User talk:Violetriga/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Talk to me...
Nuvola apps filetypes.svg

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

Archive 3 – Posts from February to end of March 2005


Hi Violet,

There is a note on User_talk: asking to inform you of any further vandalism. I've just left a {test2} warning for vandalism to Illuminated manuscript. -- Solipsist 12:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that - investigating if it's anything to do with this place. violet/riga (t) 12:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again today. — Brim 15:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser RfC[edit]

Hi Violet,

As one of the various people abused by WikiUser, you may be interested to know that I've started a Request for Comment on WikiUser - he's threatened mediation against three people and started proceedings against two, you and me, which is one idiocity too many as far as I'm concerned. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiUser and feel free to add to it as you see fit. -- ChrisO 01:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Middlesex and UtherSRG[edit]

Hi. Please see User talk:UtherSRG regarding the move of Middlesex. Jooler 00:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tiago Monteiro[edit]

Great work on the Tiago Monteiro - you've very quickly added a great deal of info about him. Nicely done. violet/riga (t) 18:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

St. George's Day[edit]

St. George's Day has been proposed at UK COTW. I'd noticed you'd shown interest when it was previously nominated, and now the UK COTW page is once again seeing more interest there are high hopes that something will happen with the article. Please come along to the board and register your vote and any thoughts. Grunners 04:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You voted for St. George's Day, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Breastfeeding & Lactose Intolerance[edit]

I'm just following up on your revert of my edit to the breastfeeding article. I had removed the note about lactose intolerance because there was no real citation. I see your point about the discussion in lactose intolerance. However, that article does not explain whether lactose intolerance applies to breast milk (perhaps it does). More importantly, it says that lactose intolerance is genetic and has a link to an article that says lactose intolerance starts to develop at about age five, which is (in most cultures) long after the child has been weaned from the breast. There's nothing to show that lactose intolerance has anything to do with breastfeeding. So, if the breastfeeding article is going to say that lactose intolerance is caused by weaning, it needs a citation. I can't find anything that substantiates the claim. Do you have anything? Thanks. --Westendgirl 21:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look through the stuff I've got. I haven't read through the lactose intolerance article in a long time so I'm sorry that it's not as straight-forward as I initially thought. Will see what I can do and sort it out one way or another. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 22:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Typically, when an account is used for impersonating another person, particularly for something like changing arbcom votes, we ban the account indefinitely, not just for 24 hours. Such accounts have no chance of adding anything useful. Snowspinner 23:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said on incidents@WP:AN I should've done, but forgot to change the duration. No worry - I'll catch it if it happens again from tomorrow. violet/riga (t) 23:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I already added a permablock. Snowspinner 23:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) music (UK) articles[edit]

Im sorry for messing up these articles with only things about #1 singles. If you really want me to I can change all the ones I have done to add information about the really significant things during the year inclusive of number one singles and other things happening in music. If you want to move these articles to something like Number One Singles/Albums Of 1999 (UK) then I don't mind that either and I'd be happy to still do summaries of music in years and summaries of number ones. If you want me to completely change what I've done so far, I can also do that. I won't start on 2004 until you have made up your mind, but could you please let me know as soon as possible so I can start making amendements or continuing with the way things are. Thanks for your help.

You've done such fantastic work on the articles that I would like you to make your judgement on how they should progress. Ideally I'd like to see them include all the musical happenings of the year, and you're right that the current name is a little misleading, but that involves a huge amount of work. Just progress as you see want - if you think it's too much effort to do that then that's fair enough. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1998 in music (UK)[edit]

Here's the new and improved 1998 in music (UK) article, which has now incorporated the most popular singles and albums in the UK from the year. If there's anything else you would like me to include please tell me and also could you please tell me whether you are happier with this format or not. I'd be willing to make any changes you would like, but my main aim to begin was to write a more suitable summary based on the title of the article, which I think I have done. Please state your feelings on the new article and any changes you would like made.

