User talk:Viriditas/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ANI archived

If you want to continue our debate on the merits that's fine, just please extend the one going on my talk page or the ANI one. But please don't add stuff inside an archived conversation [1]. While I know you're not trying to pull anything, it helps with the context that archived conversations aren't edited after the archive (and associated note) occurs. Shadowjams (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I moved your comment down. I didn't change anything else. Shadowjams (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Conversely, it also helps if a thread isn't shut down just minutes after it is opened, especially when the problem under discussion hasn't reached a conclusion and is still ongoing. I had two choices: I could have reopened the thread and added my comment or I could have added my comment to the closed thread. I chose the latter, come hell or high water. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Purely for the sake of adhering to standard procedure, I am here to tell you that you have been "formally" accused of harassment.

*sigh* - Manning (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Griffith J. Evans

Hi. We have an article on w:cy:Griffith J. Evans about the man who shot Jim. Maybe you could Google Translate? If you have any further info on him, please let me know. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about Rocky Mountain Jim, as I had completely forgotten about it. I'm not seeing any content over at cy. Either there is a replication lag on my end or it is blank. What I mean by blank, is that the text is placeholder text only, no actual content. I could be wrong, but I think I looked into this last year and couldn't find anything about Griffith J. Evans that amounted to more than a stub, but I suspect there is something out there. I'll keep my eyes open. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added a redirct; should work now. Many thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Great work! What a fabulous article. Now, where do I find the sources used to write it? Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. The reference given is from a Welsh language article in a mag called Llafar gwlad (see: Meredith, Luned (Chwefror 2013). Griff Evans: Cymro sy'n rhan o hanes Colorado, Rhifyn 19. Llafar Gwlad). You could Google Translate and double-check with Rhys or myself. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll take a look. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Biography sections

Edits by a given editor, and the rationales behind them, may certainly appear to be "strange", "odd", and done for "no rhyme or reason" if one does not bother to try to understand them or ask the editor in question about them, in which case such characterizations are merely self-serving. If you want to discuss any given edit or edits of mine, then provide the diffs in question, and ask me about them. Since you didn't specify any diffs, I'll assume you're referring to my last edits to those two articles.

In my last edit to Amanda Filipacchi, I changed the title of the "Work" section to "Career", because that's the standard title used when describing the subject's career across countless articles on Wikipedia, which I've observed over the past eight years. (You yourself have been editing here for even longer than that; do you deny that that's the standard name of that type of section?) I also changed the section about the Wikipedia op-ed controversy from a standalone Level 2 heading to a Level 3 subheading as part of the Career section, because that Op-ed was written by her as part of her career. Ditto for my last edit to Sandra Fluke, whose previous heading titles were arbitrary, as I indicated in my edit summary. To label the information on her early life and a portion of her career her "Biography" makes zero sense. Why is that her "biography", but her speech to Congressional Democrats on contraception mandates, the criticism leveled at her by Rush Limbaugh and her support for Obama's re-election campaign not? Aren't those latter things part of her biography? A biographical article, after all, is entirely a biography. So calling one portion of it a "biography" and the rest is arbtirary. Didn't I state this in my edit summary?

Now if you disagree with this and want to discuss it, then fine, let's discuss it on the article's talk page. Let's invite other editors to weigh in if need be. What is not called for, however, is telling me that I am somehow required to be an regular editor on those articles in order to make this change (since this is false--as editors are free to edit whatever articles they want, and no other one editor or group of editors "owns" articles), or arguing that if I 'm not a regular contributor, that this constitutes disruptive editing or an attempt provoke edit warring or (which is not only an inane bit of reasoning, and a possible violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, but pretty much at odds with the fact that I'm an veteran editor of eight years, and an administrator of five and a half years, and not some random IP whose edits even come close to resembling vandalism or disruption). Peace. Nightscream (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a standard section header structure and a quick glance at our GA/FA biographical articles disputes every point you made above. What's happening here is you are creating your own standard and enforcing it. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this. The way it works is like this: you may enforce whatever standard you think works when you create the article. This style guideline holds true for almost every aspect, from section structures to citation formats to referencing style. What you can't continue to do, however, is arbitrarily keep changing already existing styles to match your personal style. I thought I already explained this to you. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Brownie Mary to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Brownie Mary, which has recently become a GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Circumstellar habitable zone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Terrestrial, Io, Gyr, Archaean and Peter Ward

