

Hi, Violetriga.

May I request your opinion about my attempt to restart the Wikipedia:Eras proposal? I've never really tried something like this before, but I feel like something needs to be done, and I think I have an idea how to proceed. Do you have any suggestions, or warnings, or any kind of feedback? You were the last one to edit that page before me, and I don't doubt that you have some degree of insight that I haven't got. Thanks for your reply, either here or there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English Spellings

Is there official policy on the spellings of words within the English language? I want not to cause another argument, but it seems that the lack of a strict policy - or one that many are unaware of - caused the edit war on the C-130 crash page. Eightball 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "National varieties of English" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style shows the etiquette of usage, though how strict the policy is is down to interpretation. Because it's a style guide it's not really an enforcable policy, but most people tend to stick to it. violet/riga (t) 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me wants to support American English, simply because it seems like the majority of our users are American; however, all the versions of English besides American are essentially uniform, so using British English would make more sense. I just think that it would be beneficial to have a standard form of English that is used, rather than relying on standards that can be difficult to decide. Eightball 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be virtually impossible to choose which to go with and to enforce it - I for one hate having to write with US spellings as it seems too foreign to me. violet/riga (t) 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Breastfeeding you changed behavior to behaviour. Seems kinda silly to go out of your way to change that. Personally, my policy is to leave it, but favor British when the American spell is just dumb ("thru" comes to mind). —Daelin @ 2006–01–07 12:23Z

I plan to update them soon.

These are all rajput gotras of india. Shivraj Singh 14:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete them? Please restore them back. Shivraj Singh 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I told you it is a stub on india and I plan to update it soon. Did you not understand my intent. I thought you did. Do restore them and add them to my watch list. BTW how did these pages vanish from my watch list? Shivraj Singh 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

queries

Hi , I recently returned to english Wiki from the hebrew version ,where the edit screen has many "advanced" java button(there are still quite simple editing tools) ,unlike here in the largest project site so far. why is that? Is is possible to change my prefernces so that my edit would havea some more buttons? thanks. The Procrastinator 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any other buttons available to us in the English version as far as I know - I guess the Hebrew version has been tweaked. violet/riga (t) 11:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Why would you want to not link to the actual page name from Student? b0at 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does link to that actual page. It's all down to your personal date preferences as to how it displays, but it still links to [[November 17]]. We shouldn't change articles to our own preferred date system or spelling. violet/riga (t) 11:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the actual article isn't at 17 November, it's at November 17. It seems that not using the one with the content in it is using your own preference. b0at 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it links directly to it, not even using a redirect. violet/riga (t) 11:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP Disambiguation

Sorry to bother, may be you revert my edits by mistake. I am just linking the topic to 2 divergent viewpoints as regretably there is no consensus. I would appreciate that you do not re-revert this particular changes. --Dejakitty 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are spilling a dispute into the wrong place. Please don't use articles to air your problems, and don't refer to other users in such a way. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it now NPOV. Sorry if it sounds to POV. Do you still have any objections? --Dejakitty 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at rewriting it. We should avoid mentioning forks or viewpoints where possible. I hope that what I've written is acceptable to you. violet/riga (t) 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about now, is it more acceptable? Please help me. --Dejakitty 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you have had problems with the NLP articles. Hopefully all the disputes will be settled at some point, though I totally understand your feelings that such a thing won't happen. We need to try and avoid self-references and forks. Mentioning these at NLP is not really appropriate, and so the main link should be to what NLP can stand for, which is the Neuro-linguistic programming article. The principles article is still linked from there and now has a more prominent link at Neuro-linguistic programming too. violet/riga (t) 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for poor choice of word. Please forgive me. The NLP article is heavily disputed at the moment resulting in splitting into 2 articles. One article has a sympathetic bias to NLP (Principles of NLP) and the other article is heavily critical to NLP (Neuro-linguistic Programming). I am trying to present users with 2 viewpoints. The article has undergone months of mediation and arbitration with no signs of consensus. By listing only one article, then we may present an unbalanced literature. Ideally there should be only one article, the neuro-linguistic programming article. Unfortuately, the editors on Neuro-linguistic programming would not allow a defence section on that particular page. So user FT2 started a new page. I implore you try to find out a simple solution to maintain an overall NPOV. I do not subscribe to heavy pro or heavy anti viewpoint. Could you come up with a simple solution? I would be enormously grateful. I will not do any further edits and I will put all my faith on Wikipedia in your expert hands. --Dejakitty 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. This is to let youy know one of the editor has removed your changes in the NLP article. --Dejakitty 11:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headley has removed your link in the NLP article. --Dejakitty 11:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Violetriga. Thanks for your help inserting the link into the NLP article. However, one of the editor would not accept such change and has removed the link again. I don't think there is anything you can do to convince him otherwise. There isn't much one can do without getting into edit war. --Dejakitty 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite frustrating when people try and enforce their opinions. If I have time I'll keep track of the principles article and help out more. violet/riga (t) 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's frustrating. I know. Unfortunately Wikipedia is still vulnerable to highly aggressive editors imposing their own point of view. --Dejakitty 19:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on the wrong draft