I think you've done a great job. I've changed it around a little by sectioning it and adding images. If you think the sectioning has lost anything about the article then let me know and I'll fix it, but I think it looks fantastic now. violet/riga (t) 20:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


You have protected a version of this article although it was agreed on the discussion-page not to show that photograph. Please revert to the version of User: Occamy.

If you can point me to the decision then I will change it to that version. As it is I believe the argument is continuing and no decision has been made. violet/riga (t) 19:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[[Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith/Request_for_Comment#Request_for_Comment]] - --Cyprus2k1 20:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cyprus, you should know that on Wikipedia the protection policy is that we always protect the Wrong Version. (There's a funny article on this, but I can't find it now...) PaulHammond 14:41, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
m:wrong version :) violet/riga (t) 14:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


the edit war on the bahai article is actually vandalism and not a edit war :\ in the talk pages it has been aggreeded that the photo should be there.. so the just action would be to block the vandal user (but of course he will use proxies...) - --Cyprus2k1 20:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I couldn't find a decision I chose not to call it vandalism, especially after the arguments over what is vandalism and what isn't at the clitoris article with a similar image inclusion dispute. violet/riga (t) 20:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think Cyprus meant to say that the consensus was that the photo should not appear on the Baha'i Faith article, but that it should appear in some form on the Baha'u'llah article, even if via a link or at the bottom of the page with a warning at the top. We appear to have anon editors revert warring over adding the picture to Baha'i Faith without bothering to read the recent (extensive and now partially archived) discussions on the talk page, and shouting at each other in their edit summaries.
There is an ongoing debate on the Baha'u'llah page about the display of his image, but the issue at Baha'i had been settled in favour of removing the picture. PaulHammond 13:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think this highlights a slight problem in the resolution process for such discussions - it's not easy to find such decisions. I have no doubt the current poll will prove conclusive enough to further strengthen the position and would support the inclusion of a message at the top detailing the result. violet/riga (t) 13:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Glad you like the changes. I was going to send you a message about it but you noticed before I got the chance. Yes, it's a shame that we can't get talk to work in a general way... maybe the developers should add a variable similar to "localurl" that would let you extract the namespace from an article name.

I'm going to add "article" to the Vandalism in progress page, and hope people adopt it. -- Curps 21:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do we still need Wikipedia:Image censorship?[edit]

Hi Violet/Riga --

I was wondering what to do with this proposed policy. If I read your writing correctly, it was intended to implement Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. But all of the proposals on that page that entailed censorship went down to defeat . . . so do we need Wikipedia:Image censorship? Thoughts? --Chris vLS 22:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not really - it seems that it's gonna take a lot of effort to come up with a solution for the ongoing arguments (see the two sections above this!) and that page is far from adequate for doing so. I have no problems with it's removal, though some of the discussions may be worthy of archiving (would that mean leave it?). violet/riga (t) 22:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Maybe just put a section at the beginning archiving the whole thing . . . I feel bad for folks who are voting . . . Chris vLS 22:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Maybe a note saying that the proposal is no longer active and that nothing will come of it. violet/riga (t) 22:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense. Might be best for you, as the original proposer, to do it when you have a chance. I don't want to seem like I'm using the process to support a position. If you're too busy, though, I understand. Chris vLS 23:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note added - thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 23:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for moving biotheology to neurotheology for us. ;) --Nectarflowed 15:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. violet/riga (t) 15:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1999 in music (UK)[edit]

I've finished this article also, please let me know what you think of it and if you want any adjustments made.


I do not care too strongly one way or the other, but I thought it would be better to have a photo of the wonderful Riga city skyline rather than just the castle as the first representative photo of Riga seen by the reader. The little-known castle could be anywhere, and in fact, is virtually non-visible to visitors of the city, unless they happen to see it from the bridge. In any case, that was my reason for shifting the photos around. Why do you prefer it your way?

I did it because a massively wide opening image can cause some layout problems, especially (as there is now) when a TOC is displayed. While I agree the picture is better I think it's also more appropriate for the castle image to be shown near where the castle is mentioned in the text. violet/riga (t) 19:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stem Cells[edit]

Hi Violetriga, can I ask why you decided to remove the link to the additional external photo of a blastocyst? ([1]) Thanks, Nectarflowed 13:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is confusing to have external links in an image caption. The image may well be appropriate for inclusion but more likely it should be included in the external links section at blastocyst. violet/riga (t) 21:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I heartily agree.

