User talk:Viridae

[1]

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

[2] 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: [3]. 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

[4]. 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)

For whatever it's worth, it looks like Ottava's civility editing sanction has been confirmed and added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. GlassCobra 17:45, 5 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)

I must confess I regard Sanger as an animal not a human being. --Trulexicon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing on Carcharoth's userpage?

[5] - Why are you reverting his own change of his userpage? Please revert yourself. Risker (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Misclick - that was supposed to be my change to my own userpage I was reverting. Viridae^Talk 20:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe! Been there, done that. This darn multi-tab editing thing... Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

for me

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec

Revert

? Cool Hand Luke 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FFS iPhone browsing. Misclicked and didn't notice. Viridae^Talk 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Ruby slippers-cropped.JPG

Why was speedy deletion denied on this? It is essentially a copy of the recently fixed File:Ruby slippers.JPG per a copyright discussion and is no longer needed.--RadioFan (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No fun

:( [6] Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

1. Copy right violation requires proof of ownership.

2. Fair use for educational purposes allows for the reproduction of copyrighted material.

3. There is no statement of any other party besides myself, so there is no way to claim ownership to another party.

4. You are edit warring and this is your warning. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Warn me all you want, but not only are you making personal attacks, you are edit warring. You surely really go all out when you break the rules. Did you forget what the words "fair use" mean? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Viridae^Talk 04:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you gave me a lot of ammo. The fact that you redacted my solely written comments along with my responses afterward mean that you accused me of copyright violation on 60% of a matter that was not. You crossed the line big time. I would reinsert my stuff, because as it stands you made a major accusation that you are majorly wrong about. Oh, and you also accused yourself of copyright violation. Funny how that works. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can restore the non-copyrighted material if you like, but the thread is useless without it. Viridae^Talk 04:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And if you forgot, the best way to deal with copyright vio is to put it behind a tag that warns of it until it can be appropriately dealt with. Forget the processes we have too? Or that there is a copyright noticeboard? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. That warning is to replace the content when an entire page is a copyvio. and Admin (ie me) then comes in, confirms the allegations and if necessary deletes the page. In the case of a violation involving only some of the pages content, it is sufficient to blank the offending section or revert to a revious version that doesn't include the violating material. Viridae^Talk 04:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It replaces entire sections. You blanked a whole section. I actually have experience working with copyright on Wiki. I don't really recall you having any experience working with anything, and your contribs don't shine any light on that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the template I am talking about: User talk:Viridae/Temp. It, by default, blanks the page. It also says "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue." Guess what I am Ottava. Use of that template is not required. It is quite sufficient to blank the offending content. It happens all the time. Viridae^Talk 04:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"To limit blanking of the text, as for a copyright violation in a single section, place at the end of the suspected copyvio area." As I stated, sections can be covered. Also, "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can, but not ussually, because blanking is sufficient. And "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." is another red herring, the copyright status was instantly clarified. It was a copyright violation. It was removed as such. Stop wikilawyering Ottava, it was behaviour like this that has earnt you the 1 year ban you are about to experience. Viridae^Talk 06:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, have you ever produced content or anything but drama? I'm still not seeing anything and I'm going back rather far. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Ottava scraping the bottom of the barrel a little aren't we? Viridae^Talk 04:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It is just nice to point out how when comparing us, everything you say about me is more than applicable about you and shows that you have far less going for you than me. Perhaps you will then insult some more people on WR after having this pointed out? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one about to be banned. Viridae^Talk 06:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Hence what WR loves. People who don't add content and just cause drama stay. People who do add content and are harassed to death by the drama people are banned. Somey would be proud of you. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does WR have to do with this? Are you blaming WR for getting you banned? Really ottava if you still can't see why you are about to be banned, I really have no hope that you will return successfully when it is over. You just. don't. get. it. Viridae^Talk 06:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I like how your WR incivility and reckless behavior is suddenly blamed on me being banned. You are very strange to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what is there to get? I, as a banned user, produced far more content than you could ever as a non-banned user. That must burn you up inside. All of my beautiful pages, and you, with nothing. It would explain your almost constant hostility against me for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not in the slightest. So hey I don't enjoy writing articles that often - doesn't phase me my skills lie elsewhere. I am happy to say my sense of self worth is not tied to a website from which I am about to be banned. Lets look at things on a scale of importance shall we: High: World hunger, global warming, cure for cancer. Low: writing articles for wikipedia, winning some money at the casino, the nighbours dog crapping on your lawn. Guess what I do for a job Ottava? Viridae^Talk 06:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Skills? Stirring up drama isn't a skill. And if your sense of worth isn't tied to Wiki, why bother so much? Why follow me so much? Seems a little contradictory. And I love how you made it clear that you aren't here for the articles. Thank you for proving my point. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Really Ottava? Following you? So I'm part of your big conspiracy too. Too bad it's been disproven by arbcom [7]. Honestly, this exchange is one of the most pointless things I have done on wikipedia, Any further responses will be removed, I really don't care and you are wasting my time. Viridae^Talk 07:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight

Please consider unblocking GoRight or setting a finite block duration. I don't think he has done enough to merit an indefinite block, and I am trying to get him back on the straight and narrow. --TS 06:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Will gladly unblock when he indicates he will be constructive. Viridae^Talk 07:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a reasonable response. The ball is in his court. --TS 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, iphone editing is a pain in the ass. No probs Tony. The indefinite block was never meant to be infinite unless he wants it to be. As you said, the ball is in his court, he needs to shape up and treat this place like the collaborative project it is. If he has other to help him on the way all the better for it. Viridae^Talk 07:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you want to make a statement at the ANI discussion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that and didn't see a suitable place. If people would like me to I can though. Viridae^Talk 07:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Down to you, I think it was a good block but I expect there to be some bleating later on when people wake up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Viridae, might I suggest that you post a statement under WP:AN/I#Appeal by GoRight in the "Result of the appeal by GoRight" section? Please note that the section is currently collapsed, so it might be a good idea to remove the collapse box for now. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, done so. Im hoping that satisfies the ANI hordes. Viridae^Talk 08:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me see why you invested time in GoRight in the first place? Seems like his appeals were really harmless, until you decided to enact harm with a block. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

he was wasting an inordinate amount of the communities time. Viridae^Talk 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you find is ironic that a voluntary communities' time can be wasted. Folks invest by their participation. I've invested a great amount of time in improving the project articles only to be excessively reverted and forced to talk like no other project before, might be a waste there. Where is GoRight's harm in asking for appeal to help address the essential concerns about multiple editors ? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When he starts throwing spurious complaints of COI and "admin involvement" at completely uninvolved people, then there is a problem. Viridae^Talk 10:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering ... I guess that warrants closer attention. For the record, I've only known GoRight to take on productive causes to reduce the pain for achving a NPOV and the pain that eds mistakenly caught in false sock accusations. He's capable of making very convincing, and guidance based arguments on principles. I don't believe he would purposely try to bring light to another admin, without good cause. His wiki work is time well invested, in my opinion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A problem? Perhaps. Blockable? Not even remotely. The more I look into this, the worse it gets. Arkon (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight

• User:GoRight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at recent edit warring at this user page and see if you think it needs full protection. Obviously the owner can't edit it. There's a similar problem on the talk page but I think we can live with that while we wait for GoRight to decide whether he wants to work cooperatively. --TS 08:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I completely agree, lets wait and see. In the meantime the template is unecessary. Thanks for the heads up on that one. I saw one revert earlier but didnt look to see the huge edit war. Viridae^Talk 10:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've read both of these threads to see if anyone bothered to tell you this I am now just a messanger. GoRight is asking for editors to let you know there is comments on his talk page for you to describe why he is blocked. I guess that is what he is asking for. He says he wants the info in case of further DR steps. Also, Jehochman is talking about a possible unblock and is awaiting you to see how you feel about it. Don't know why he didn't pop over but he has been busy with a lot of other things and he is probably assuming you have the page watched and will see it. So my civic duties for today is to let you know that GoRight and Jehochman would like you at GoRight's talk page. Hope this is helpful, if not please feel free to ignore. I just thought you should know. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for passing that. I had missed a message and a vast amount more appeared while I was asleep. Viridae^Talk 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight just stated here that they agree to be more constructive. Based especially on Jehochman and TS's comments, I would be okay with "unblock but monitor for recurring disruption." I leave it up to you, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a head's up. See this recent comment by me on GoRight's talk page. His behavior over the past hour or so isn't encouraging. --TS 15:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for giving me a needed smack up side the head to get myself properly oriented again. See [8] and [9] which are intended as a sign of good faith. Are we good for now at least? --GoRight (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of admin tools

Hi Viridae, please be careful when using admin tools, such as revert buttons. Thanks. -- 签名 _sig at 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Iphone browsing is hazardous. Viridae^Talk 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

give it to me, please!

Thank you; I almost gave up. I didn't realize you were here. So, please tell me webhost and how the unsupported document applies to my page. I hereby challenge you to make the (webhost) article in question acceptable under Wikipedia's clear standards on the issue of outside support in order that you might adequately support your position as stated on Cyclopia's talk page. If you cannot adequately support your position, I suggest that you withdraw it. (and you might even want to discuss it with certain people beforehand as well - just a hint). Thank you for your time. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Viridae^Talk 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. A mighty ordeal was just concluded, and then you came along to throw in two cents which were distinctly unneeded. Anybody who calls me "webhost" had better be prepared to back it up, and not with some flimsy unsourced article such as webhost or any of the other seven or eight similar unsourced articles. If I sound angry, it is because I am fed up. But be assured that I do not get angry. I get mighty. Don't worry though, I only bend back fingers that are pointed at me. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I wasn't calling you a webhost and you know it. Viridae^Talk 08:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what I know? --Neptunerover (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And what are you talking about? A direct quote from you to me: '"Webhost" quite clearly does apply to you..' So my challenge for you was to please make the articles comprising the back-up for the no-webhost rules have some real support outside of Wikipedia. As it is, all the articles have been tagged as unreferenced for years, and nobody seems to care, even though they are being used to support Wikipedia rule enforcement activities. I couldn't make any sense of the articles, perhaps because I was looking for something that applied to me, but anyway, they need help. I'm really sorry for probably coming across too strong. I hope you have a good day. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't being used to support anything. Or at least anything policy based. Viridae^Talk 12:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What then supports the policy? If the policy says one thing but its terms are unclear, how can it ever be enforceable? A policy cannot stand alone without it's terms being defined. That's the problem with labeling X as being a webhost: Wikipedia is not exactly clear on just what that is. Does that make sense? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia.. Viridae^Talk 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then, maybe you should take it up with the consul. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just not be obtuse. Obtuse people rarely last on wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 12:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What about just plain weird people? What do we do with weird people here? We don't burn them at the stake, do we? Not that Joan of Arc would mind much. Heck, let's fire her up; she's weird! --Neptunerover (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GR, again

I draw to your attention GR's recent edit history, which to me shows a total lack of constructive edits to article space and a great deal of wikilawyering, trailing off into [10] [11] and related William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I seem to have grown a shadow, or two, as this one is not named TS. My edits at AN were on topic and specific to the allegations being made by JzG. Once the discussion was, sort of, closed by a neutral admin I dropped the matter. --GoRight (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that both TS and WMC make a habit of editing other people's comments both at public fora as we see in this case by TS, but also on various talk pages as well. Is there anything which can be done about these uncivil provocations? It is not just msyelf, BTW, they do so to many other editors as well. --GoRight (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs

AfD failed

Next time maybe you'll listen. Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Any need for that? You're really being quite uncivil, not just here, but in quite a few of your recent comments and edit summaries... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the afd was a success. Go take a look at what the prod reason was. Viridae^Talk 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was questioning whether Timeshift needed to put that on your talkpage. I have other issues with taking articles to AfD when they just need references. AfD is for articles that should be deleted. References can be found by anyone. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you were. I was talking to timeshift. Unreferenced BLPs should be deleted, unless references can be found. I don't care about them enough to find the references. If someone else does, the afd might prompt them to do it. Either way, I get what I wanted and the encyclopedia is improved. Viridae^Talk 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs should be referenced. In the time you spent taking it to AfD you could have found references, therefore improving the encyclopedia and not clogging up AfD with unnecessary debates. You don't have to care about the article, just care about the encyclopedia, find the references and as you say, you get what you want. Or failing that, tag it as unrefernced. Or inform one of Wikiproject involved that you have concerns. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It was unreferenced since 2006. The afd takes me about 2 minutes to create. I would prefer marginal BLPs be deleted, but referenced properly is a significant improvement. Viridae^Talk 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand why you wont look for references before nominating for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I would prefer the article be rid of barely notable BLPs. Viridae^Talk 05:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But if you yourself may be able find references to prove notability, why not try that before nominating for deletion? I'd like to get some other opinions on this...Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I don't care about the subject. I have better things to do. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to care about the subject. In fact it's probably better to work on articles where you don't care about the subject, as you go at it based on facts and you can only use references. The whole process of AfD and this subsequent conversation has taken so much longer than providing refernces for half a dozen short BLPs, which would be time much better spent. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't even bother trying. He's just admitted he uses blackmail to get his way on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Achieving refs via threatening deletion is almost blackmail. Bottom line is that no refs does not equal deletion of a clearly noteable subject/article. If it did you'd have got people supporting deletion. But instead they were *all* keeps. Get that in to your head and maybe you'll realise you're wrong. But I doubt it. Cya. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, please keep civil. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(To timeshift) if blackmail is what it takes to undo 4 years of inattention, so be it. Viridae^Talk 05:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well at least you can admit you blackmail to achieve your wikipedia goals. Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Timesift, can you give me the list of AfDs you are discussing? I'm seeing a very problematic pattern of behavior. I'd assumed the recent spate was a one-off. Hobit (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposing an article that you have a reasonable idea can be properly referenced on the basis that it is not yet properly referenced is a misinterpretation of what is needed to build an encyclopedia. Instead of tying up half a dozen editors in a deletion discussion that could only have had one outcome, that of keep and improve, you could have spent the same amount of time improving the article itself. Your comments on the deletion review and here show that you were fully aware that the article could be improved but that you showed no interest in doing so. Perhaps in the future your disinterest could better extend to not initiating disruptive deletion discussions. If you are not interested to improve the scope of the encyclopedia there are many thousands of editors who are. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Revisit one, por favor

Take another look at Christopher D. Patton, please. I had just added multiple references; guessing we crossed wires on that one. It might be borderline notable (not a clue what it takes for a poet to meet WP:N), but it should be adequately sourced. Maralia (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll undelete and give you a day to bring it up to scratch. If i don't like it then I'll take it to afd. Viridae^Talk