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


Wondering if you got red boxed about User:NE_Ent/sandbox5? NE Ent 11:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That's weird. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
So works in user_talk: but not user: NE Ent 12:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Filipacchi photo query

I'm not just assuming good faith, but truly believe that you did not mean to make any minimizing statements in creating Filipacchi's portrait derivative. You do realize, however, that you greatly reduced the resolution of the image and chose an infobox display size (100 px) smaller than the 200px used previously. Compare her photo size with, say, Jorge Luis Borges or Flann O'Brien. I really didn't want to put this in the article talk page as I'm sure it was inadvertant. (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I'll attempt to fix the problem in the next several hours as soon as I get home. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see the problem. Wow, how did that happen? I'm fixing it right now, give me about five minutes or so. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if there are any other problems. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thanks for the welcome! I've actually been meaning to get involved with editing Wikipedia for a long, long time, and finally found the initiative to start. I may contact you with lots of questions as I move forward into more complex areas of Wiki-controversy. Pertinaxed (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Galactic habitable zone

You may be interested in helping me on my next work, an article on the galactic habitable zone. It's not that great (or even complete) at present, but I hope that you are interested. Wer900talk 01:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll take a look. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Your help is welcome. Always a pleasure to work with you. Wer900talk 04:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For long-term general excellence as a Wikipedian, please accept this token of my esteem with my best wishes, always. Jusdafax 06:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Input request

Hello Viriditas,

I am requesting input from all participants in the discussion from the recent Signpost article on sexism in Wikipedia for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams#Proposed change: consistency in article title gendering. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki guideline against "political affiliations as pejorative"?

I appreciate your efforts to discourage characterizing people and things as "having a specific political affiliation as a pejorative." I see this often enough and think it compromises the quality of encyclopedic writing - as if some editors need to situate every topic on a (not always helpful, to me anyway) left/right political spectrum. Do you know of a WP policy that I could cite against excesses of this, more than say ? Thank you! Juro2351 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're joking right?Gobbleygook (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Gobbleygook, Juro2351 isn't joking. Wikipedia isn't like Fox News or other partisan news outlets that label sources as "left-wing" and "right-wing". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that focuses on discussing subjects at a higher level of discourse using the best sources we have. As editors, our role is not to label sources as "Jews" or "Muslims", but to discuss the merits of what the sources are saying. In the same way, our editorial role is not to label sources as "left-wing" or "right-wing" but to discus what makes those sources important enough to cite. This may be confusing to you if you are used to watching Fox News or reading partisan sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that focuses on discussing subjects at a higher level of discourse using the best sources we have." Can you show me where users aren't allowed to label sources using legitimate third-party sources? Or was that rule something you just made up?Gobbleygook (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I don't give a damn what the SPI shows because I know for a fact you are Festermunk, and you've revealed yourself in many different ways. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas, that clarifies it for me.Juro2351 (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

3RR :(

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Data science

Who are you to make threats and warnings? Kindly assume good faith before attacking me again. Huw Powell (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Who am I? I am the person who is going to ask that you are blocked indefinitely for vandalizing Wikipedia if you don't stop. Your edits and resopnses to queries about your edits indicate that you have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-29/In the media#Categorisation of women novelists.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring on numerous articles, including (but not necessarily restricted to) Sinophobia, 2011 Norway attacks, and Equality Matters, feuding with another editor, persistently making unsubstantiated accusations, and other disruptive editing. The length of the block takes into account your past history of blocks for similar reasons, but it also takes into account the fact that those other blocks were a long time ago: had they been more recent, this block would have been much longer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Armed Forces

Regarding the Syrian civil war human rights section in the SAF article, I do not believe it was necessary to remove the material, which does provide more details about the SAF. While there were two sections created in the SAF article, did you consider merging all the material in the one section? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not consider merging it because it was a straight copy and paste job from another article. If the editor is interested in actually writing about the subject and adding content in the proper section, then they should do so, and the discussion on talk explained the problem. The original edit summary was blank and no message was left on talk indicating its origin, so it continues to violate our content use policies siince it lacks attribution. Per WP:CWW, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Unfortunately, this editor has a very long history of IDHT that goes far beyond the one week of editing you see on their contribution history. This is not a new editor and they will not listen to anyone. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Women's studies