I have to try hard not to be a gmail evangelist (I possibly don't succeed), but I can't imagine trying to cope with WikiEN in Thunderbird or whatever else!

zoney talk 23:53, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Try a hastily-used Outlook Express with digest mode on - gah! :) violet/riga (t) 00:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cowhand page move to Cowboy[edit]

Violet, the vote (Talk:Cowhand), although small, was to move Cowhand to Cowboy. I moved Cowboy to Cowhand/temp to save its history, but when atempting to move Cowhand to Cowboy I get a message saying that it must be done by an administrator. Since you are the only admin that voted, would you do the move? I'll fix the redirects. Thanks. Frank101 16:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to do it but the extreme slowness of the servers is causing me some problems. It'll be done as and when any request I make can get through! violet/riga (t) 18:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Violet, thanks for moving Cowhand to Cowboy. I have another favor to ask. I accidentally moved the talk page to Talk:Cowhboy and of course it won't let me move it to Talk:Cowboy so I have to announce that I made a mistake. Could you move it when you get time and delete the misspelled version? Thanks, I'll try to be more careful. Frank101 01:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorted. :) violet/riga (t) 18:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, for fixing everything. Sorry I've been so late, but I've just now been able to get back here. Frank101 00:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latest WikiUser vandalism[edit]

It looks like WikiUser is now using a Freedom2Surf IP address. If he's invested in an Internet connection I'd guess that he's planning to escalate his attacks on Wikipedia. Worth keeping an eye on, I think! -- ChrisO 22:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. I've got him, his previous and his latest IP addresses on my "Watching..." section at user:Violetriga. Amusingly his attacks are more than predictable and we can easily revert everything he does, especially with at least us two watching him. violet/riga (t) 22:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser Arbitration case[edit]

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to User:WikiUser. He is to be banned for one year for personal attacks, legal threats and other unreasonable behaviour. For further details and the full decision please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WikiUser#Final decision -- sannse (talk) 16:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace[edit]

Buckingham Palace. Please could you explain why this article has failed to be a FA when it has three supports, (4 if you count me) one objection and one neutral. Thank you Giano 12:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry and one more vote here from Zerbey that was accidenrally deleted [2]Giano 12:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The decision was made by the person in charge of featured articles, User:Raul654, and I just go around at tidy up the FAC tags. After a brief look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buckingham Palace it would seem that there isn't quite enough support (5 support votes is not usually seen as sufficient when there are objections) and the discussion hints that the article could do with some more work, according to some. Any more than that you'll have to ask Raul654. violet/riga (t) 12:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the news section[edit]

Violetriga, I can understand why you do not believe that the BTK killer is international news. However, can you please put back the thing that says that the Pope will not attend Sunday blessings, possibly rewording if necessary? Andrew pmk 18:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reworded and updated - hope you think it's ok now. violet/riga (t) 19:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AMA Requests[edit]

I am admittedly at a complete loss to understand why the outcome of any dispute resolution process should influence the AMA's attempts to monitor and track disputes, including arbitration cases.

Regrettably the AMA did not take on any involvement in the WikiUser arbitration, and that certainly doesn't serve to help the matter's relevance to the requests page. Regardless, the user made a request of the AMA, and the AMA may still at some point seek involvement with that request.

The mere fact that the arbitration committee considers an issue over and done with has no bearing on its status to the people who provide advocacy and policy support to other members.

I appreciate your input, but if your purpose of input on AMA's consideration of an issue is solely based on decisions of the Arbitration Committee, it is IMO redundant. (I did monitor this case and did update the requests page with relevant news related to the request and its related disputes.) As a matter of principle, the AMA does and should (at least, I hope it does) consider issues independently of the Arbitration Committee's opinions.