Prods

Please don't prod obviously notable topics like a named professor at MIT. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Prod allows for deletion for any reason, provided noone objects.. Viridae^Talk 06:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think it would be disruptive if I prodded say, George W Bush? If the topic of the article meets our inclusion guidelines, prodding is not only a bad idea, I'd call it pretty plainly disruptive. Hobit (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the "you have 7 days to do it" is what exactly? What will happen in 7 days if I don't source an article? Hobit (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a number of other prods you've made that are pretty bogus. Please be more careful in the future. Topics that meet WP:PROF and WP:ATHLETE on their face probably shouldn't be nominated for deletion or prodded. Hobit (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Viridae^Talk 07:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One disagrees about opinions, not facts. An endowed chair at MIT meets WP:PROF#5 by definition. And how does a winner at Wimbledon not meet WP:ATHLETE#1? Just please show more care in following WP:BEFORE. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree that they shouldn't be nominated for deletion. Unreferenced BLP's should all be fixed or deleted. Arbcom seems to be about to confirm this. Viridae^Talk 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So fix them. Do you not agree that fixing them is way more constructive and helpful to the encyclopedia than deleting them? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You fix them. I don't care about them in the slightest. Viridae^Talk 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disgraceful. Timeshift (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. What I care about is not having unreferenced BLP's lying around. That's policy. Viridae^Talk 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not policy to delete an entire article just for lack of refs. And as if that's not enough, aren't the unanimous keeps at AfD not enough to make you realise you are wrong? "I don't care about them in the slightest." - disgraceful. Timeshift (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided a reason why I should care about having an article on that subject? It is policy that unreferenced material be removed from BLPs. That olicy is about to be backed up by a hard deletion rule. Fix in 7 days or it gets deleted. Viridae^Talk 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny how nobody supports you on this "policy", witnessed through unanimous keeps. Does this not tell you something? No, probably not for you it doesn't. Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Were you aware of this[12] wen you did this?[13] - Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I wasn't Viridae^Talk 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I've improved the article somewhat and found some sources now! I'd like to call your attention to a template I just designed, {{UBF}} and added to another article, Ninety-nine (owarai). What do you think of this as an interim solution? I think the template's agnostic as to what procedure we eventually use, whether it's PRODing, speedy, AfD, incubating or something else. Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I prefer some of the suggestion in the BLP RfC better(article deleted in 7 days unless it is brought up to scratch). Viridae^Talk 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could still be used in that case too, while the article is under discussion. It would remain on until people have finished discussing, or until someone decides in good faith that the article isn't so bad that it should be hidden. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That would work, except with the addendum of making the template a deletion template. Blank, replace with template and then fix or delete after 7 days. Viridae^Talk 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't override policy. You would also benefit from looking at the motion (which is currently passing) at the WP:RFARB at the moment. Viridae^Talk 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I envision this as an adjunct to or starting point for any deletion template. There are plenty of proposals afoot, and whichever one gets adopted in the end there may be a call for blanking or collapsing unsourced BLPs in the interim, while they are awaiting further action. Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron to the rescue

I hope you enjoy. Timeshift (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Donogh Rees

Could you please undelete Donogh Rees? It certainly asserted notability. It may or may not make it at AfD, but starring in a notable TV show is certainly a claim of notability. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hazrat Syed Qalandar Ilm Ali Shah Jilani

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hazrat Syed Qalandar Ilm Ali Shah Jilani, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazrat Syed Qalandar Ilm Ali Shah Jilani. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Just for your reference, since you looked at a proposed speedy deletion. Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 10:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

History merge

Sorry about that, perhaps you could point me towards the correct way to do it? Off2riorob (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Answered at ANI. Histmerging involves multiple steps, including deletions and restorations. Best to avoid them entirely. Viridae^Talk 09:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no I won't do that again, so I would just click on move and then add the original location, yes? Off2riorob (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. If there is still a redirect there, it should go over the top. You will leave redirects behind in the WPP namespace. If you a dump a list of them on my talk page i will delete them. Viridae^Talk 09:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks a lot for explaining. Off2riorob (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

need a history merge

rather as the other one:

• Alec Jenkins
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Alec Jenkins

Jack Merridew 10:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 10:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Coughs quietly: (the talk page, too). Jack Merridew 10:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh shite. Viridae^Talk 10:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

moar

• Ben Oxenbould
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Ben Oxenbould

&& talk ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Andrew Trimble
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Andrew Trimble

;( Jack Merridew 11:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC) +talk