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-29/In the media.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks, User:HuskyHuskie. Did you see Makers? I don't think the argument against the specialization of the disciplines is equivalent to the argument against studying women and their history, nor do I think it is misguided. While I support increased interdisciplinarity (for example, women's literature, or folk medicine) I don't see how this could be problem. But I'm sure you'll explain to me why you think it is. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Academia, which is where the greatest integration should exist, is becoming the most Balkanized part of American life

I really don't see it that way. Historically, academia has not been known for "integration" until the 1970s, and even then, in very small areas. See Consilience for where we should be today but aren't. I really don't see how gyno-history presents a problem for history, this is integration. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I haven't read that book (Consilence) before, but reading the Wikipedia article makes me think that my take on this issue would be more likely to be endorsed by Wilson. "Unity of knowledge" to me says that, when teaching, say, the history of medicine, that you discuss all relevant contributions together, in the same class. A course (or even a single lecture) on "black pioneers in medicine" or "great women in medical history" is antithetical to the notion of unity--it's holding up something as separate that should be part of the entire fabric. That fabric should be woven as one piece. The current desire to balkanize various fields by who did what (by race or gender or nationality) is a repugnant to the notion of unity as was the practice of excluding individuals who were not white males.
I can't believe so many people fought for so long to overturn the separate but equal doctrine only to now turn around and expect it to be codified.
Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Husky Huskie, the reason I asked you if you had seen Makers: Women Who Make America (all three hours are available to view for free online) is because this documentary shows the opposite of what you claim. These women (and others like them throughout the world) did not argue for separate but equal, but to be treated as equals among their male colleagues. The reason we highlight black pioneers in medicine or great women in medical history is because for the majority of our history, these people have been ignored. I'm curious why you don't understand this. Please watch all three hours of Makers and find me one thing about the women's movement you actually dispute. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I do understand that these groups were excluded--no one could possibly deny that. I do understand the need for the civil rights movement and the women's movement. I lived through the civil rights movement, and was a supporter.
The matter that I am not making clear, apparently, is not the question of whether or not there were wrongs in the past. The question is, what would be the best solution to the problem? I don't happen to believe that segregation--of any kind--is the best solution. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any segregation. Could you watch Makers and show me the segregation? Gyno-history (women's history) is part of social history. There is nothing wrong with it. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Segregation means to divide groups up, n'est-ce pas? Having women's history taught separately from "regular" history is dividing up, what (I believe) should be taught as one, unified history.
The statement "there's nothing wrong with it" is a judgement to which you are perfectly well entitled. I won't even say you're wrong. But I've drawn a different conclusion, and I believe in a unified approach to academic disciplines. I also believe that--in the very long run--the current segregated approach will yield less respect for the important role played by many women and minorities than would have been the case if their stories had been integrated into the main curriculum. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
History is currently broken down into subfields, with women's history listed under social history. You should be criticizing reductionism, not women's history. Academia has fought against the systems approach, preferring reductionism instead. Holistic perspectives only became popular in the 1960s and 1970s. It seems very odd to me for you to criticize one specific subfield of history instead of reductionism. How would women's history look different if you were in charge? Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Your point is well taken, and my own prejudices are betrayed. I've never been a big fan of social history, though my initial reponse (many decades ago) was in large measure due to my perception at the time that my history professors who emphasized social history appeared to be doing so to further their own (contemporary political) agendas. I recognize the impracticality of delving into the total depths of human history in a comprehensive approach, but (and I realize we're just talking history here--there are other areas of "womens studies") I have always favored history being taught with natural, chronological divisions. Yes, I recognize that sometimes the natural chronological divisions will differ, depending on whether one is following political trends or social trends, but one way or another, that is my general preference.
I guess part of my hangup still comes down to the matter of confusing academic disciplines with political agendas. I see the efforts of the suffragettes as part of the panorama of American history, not part of some political campaign. Obviously, history eventually comes up to the present, and the twain shall meet whether I wish them to or not. But ultimately, I feel that the desire to separate history into the history of groups can only serve to keep us divided. And, judging from many persons that I know in the field, that is exactly the agenda being pursued. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If our job is to unify knowledge, the we must change the way we treat both the chronological and social context. Suffrage, in your example, is the daughter topic, which starts with the history of voting rights. However, the history of suffrage is primarily a political and social history. It was not reactionary, but revolutionary in nature, involving many political agendas that challenged the status quo. By acknowledging this state of affairs, I am not furthering a political agenda. If one were a reactionary who believed women belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, without a voice and without a vote, then one might believe that there is a political agenda at work. Conservatism, for example, is inherently reactionary, and it's very possible that a student holding these beliefs would feel like their professor was promoting a political agenda if their own personal beliefs conflicted with the philosophy of ideas, values, and ethics found in the school curriculum. As you well know, the social history you react strongly against is really people's history, and people's history is inherently a history of transformation, the making of a new order out of an older, chaotic order that no longer serves the individual nor the group. And history, if it is anything at all, is a history of change and mutation, a revolution of both the individual thinking mind and the body politic seeking to find common, middle ground between the revolutionary and the reactionary, comprising both, in a natural but balanced, unified opposition. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
By creating an ostensibly hypothetical situation which given your terms cannot help but be applied directly to me, you have assigned to me the belief that women should remain barefoot and pregnant. This is simply not true; there are many paths by which one could come to the conclusions I have, but you have chosen to presume that one can only get where I am by virtue of being a Neanderthal. I had thought our exchange might be of some value, but now I have to wonder if the only purpose, from your perspective, was to have an amusing way to pass your block. Well, I hope you've enjoyed your opportunity to chat with a caveman; I'll be on my way now, thank you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Why not offer me a counterexample? Did you watch Makers, the three hour documentary? It supports what I'm saying. It's hardly controversial to note that the primary opponents to women's history are conservative reactionaries. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
While Makers may well be an excellent production, my life is far too busy to spend three hours watching a program just to satisfy someone who believes I wish to oppress women. Bye-bye, V. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You said that only people with political agendas support women's history. What is this political agenda? The proposition that equal rights for women is a natural function of a historic struggle by the oppressed. You wish to deny this struggle in the same way as Phyllis Schlafly. I suppose you are angry because I'm right, not because I'm wrong. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That is to say, an agenda to keep us divided? Carptrash (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that there are some who favor that, yes. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Ronald Reagan said it best: "There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect."[2] The agenda that keeps us divided is our own. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to Collect