Regards, Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 21:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree that the AMA is a separate thing to the Arbitration committee and that the members of the latter may wish to represent those of the former after a decision has been made. WikiUser's request was not taken up by anyone and considering the way he has acting I doubt that anybody would help him out. The decision to ban him for a year, I believe, is not going to be easily overturned considering the threats of legal action, even if an AMA member were to contact him outside of Wikipedia and fight his case.
The AMA plays a fantastic role but I must say, in my biased view, that WikiUser is not deserving of the time one of its members would have to spend on the case. Thanks for getting back to me and do please note that I was not meaning to tell any members of the AMA how to go about their business. violet/riga (t) 22:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the lack of potential for further traction on that issue. And I certainly am not in a position to defend his personality on WP (which prevented me from taking any involved role). (However, personality and even behaviour shouldn't preclude a member from receiving advocacy.) The issue does appear to be in effect closed. But I do believe that in principle the AMA view of a case should not be swayed by the arbitrators'. Thanks for the comments. Regards, - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 00:46, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Worcester"[edit]

I'm very surprised you say that most accents would rhyme "Worcester" with "buster". This might be the case in parts of Northern England, but in RP and in most parts of the UK, "buster" is pronounced /'bʌstə/ - first syllable as in "bus", and "Worcester" is pronounced /'wʊstə/ - first vowel as in "pussycat". I can't speak so confidently about the USA, but I believe the same would apply there. rossb 09:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The pronunciation of the first syllable of bus, pussycat and Worcester are the same! I'm no expert on IPA at all so I'm not sure how you're saying they are pronounced, but speaking as someone that lives there "Worcester" is definately spoken to sound like "buster". violet/riga (t) 10:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're over-generalising from your own regional accent. I've just checked Regional accents of English speakers and under the section "Northern and Midlands English" it says:
Northern English does not recognize /^/ ("strut," "but," etc.) as a separate vowel. All short-u words are pronounced with [U] as in "look" and "book."
So saying that Worcester rhymes with buster may be true for your particular accent, but would be very misleading for people from other parts of the UK or from other English-speaking countries. I think it's the pronunciation of "buster" we're disagreeing about, not that of "Worcester"! If you agree that the "pussycat" vowel is the same as that in Worcester I would propose to revert to referring to that word, which will be correct for most English speakers, and will not cause the confusion that "buster" would cause. rossb 11:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can't say I've ever heard "buster" pronounced any way other than, well, "buster". I'm actually a northerner and have lived around many areas of the UK, yet everyone I can think of would pronounce Worcester the same way. I think that using the "first syllable of pussycat" is actually a more confusing way - what is the first syllable anyway, "puss" or "pu"? You clearly have a better grasp of IPA than I do and I'll bend to your way if you really think it's best. Perhaps there's a better word that we could come up with the sounds similar? I'll have a think. violet/riga (t) 13:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've checked some rhyming dictionaries, and the only word that seems to be a proper rhyme for Worcester is Famagusta - but this is a bit obscure, and in any case wouldn't work for Americans, who generally pronounce the R is some way at the end of a word which we don't in most British accents. Perhaps we could just say that the first syllable has the same vowel sound as "wood". rossb 14:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That one sounds good. Good also sounds good! I'd go and do it right now but I'm a little sidetracked at the moment (hence the reply delay, sorry). violet/riga (t) 17:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dunno if this matters to you, but Worcester, Massachusetts is locally usually pronounced "Woostah" where first syllable rhymes with "wood". (Though some claim it is locally pronounced "Wisstah", I've never heard that one.) - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 19:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


The design is good. I will probably not bother with RM anymore, as I don't have the time or the concentration to be darting from talk page to talk page. Back to VfD, I suppose. &mdashExplorerCDT 21:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. I hope you can help me.[edit]

I am very interested in astronomy, but I cant find any sources for my question. I would like to ask you. Where did the big bang happen and was its expansion directional? Do we know? Or aleast you or anybody you may want to indicate?

My name is Mata I am user Wiki Fan.

pls. send me a mail to

I hope I am not beeing a nucance.