Someone edited it, and you commented on the edit, not the draft I posted. I've restored Draft 5, please take a look. Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft Go for it! 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Multi-headed animal, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Near Synonym" is not relevant

Per the Trivia section on the listing House, M.D. - a "near-synonym" has no relevance in a fact-based encyclopedia. It is completely objective (and therefore PoV). Please address this with your thoughts/feelings on the article's discussion page.

Image:Cotw.gif has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cotw.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Soothing R 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Spelling

Wouldn't it make sense for all the uses of a word in one article to have the same spelling? I really don't care whether you use "organization" or "organisation," on the Breastfeeding page, but it would be nice to have them all the same, don't you think? The reason I picked the "z" version, is because the Wiki article on the word suggests that both are accepted in Commonwealth English, but only the "z" spelling is accepted in North America. It would seem that the version accepted by most people should be used. Again, though, I really don't care which one, but it would be nice to stick to one version in the entire article. MamaGeek Joy 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only time it is spelt with a "z" is as part of the name World Health Organization, which officially uses that spelling. Perhaps the best solution therefore would be to shorten it to WHO more often. violet/riga (t) 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A ban?

"Ban all users who have userboxes?" How do you justify such a potentially fascistic statement? The last time I checked, user pages were covered by free speech and not subject to NPOV. Not to mention, the userboxes themselves were hardly disruptive to Wikipedia. You're entitled to your opinion about userboxes, but that doesn't justify threatening the accounts of those who choose to use them. --CJ Marsicano 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the entire userbox fad is farsical and, while it helps community spirit with a small group of people, is detrimental to the project as a whole. Some userboxes have use - most are BJAODN-fodder. violet/riga (t) 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. It still doesn't justify banning though - that bordered dangerously close to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --CJ Marsicano 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a breach of policy when I actually start banning people, but I wouldn't agree that what I said is close to WP:CIVIL and certainly not WP:NPA. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....a little disappointed..

Hi Violetriga! You don't know me, but... I was a little bit disappointed to see your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User allboxes where you said "Delete and ban all users with a stupid userbox on their page." I know you didn't mean anything by it, but banning is pretty serious business and I'm not sure its helpful to throw around stuff like that casually... just a thought. Respectfully yours, Herostratus 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. To be honest I think that the abuse of userboxes is causing problems here. That is not to say that all userboxes are bad, but, as I noted on that comment, the stupid userboxes are the ones that are causing ill feeling. I'm rather bored of seeing the userboxes listed on TfD, bloating it and taking away from the serious use of that page, and that particular one (the only userbox I've commented on at TfD) is simply making a joke out of the situation. Obviously I don't think that people should be banned for having a box on their user page, but I was just saying that it is getting stupid. I said it knowing that it would get some peoples attention, and I know it doesn't help, but the main people behind userboxes are so ridiculously obsessed with them that they refuse to allow any sort of rational thought behind them. I don't see what I said as a threat, merely a comment on the silliness of the whole situation - sorry if it offended you. violet/riga (t) 09:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time for Wikipedia:UserBoxes for deletion. If we could move everything to do with them to places where no-one needs care about them, it might take some of the heat out of the argument. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please remember that Wikipedia favours discussion over edit wars. violet/riga (t) 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I look forward to discussing your proposed changes on Help talk:Contents, where everyone can participate. --Go for it! 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

By the way, would you do me a favor? Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Help, answer whatever questions you can on the talk page, and add whatever you think is worthwhile for such a project on the project page itself. It would really help to get things started. Plus, I am really confused by the Help namespace, since most of our help files are in the Wikipedia namespace. Your help and input is appreciated (and thanks for the spelling corrections!) --Go for it! 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page New and Main Page New2

Hi! I wonder: what is the point of Main Page New2? Punkmorten 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete Main Page New and Main Page New2 shortly, unless you have a reason for them to exist. violet/riga (t) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. They were temporary mark ups to see what the browsebar would look like on the main page. They are no longer needed, and feel free to delete them. We can always create more in the future if we need to. --Go for it! 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates e.g., on Wilderness