User:Collect wrote: Unrelated, entirely different continent.. It is rare that people on entirely different continents, editing in the same timeframe, are the same person.

The two editors never edited within the same timeframe, they edited more than two weeks apart. Not that it matters, but why did you mischaracterize these events? Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for JamesBWatson

User:JamesBWatson, thanks for modifying the ANI report. Your sense of fairness should be commended. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for Peacemaker67

No doubt 3RR has been breached, although neither editor has properly engaged in discussion on the article talk page.

That's not correct, User:Peacemaker67. I contacted the user about his edits on his talk page before I ever touched NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I contacted the user on their talk page at 22:59, 10 May, and notified them of your revert. I also explained the revert and pointed to several policies and guidelines in my response.[3] My first edit to the article did not occur until a day later at 19:16, 11 May 2013‎,[4] after which the user had once again ignored my message on their talk page and reverted your edits.

Further, it needs to be noted that I originally welcomed the user on 30 April,[5] two days after they first created their account and began editing.[6] There was no response to my welcome. On May 9, I left multiple messages indicating problems with their edits and the reasons for my reverts.[7] The user ignored my responses and then proceeded to dishonestly claim on every talk page that they didn't understand why their edits had been reverted and demanded an explanation. When I gave them an explanation for a second and a third time, they ignored those responses and continued reverting, all the while starting multiple malformed RfCs on different articles. To further compound this kind of dishonesty, the user continued to make false claims about the discussion on various talk pages and make edits that did not match the discussion. Recently, the user has come out and admitted that they were being purposefully unreasonable for shits and giggles.[8]

What's so interesting about this kind of "unique" disruption, is that this is exactly what Festermunk (talk · contribs) did to User:Carolmooredc on Talk:RT (TV network) before he was indefinitely blocked. Like Gobbleygook, Festermunk would start a discussion, refuse to recognize any of the points made, and then move quickly to file an RFC. To quote Carolmooredc:

Festermunk is requesting an RfC on a topic he refused to address in the above section...The bottom line issue is that User:Festermunk repeatedly has added negative information to the controversy and other sections while deleting neutral and positive information from various sections with questionable excuses. After Festermunk was blocked for edit warring on this article, a couple other editors and I made it more NPOV by cleaning up the WP:Undue controversy section and adding more NPOV material. As soon as Festermunk returned to this article he reverted most of our changes in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor to the more NPOV version. He then asked for Arbitration and I took it to WP:Dispute Resolution here where he steadfastly defended such editing habits. At the conclusion he again reverted back to his version of the Controversy section which I reverted here. He's now beginning to engage in fairly obvious WP:Synthesis...[9]