• Bennett King
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Bennett King

• Ben Pepper
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Ben Pepper

& talk. There will be more. Sigh, Jack Merridew (who's off for now) Jack Merridew 11:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

These all have been done. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a long time, but I think I remember what all these fancy buttons do! :) Everyking (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jason Tyler

Hi, this article was incorrectly re-proded and was on my list of items to fix today. If you look at the edit summaries you may see i actually noted two major porn awards this person met thus meeting WP:Pornbio. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you please reverse your deletion? -- Banjeboi 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your note

If someone creates a WP account for the sole purpose of vandalism, they should be blocked. If they want to be unblocked, they should read our policies, become very familiar with all of them, and then, and only then, try to get unblocked. Of course by then they would know all there is to know about the block/unblock process itself, since they should have read WP:BP. If a regular editor stumbles and does something block-worthy, he deserves an explanation and a way out. But if it's just someone who created an account for spitting on the efforts of the thankless volunteers here and damaging this site, the message they get when they try to log in is sufficient. Crum375 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was telling Nihonjoe that they DO get an explanation of how to be unblocked regardless of whether we leave them a block notice or not. Viridae^Talk 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. Crum375 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No problems. Viridae^Talk 04:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

GoRight (redux)

As the penultimate administrator to indefinitely block GoRight, would you be willing to have a look in at User talk:GoRight? A new admin has arrived (which is not, in itself, a bad thing) and suggested some terms for unblocking GoRight. I have some concerns about the proposed probation conditions (noted here, here) but if you have the time your experience and thoughts on the situation might be helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alec Powers

Hi, I can see you recently chose to delete this article. The previous deletion (7 months ago) was for a substantially different page with respect to sources, as the previous deleting admin commented (a link to his/her comment is on the AfD discussion). Consequently the CSD of G4 does not apply. Please restore the article and let the AfD discussion have time to reach a consensus (at the moment it has had less than 24 hours). Ash (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I have compared them side by side. While not identical, they are essentially the same article except the newer one had a more complete list of works. Viridae^Talk 10:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as the sources are quite different (you appear to be ignoring the awards referenced). You appear to be ignoring the statement of the prior deleting admin who changed their viewpoint "Looks fine to me; notability seems to be fairly clear now. The article that was deleted was pretty bad and didn't show any of the awards or coverage your new version does; so it doesn't surprise me it did get deleted - perhaps nobody with knowledge of the subject matter happened to notice the AfD. Nice work, anyway.". Please restore so that the AfD can complete with appropriate time for discussion. Ash (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless the article still only consists of a brief description of what he is and a limited filmography. Which is what the previous article contained. The awards are not mentioned at all, and are only used to substantiate the claims that he appeared in specific films. You want it undeleted, WP:DRV is your avenue. Viridae^Talk 10:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You admit yourself that the article subject doesn't pass our content criteria for pornstars, a reason for deletion given in the last debate. Viridae^Talk 10:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll use DRV when I have some more time. As there was no BLP issue, it was a shame not to give discussion a chance at reaching consensus. As for your point about PORNBIO, the point of the discussion was that Powers does pass ENT and ARTIST.

Please userfy to my userspace, I don't have an accurate copy of the version you deleted. Ash (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need. The content of the article has barely changed since it was last deleted with consensus. We do not afd endless recreations of the same article hoping to get a different result. As to the notability issue, the rules are different for pornstars because they are so prolific. A porn film can be knocked out in no time at all, with performers racking up a long list of titles very quickly. I will email you a copy. I don't like BLPs hanging around non-mainspace indefinitely. Viridae^Talk 10:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh right. Can you point me to the right place where it is made clear that the normal notability guidance does not apply to pornographic actors? Cheers Ash (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

See where it says Entertainers and lists "Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities" Now see furth down the page where it lists "Pornographic actors" separately. Seems crystal clear to me. Porn actors are judge differently to other actors because they work to a different schedule with a far mroe limited audience. Viridae^Talk 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)