Hi - thanks for tidying up the template on Wilderness. I'm pretty new to WP and have been a bit confused about what templates belong on Talk pages and which ones on Articles. User:Fenice and User:Silence have been to-ing and fro-ing a bit with adding/taking off that template from the Wilderness article page. See User:Silence's talk page - I posted/asked about it there and did some reading. On other pages I've used "cleanup", "reqimage", etc.. I haven't been able to find a clear guideline though. Kind regards, Jtneill - Talk 09:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's a shame there have been these problems. Wikipedia:Template locations is a good place to look at for a poll on what should go where - it's just unfortunate that Fenice will not listen to consensus on this matter. Thanks for the note. violet/riga (t) 09:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's just the magical page I was after - Thankyou :) Jtneill - Talk 09:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mass deletions

Stop mass deleting templates, Violetriga.--Fenice 11:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not - I'm going along with consensus and making them only appear on the talk page, not the article page. violet/riga (t) 11:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I know you want me off this site, well, it did not happen. :-) Talk page guidelines apply to talk page templates, would you believe it. And you are deleting them without replacing them according to your edit history. If they were also on talk pages - I cannot check every bit of vandalism you are committing. In case you decide to go on another rant (can you contain yourself - we are eager to see) just at least replace them. --Fenice 11:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would you at least offer to take over the AID, Violetriga? Or do you just go about the site asking contributors to leave. Well since your busy being disruptive I don't think you are going to work on the AID. Just another hint that decency is an option, Violetriga.--Fenice 11:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - every article seems to have the notice on their talk page to me. And I don't want you off this site (that's a nice bit of self-importance you have there!) - I just want you to go along with consensus. Also, please stop calling this vandalism as that is a personal attack. violet/riga (t) 11:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why not answer my question: take over the AID, violetriga. Obviously you should do something for the fun of chasing away an editor. I will explain everything to you in detail. It is not that hard. I will leave and do no more here.--Fenice 11:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do a great job at WP:AID, and I don't want to take it over in any way. However, you are clearly doing your own thing despite everyone else when it comes to the associated templates. Again, I don't want you to leave, just to stop the edit warring. violet/riga (t) 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict, while I wrote you the instructions. I know peole like you do not have any decency. Yeah, you are not even going to take over. Surprise. Here are the instructions anyway. Develop some sense of decency, Violetriga, do your job. You should make up for the harm you cause. I know you would not dream of it now, but unless you are mentally ill, you might develop integrity once the project dies, that'll start to occurr in about five or so months:

Here are the instructions:

On sunday at 18.00 GMT you are supposed to do a socalled rollover, that is switch the template to a new collaboration. All voters need to be informed and you need to change all the templates in the section called "templates for maintenance" at the bottom of the page. Fill in the new article in the history section and add the diff to the old.
Every day, you should check to update the vote count and voting requirement. New nominations need to have a template (there would have been an option just to omit that template but you are obviously just into warring so we can't have that option). So they will need to have a template, nominators put them on talk or article page, whichever one is ok, but you should check for them to be complete.
The voting goes more or less automatic right now. If the page looses contributors to a point where it might die (will happen in approximately 5 months, since it is really well established now), you need to start advertising: put information about the nomination on project pages: WikiProjects, there is a link to the list, and put some info on related articles.
Also, you need to develop the project further in order for it to become successful and actually produce featured articles, you will have to develop some kind of strategy to get people to actually work on it. This works for one by advertising and accumulating voters, but you also need to develop some other strategy, I was only starting to develop this and so you will have to experiment. Start by developping a todo box while the articles are listed and try to get editors to decide upon a strategy, while the article is listed, because there are things you can't just put in the todo-box. The first attempts in this direction were unbelieveably and surprisingly successful, so I suggest to really explore that alley further. Create the todo box immidiately after the article is listed, and start filling it in some systematic way. People will pick up on it and go along.
And one further thing: there needs to be some kind of a box on AID which summarizes the criteria for a FA. The existing boxes on FA will not do, see discussion of this somewhere on old talk pages, it was discussed before even my time and I never got around to developing it. You may consider putting this box on the talk page of the nominated article also.

I am fully aware you do not intend to make up for my work here, but who knows, you may come to your senses eventually, pick up some decency, and decide to make up for my work, therefore the instructions. For a while now, it will run automatically, it won't develop any further unfortunately, unless you actually take over and do the job properly. After a while it will start to die. At that point in time you may develop integrity (unless you are mentally ill). Then you can dig up the instructions and maybe make up for your actions.
I believe my reverts have expired. So this is it. I will leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is open for people with all kinds of needs, also with those who are just distructive, like you. Appears to me sometimes peaceful people here are actually a minority, so no big loss for me, if I think about it. --Fenice 11:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]