If one were to remove "Festermunk" and replace it with "Gobbleygook" in the above, it would be indistinguishable. Please notice the obsession with Russia-related topic articles is shared across these two accounts, including their penchant for editing media, journalism, and Syria-related articles. Combine this with the shared IDHT, the same edit warring, the same misuse of maintenance tags, the same obsession with removing positive content and adding negative material, the same, identical additions of polarizing discourse (X is left, Y is progressive, Z is socialist) to BLP articles using less than RS and it's clear that the odds are against these two people being separate users. In fact, one would find it very difficult to defend the argument that these are two different editors.

SPI is not immune from mistakes or from being gamed by users with technical expertise. At the end of the day, it isn't technical proficiency that helps identify sock puppets, but behavioral pattern matching. Not every admin or clerk is able to do this because they don't have the time to invest in the process. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for Tjic

User:Tjic, please link your new article, Justice Department seizure of Associated Press records to the Eric Holder#Associated Press section. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello dear Viriditas

I can list on one hand the wikipedians endearing to me; yours being prominent. I felt badly seeing you aggrieved to the point of this block. I'd like to see you back to editing, and feel strongly that an unblock request would be hard not to give fair consideration; unless you would rather not. Most importantly, the header carries my sentiments. My76Strat (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, however, I would prefer to serve out the full time of my block without capitulation. I deserved the block for willfully violating the 3RR, as I was convinced that after using the user talk page, the article talk page, and the 3RR noticeboard, that someone, somewhere would step in and do something. Since nobody did anything, I took it upon myself to defend the castle keep. So you see, the block is both earned and deserved. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Well spoken. Carptrash (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding User:Qworty