Also replied on User talk:Wikifan...
Hey there. I'm afraid I'm not really able to answer your question regarding the Big Bang. What I suggest you do is ask at the Reference desk and/or ask the people that I know contributed a lot to the Big Bang article:
Sorry I can't help you further - hope you find out what you're after. violet/riga (t) 23:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi - just a quick note to say thank you for dealing with some of the older entries. I have been trying to get rid of the easy ones over the past few days when I have had the time, but it was beginning to seem like no-one else was interested. I was steeling myself to work out what the consensus was on the longer discussions, but you have done most of them already! Thanks again. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem - was nice to shift them. Not wanting to tackle the giant ones at the moment though - that's gonna be one hell of a task. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 23:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed - I have played for time by asking for lists :) -- ALoan (Talk) 00:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your fixing of the Nootka -> Nuu-chah-nulth mistake, and for the incredible speed with which you changed it! I think I clicked 'save page' on Wikipedia:Requested moves, then I blinked, and then it was moved! =) Thanks again! Take care, Kurieeto 02:01, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem - was an easy enough fix. :) violet/riga (t) 02:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Sorry about the confusion with 802.3af; I had requested the move and then got some advice on IRC (#mediawiki) to do it myself and redirect (since the redirect would keep the history). I won't do it again. I've reverted to my last revision before the redirect. Thanks for your help. --Milyle 01:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your reversions of my edits to 2000s[edit]

Hi Violetriga, don't quite understand why you reverted my edits to 2000s. I think the edits in question were perfectly justified: it is true that religious interests have increased their political influence in the US/Middle East and it is also true that Rooney is too green to be considered one of the greatest sportspeople of the decade. Please explain your rationale. I won't unrevert just yet. --Lancevortex 13:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My apologies on the religious interests edit - the reversion button automatically reverted both edits instead of the one I intended. The revert was to re-include Wayne Rooney who has become a very prominent figure in the UK and Europe. I feel he is, and will continue to be, noteworthy (for both good and bad reasons). violet/riga (t) 13:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah - I assume you're an admin and rolled back rather than reverting? I know he's a rare talent (at least for an English footballer) but I had the impression that Rooney's fame/notoriety was more of a parochial English tabloid press thing, but I'm happy to defer to you on it. Thanks for the speedy reply, by the way -- bored at work like me? --Lancevortex 14:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exactly right – plenty to do but too many distractions! violet/riga (t) 14:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Any way to figure out fast and reliable whether an IP is an open proxy? Refdoc 17:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One simple way is to just type it into google and see what you can find., used by the current Bahá'í Faith vandal, is an open proxy. violet/riga (t) 18:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Refdoc 18:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Blocked the user for 24 hours for a personal attack [3] against you. If you think otherwise, you may unprotect him. Thanks for your good work. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for that - seems like a bit of a moron! I'll look at his contributions when he returns to make sure he doesn't continue abuse towards anyone. violet/riga (t) 08:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On top of that, could you look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where I listed the incident? While so far everybody supported the block, there is some question about the legality thereof. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 11:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

TFD deletions[edit]

If a vote calls for deletions, don't archive the vote to the talk page of the deleted template (like Template talk:Infobox European regions). Talk pages of deleted pages are speedy deletion candidates. Use the Log pages right off the TFD page at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Plato dialogues[edit]

Dear Violetriga,

You just created a nice loop from Plato's Phaedo to Phaedo (Plato) and back (and probably the same for Parmenides (dialogue) and Parmenides (Plato)). If you're a sysop, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#March_13.2C_2005 - that should explain why I emptied Phaedo (Plato) and Parmenides (Plato). There's no sense in creating loops IMHO. If it's not possible to get sysop help for implementing the new naming conventions for Plato's dialogues, I can proceed with this on my own, of course at the cost of confusing some of the edit history of the articles mentioned above. Thanks if you can be of any help! --Francis Schonken 11:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moves are not helped by turning articles into redirects or blanking them - I tried to fix it, but neglected to note that you'd changed the redirect for one of them. I'll take a look at the move request. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but the situation is still confusing, I'll try to explain:

  • Phaedo and Plato's Phaedo have/had virtually the same content, both with a "clean-up request" on top. Well, they start to diverge, as people are starting to oblige to the clean-up request. Before further double work be done (which is difficult to integrate afterwards) I took the best of both versions (which was IMHO Phaedo), and emptied the other (which I made a redirect to Phaedo (Plato), according to new naming conventions).
  • Then I wanted to conform Phaedo to the new naming conventions (please click on that "naming conventions" link if you want to know what I'm talking about), but, as a non-sysop, I couldn't move Phaedo to Phaedo (Plato), because Phaedo (Plato) already existed (as a "redirect" page, so not much could go lost there), so I went to the "move requests" page, because in such a case only a sysop can perform the move with conservation of history.

At the moment we're just back to where I started for the Phaedo-related articles. As said I have no problem performing all that it takes to apply the new naming scheme (including checking to avoid double redirects), but then some of the history will go lost (or at least: not be evident to find back any more). Does this clarify how I proceeded, and why? And can I have sysop help, or do you prefer me to proceed with neglect of the "history" implications?


For Parmenides the things are more or less similar, be it a little less complicated, as there is no duplicated content on Parmenides and any of the dialogue-related pages (so Parmenides can stay as it is, only Parmenides (dialogue) to be moved to Parmenides (Plato), for coherence of naming conventions).


--Francis Schonken 09:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

rehash of UK CotW[edit]

Hiya, I've made a few modifications to the UK Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Week, and I thought you'd be interested in the new page and helping out again with it, as you have contributed in the past! :) Talrias | talk 21:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I had to read that again[edit]

Over on Talk:Diggers (True Levellers) you wrote that you agreed with James ... which opposed as I do, so I take it that in agreeing you are opposing? My head is spinning around and around. MPLX/MH 23:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's right - I could perhaps have made it a little clearer. I'm agreeing with moving the dab page to Digger, with Diggers redirecting there. violet/riga (t) 23:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

user:Know It All[edit]

I realise this user appears to be up to no good, but I'd really like to urge you to assume good faith and try and guide his edits in a direction where they might actually be useful. The comments this user is making may simply be a misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:22, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

I don't think it's that. A user with that name going around claiming to know the truth behind current events and adding a {{nonesense}} tag to Category:Energy is just being daft - I doubt there will be positive edits from them. violet/riga (t) 00:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Smith page[edit]

Please read my reply on and tell me what you think. I tried to break it into paragraphs but failed (sorry). Thanks.

Jeff Weise[edit]

I did take it to the talk page. I think it's better to have a page which deals with Jeff.. His dad committing suicide, his mother Brain damaged, His Neo-Nazi tendancys, his Granddad apparently starting a New Romance.. etc, and then another page from the actual incident. Why do you propose diferently? --Irishpunktom\talk 15:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, aside from telling me to go to talk (While you blankly ignore it), why are you Reverting perfectly good edits? --Irishpunktom\talk 15:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
One main thing is that you are not allowed to copy and paste text from one article to another in an effort to move it. There will be a major duplication of effort and content if the articles are separate. We can look to have separate articles after the situation has settled down. violet/riga (t) 15:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, someone had previously moved Jeff Weise into Red Lake High School massacre without the slightest bit of discussion with those who were in the middle of working it. I I C&Ped the info, and then made significant edits to the Red Lake High School massacre, so that it reflected the "Red Lake High School massacre", rather than Jeff Weise, which you flatly reverted, again without the slightest hint of discussion, and then directed me to go to Talk! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
There was discussion at Red Lake High School which had duplicate information with Jeff Wiese – something that should be avoided. I therefore made the decision that Jeff Wiese did not need an article of his own because he is only noteworthy for the massacre, which would be a better title for the wider situation. Even if you disagree with the move you shouldn't copy/paste the text but go to talk and discuss it. Or even ask me why. violet/riga (t) 15:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I'd like you to take another look at Thomas Stamford Raffles Jooler 17:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You convinced me - done. violet/riga (t) 17:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stamford Raffles delete - why?[edit]