Another example of the complete and total failure and breakdown of the admin corps to regulate BLP's and biographical articles and to properly block the perps.[10] Instead, they circled the wagons and went after the victims. How typical! How much longer is this going to continue? I'm sorry, but most of our admins are not competent and their judgment is terrible. This guy should have been blocked from the beginning of the Filipacchi affair but wasn't. The only reasonable answer is that admins refuse to do their job. In the real world, someone who refuses to do their job is fired. One has to seriously ask, what is it exactly that admins do here? Because they sure as hell aren't improving this website. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And one needs to ask, was admin User:SouthernNights "in" on the whole thing? He was the primary contributor to Qworty's bio. What did he know and when did he know it? Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
And finally, why the hell is Qworty still allowed to edit? Are you people fucking insane? It doesn't take a goddamn genius to figure out that if you aren't engaged in writing constructively about a subject—any subject—and if your contributions can't be traced to reliable sources about a subject represented in a proportional manner, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Yet, day in and day out, we have editors doing just this and getting away with it. Why? Because admins aren't doing their job. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
User:NaymanNoland, sign me up for Project Qworty. You should know I'm currently blocked until next week for working on Project Festermunk, which is entirely similar in scope. With that said, I bring related knowledge and experience to the table. ;-) Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice to have you on board - unfortunately, I'm no longer sailing the ship. I finally realized that I loathe this person too much to do a decent job of it. I do think that it definitely has to be done - just that I'm not the guy to do it. I don't want to get involved in something that turns into a Qworty-like revenge project: there's been enough hypocrisy all around. But yes, it's a vile situation. Not just that he wasn't blocked, but that he STILL has people here defending not only what he did, but his own hilarious autobiography: the entry on Robert Clark Young, if it has to exist at all, should be two sentences long. And the second sentence should address the Qworty disgrace. NaymanNoland (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Does the biography meet our notability guidelines? I'm thinking it should probably be redirected to his book One of the Guys, which looks like it should have its own article. I think this recent redirect by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is exactly ass-backwards. The book is notable, but the author is not. I had to deal with this exact situation when it came to deciding on whether to create a biography for Melanie Joy or to redirect to her book. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It now does, given the recent controversy Qworty has found himself in. Wer900talk 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
User:NaymanNoland, I am sorry to bother you, but citation 5 in Robert_Clark_Young#cite_note-5 is misattributed to the "Associated Press". It is, in fact, a self-authored op/ed in the Davis Enterprise, as are all of the other sources in use. I've never seen this kind of admin-assisted abuse of a BLP article in the entire eight years I've been here. If this was any other writer, their bio would have been deleted on sight. Something is seriously rotten in Wikipedia. The bad edits are obvious. The non-notable sources are obvious. The sock puppets are obvious. Why is this account still allowed to edit? Why is this article allowed to exist? Where are all the fucking admins? Is anyone home here? Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that you've been blocked. I was in fact blocked TWICE for calling out Qworty's fraudulence. Qworty himself has been blocked how many times since disgracing Wikipedia? Ever? There is, yes, something deeply rotten here. Luckily, this is being watched by media on both sides of the Atlantic - the pressure is not going to let up, and I expect SOMETHING will give. NaymanNoland (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not too concerned with being blocked. I'm much more concerned with the loss of credibility Wikipedia faces from editors like Qworty who are allowed to continue editing when the evidence shows that they should be blocked immediately. I'm very concerned that Wikipedia has lost its way, electing admins who play metaphorical video games instead of blocking users who are distorting our articles and driving Wikipedia into the ground. I hope the pressure doubles and triples until something is done. Look at how many admins have been involved with Qworty's bio and not one has stepped forward to do anything! Hell, the primary contributor to his bio is an admin! What the hell is going on here?? Please give me the names of the admins who blocked you. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I see you were blocked by Toddst1. I've had problems with him in the past as well. He doesn't seem to be able to understand nuance. I'm not sure about Nick, but why did he block you for abusing multiple accounts when you never were doing that in the first place? If this shit keeps up, we're going to need our own Storming of the Bastille. It's almost like the adminship process is deigned to elect incompetent, uncritically thinking fools. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to be too hard on the editors involved: both blocks were revoked, in a sane and civilized manner. The blocks themselves were almost certainly instigated by Qworty and his team (LGR, etc.) - those people are still the major issue here. Nick was almost certainly taken in by LGR. In fact, little green rosetta is (in a very creepy and secretive manner) setting me up to be blocked again: NaymanNoland (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Did you read The Devil's Advocate defense of Qworty? Talk about inhabiting your own private Idaho! Is this guy for real? Anyway, you shouldn't be blocked, you should be made an admin. :) But back to the issue at hand: Qworty pretended to be a woman, he made up death threats that he never received, he engaged in revenge editing on his enemies and added false claims to their bios, he edited his own biographical article, even with sock puppets, and he's...still not blocked?? What the hell?? Are our admins all invertebrates? What the hell is going on here? Crazed, BLP-violating nutcases are running wild, sock puppets are on the lose, fake claims and fake references are everywhere, and not a single admin can put their hot pocket down for a moment, roll out of their chair, turn off their video game, and deal with the problem? Then exactly why do we have admins? I'm asking a serious question. If admins aren't going to deal with our most pressing problems, then why do we have them? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Your second block was only revoked because one of the arbitrators, Newyorkbrad, had a quiet word with Toddst1. Otherwise, the reviewing admin had already denied your appeal, and told you that your merely quoting the earlier Salon piece represented "personal attacks" and "harassment" fully deserving of the block. Andreas JN466 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct, of course. It's just maddening. Kafka must be giggling somewhere. Luckily, in the absence of sane admins, there are always... journalists. As I say: this is being watched. NaymanNoland (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It's truly depressing to see a prolific contributor such as yourself blocked by another caballist admin whose sole purpose is to protect the power of special-interest groups. Qworty's actions were extremely deplorable, and his building of trust with the special interests that count for the "community" even more so (but, sadly, easily predictable). After the Filippachi debacle we should have expected the removal of such rot from Wikipedia, but of course, the cabals of Wikipedia and their loyal henchmen stopped it from happening. We see here that the sole purpose of the existing governance setup is to ensure that nothing happens with the existing governance setup, and in the process earn power and influence for the governance system's beneficiaries. Until IP vandals, administrators, and everyone in between becomes accountable in some way, we should expect idiocy like this to continue. Damn Beeblebrox, damn Fram, and damn all of the other abusive admins who see nothing but power. Wer900talk 23:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The real question is, why have admins and are other editors been protecting Qworty since 2007? Until that is answered, the pitchforks and torches crowd will only grow larger. We need accountability and we need it now. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone pursued the speculative angle that Qworty maintained a separate account with admin rights? It would explain the unusual amount of protection he received. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It's hard not to look at the entirety of the record, especially the laughably specious blocking of NaymanNoland, which occurred twice, and not see a collaborated effort to protect Young/Qworty and silence his critics. EddieVega (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mesage to User:Conti

User:Conti, why are you defending and justifying inexplicable incompetence by admins and people in trusted positions who have failed to protect Wikipedia's editors from known and proven sociopaths? Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for The Devil's Advocate

User:The Devil's Advocate, I cannot wrap my mind around your reasoning, if one could call it that. What benefit does allowing Qworty to edit anywhere serve? Please explain your unique line of thinking. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, User:The Devil's Advocate. Your lies about me offwiki are just that, lies. I never participated in any AfD on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula[11] nor any discussion about Nakoula.[12] I participated in a discussion solely about the notability and verifiability of his work, Innocence of Muslims. You may review the sum total of my contributions on this topic here.

Now, you may read the sum total of Qworty's comments to this discussion here. Please notice, I did not discuss or interact with Qworty in any way shape or form. Therefore, your claim that I was "on the same side as Qworty in vociferously objecting to eliminating the attack BLP on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula" is based on nothing but your twisted imagination.

You are, my dear sir, a pathological liar just like your friend Qworty. Should I be the least surprised that one liar supports another liar? You made your bed, now please, lie in it. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Barnstar awarded!

Purple Star.png The Purple Barnstar
I believe this is the first time I have ever awarded any editor a second barnstar, but you deserve it, for reasons too numerous to mention. Thanks for your moral rectitude and inspirational work overall, and my best wishes to all your future editing endeavors! Jusdafax 07:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Despite the fact that you explicitly said that you did not wish to be unblocked, I have unblocked you, as I see no reason to believe that doing so will lead to any problematic editing. This is due to My76Strat calling my attention to your case, and, having read your messages above, i fully agree with him/her. Unfortunately, by the time I got My76Strat's message, there were only a few hours of your block left, so in practice it won't make much difference, but I have gone ahead anyway. On a separate issue, I see that Qworty has now been banned. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Viriditas

As your time may permit, please look at this thread on Anna's talk page. She is rightfully confused about the way things developed and I think she would appreciate hearing any thoughts you are willing to share.--My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons I like Anna so much is that she reminds me of myself. In that case, you will need to use reverse psychology on her. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I am, I'm reversing it to you. Just kidding! I do think you and her have a lot in common. Seat this sites top 10 female editors at the same table and you will see Anna and eight others. You might even see me if I'm lucky enough to serve as your waiter. --My76Strat (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like fun! One thing I know about Anna is that she hates to be pressured. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Anna is capable of hate. I rather believe that she lovingly holds a mature spirit of independence; kind of like you, again.--My76Strat (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I'm sorry to hear about all that you have been through the past week, but I unfortuantely have a request that will take you back into primate-dominance-hierarchy territory. I've been asked by Captain Occam, an indefinitely blocked user, to initiate an arbitration request against Mathsci with regard to the latter's ownership of articles. The request in question was made via private message at Wikipediocracy (yes, I know...) and also affects many other members of that site who were banned from here due to incivility. I know that Captain Occam is not by any means a saint (having used the sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin to further edit-warring) but I believe that such an arbitration request may be a once-in-a-decade chance to change Wikipedia governance.

All I am asking for is your ability to initiate the arbitration request, and help me communicate the statements of Captain Occam and other concerned users to ArbCom. I hope I'm not asking too much, especially in light of your recent circumstances. After this, I hope that we can go back to being normal content-contributors, as we always have been. Wer900talk 01:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the case, but it may violate the spirit of WP:EVADE. Has the user appealed to WP:BASC? If so, what was the outcome? Arbcom won't really help here. Wikipedia governance and ownership of articles seem to be two unrelated things. Does Captain Occam want to come back as a Wikipedia editor, or is about pursuing remedies against Mathsci? There's too many things going on here. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom has considered a fuller review into the conduct of Mathsci, stating that they would do so upon the filing of a full case against him. Regarding WP:EVADE, I've sent an email to ArbCom regarding whether or not you or I could take up the case, with all of the details that are certain so far (except for potential parties to the case, as that is to be decided later). For future reference, the case in question is the race and intelligence review. Regarding Wikipedia governance, it would be a small step. Wer900talk 02:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, you should have asked me before sending that email. I'm definitely not interested in opening this case, and until six months have elapsed from the time of his block, Captain Occam won't be able to appeal his ban. I'm still not clear on what the problem is with Mathsci here. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, you were not specifically mentioned in the email at all. Apparently Mathsci has taken ownership of articles related to Poland. With regard to the six-month minimum before ban appeals, I think that the case would be most likely be taken now rather than later, and therefore it is a matter of extreme urgency and we cannot wait for Captain Occam's unbanning. The case isn't just about CO, but about others as well.