Why have you marked the Stamford Raffles page for deletion? I think it's a very good redirect - if it's eliminated, I'll bet anything that somebody recreates it within a few months, since most people (including me at first) think that's his name. I think it should be left. - DavidWBrooks 18:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

stamford raffles ... "never mind"![edit]

Guess I stepped into the middle of your change - sorry! - DavidWBrooks 18:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem - would be easy if I could delete it myself but the block compression is stopping it. violet/riga (t) 18:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Violet/riga, whoever you are, I consider you my god. Where can I lay the lambs down?--Keyzersoze 06:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

High praise indeed - don't know why I deserve it, but thank you! violet/riga (t) 12:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BC Liberal Party[edit]

I undid it because last I checked, it was being debated on the articles talk page, and no consensus had been reached. --Spinboy 22:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I objected, and there was no consensus. --Spinboy 23:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting User:1001 vandalism of my User page. He also vandalised the 'Vandalism in progress page:


No problem, though do remember the WP:3RR because you could get yourself blocked if you're not careful! violet/riga (t) 15:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was careful, in fact; I only reverted twice — the other times involved either compromises (for example, I left in his change to 'LDS' but corrected the spelling, and I eventually took out 'et al.' in favour of 'etc.') or a more general copy-editing (the article was in severe need of it). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi. Just so you know, I just filed an RFC against Irate. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irate. Cheers, Smoddy (tgeck) 22:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to think about filing an RFAr against Irate, as he is not responding to the RFC, you can have a look here, and edit if you so wish: User:Smoddy/Irate. Cheers, Smoddy (tgeck) 19:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Great, looks good. Just so you know, I'm going away for two weeks now. If you think it is appropriate, by all means file the RFAr with my evidence. Good luck. Smoddy (tgeck) 20:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that - will keep my eye on the situation and see what progression is required. Have a good break. violet/riga (t) 20:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cabinet Office (UK)[edit]

I count two editors who wanted to move this page and two who wanted it where it was. So why was it moved? Jonathunder 23:10, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Although I didn't vote (as I try not to in most circumstances) I supported the move, making it 3 for and 2 against. I think the primary disambiguation makes for the best way of doing it given that there is currently only one other (stubby) Cabinet Office article (for Japan). violet/riga (t) 23:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I have finally raised a RfC on that guy due to his continous unreasonable behaviour. You might remember he became very unpleasant after you had protected a page on Bahaullah or the Bahai Faith. It would be good if you could throw in a comment or so. Refdoc 22:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks this was fast. Refdoc 22:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem! violet/riga (t) 22:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My page[edit]

You know I don't like you so butt out and leave my user page alone.

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for reverting vandalism by on my User page. —ExplorerCDT 03:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Advanced Wikipedian[edit]

Hi Violet,

I'm guessing you are the sort of gal who know's her Iambic pentameter from her limerick (I don't really), and if so, you might be able to improve, correct and extend meta:The Advanced Wikipedian. -- Solipsist 22:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I have put you up for arbitration. --Spinboy 05:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleting "Theatre"[edit]

You seem to be involved with "Requested Moves", that's why I'm asking you for help. I tried to move "Theater" to "Theatre" (the majority is in favour of this move), but it didn't work, because "Theatre" has a short edit history, even though it's only a redirect. I think "Theatre" needs to be deleted in order to "make room" for moving "Theater" there. Thanks. Nobbie 14:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I remember that one was due today so I was going to look at it. I'll go there shortly and sort it out. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 14:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joe peeps[edit]

After I nominated Joe peeps on vfd (having already warned one user about not being overzealous on speedy deletes), I noticed you had deleted it. However, vanity is not a criteria for speedy delete, and I'm not sure that the restaurant isn't notable. I've restored the page. Yours, Meelar (talk) 21:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Having checked on Google it seemed to me that it was as notable as the local greasy spoon. I have no problem if you want to place it on VFD though - perhaps I was bending the CSD rules by removing it. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 22:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)