EDIT: I recieved an AN/I notice from Mathsci, presumably dealing with the topic at hand. I hope that it goes well... I'll need your support for that, at least. A link to the request can be found on my user talk. Wer900talk 03:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but it's too much drama for my tastes. The best thing you can do is respond at the ANI and explain that you were pursuing your interests in governance reform and unfortunately got drawn into this mess. I'm not sure there is any other way to put it except in the form of an apology. It's a huge mistake to edit and make proposals on behalf of anyone that is banned. I'm not familiar with Mathsci's contributions to Poland-related articles, but allegations of ownership against him will need to be directly supported by his accusers, not by proxy. This is my last comment on this matter, as I consider it closed. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for restoring the pre-Qworty heading to the page for Roberta Brown as well as assessing the pages quality. It was a courageous and kind move, as well as a bold edit to increase accuracy. (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


I thought you might be interested in contributing to a deletion discussion here based on your interest in related subject matter. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 23:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Is User:Colonel Warden engaging in some kind of POV pushing campaign? If so, perhaps a topic ban is in order. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Your suggestion does apply to one editor, but it's not the Col. I've not run into him before. petrarchan47tc 22:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Having experienced this illogical overreaction which has no basis in policy or RS changed my mind about your suggestion. Yes, I agree entirely. petrarchan47tc 03:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Viriditas/Arbcom

User:Viriditas/Arbcom, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Viriditas/Arbcom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Viriditas/Arbcom during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, once again you ignored following the instructions. 1) You are supposed to ask me to delete it prior to MfD, and 2) The page gives you instructions as to how to delete it. Why you brought this to MfD only shows that you can't follow instructions. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

How are things going?

I hope everything is well with you these days? I have to look closer but I thought I saw a bad faith assumption.[13]--My76Strat (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Trance Mission

Don't know if you've seen these, but I thought you might enjoy them: Red Rock [14] and Tjilpi [15]. Rosencomet (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for more of the same disruptive behaviour that led to your last block. You have continued to edit war with one other editor on numerous articles, over a prolonged period. Please remember that being convinced that you are "right" does not justify edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • JamesB, could you explain a bit more about your block? Who was Viriditas edit warring with, and where? A bit more detail would help some of us to understand the reasoning behind it. Thanks. Jusdafax 09:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not that important. This is the third block I've received for reverting a sock puppet. The community process (CU) failed to link this puppet with the master (CU did not find any convincing technical evidence as they were posting from different continents) so he's been allowed to run rampant on the Wikipedia. I'm happy to take the two week block if that means the puppet will remain blocked as well. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • After looking a bit deeper, I understand. May I suggest when the dust settles that you consider an unblock request? Under the circumstances, you may be unblocked early. Thanks for your principled stand against socking: it appears to me that you are in the right of it. Jusdafax 09:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for Jytdog

User:Jytdog, for whatever reason or motivation, you've made numerous false statements over at March Against Monsanto, so I feel the need to correct you for the record:

  1. You claimed that it was impossible for an RT article dated May 24 to support the statement that 2 million attended the protest ("Over two million march the streets of 436 cities, 52 countries") because the protest occurred the next day on May 25. However, you completely failed to notice that the RT article was edited at May 26, 2013 05:38.[16] Note, as of 2013, it is common for news sources to file an initial report and update the same page as the story changes. You've been here since 2008, so I'm a bit surprised you would make such a strange, unusual claim, even when you had the AP sources right in front of you. Forgive me, but I'm a bit skeptical of your presence in that article, considering your personal, ongoing interest in the business of biotechnology.
    Point taken, RT source can come in. Sorry I missed the update. It would be helpful if the citation stated the update date so that it is accurate. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    Clearly, RT was citing AP and/or the organizers.. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  2. Regarding the 2 million figure, you repeatedly claimed that "The organizers are not reliable sources for numbers. You can say "organizers said 2M" but not as fact" and you repeatedly deleted this number because you claimed it "cannot be used as a statement about the world, but as a statement of something that they claim". Meanwhile, multple versions of an Associated Press report were released saying both, including "Two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto in hundreds of rallies across the U.S. and in over 50 other countries on Saturday"[17] and "Organizers say two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto in hundreds of rallies across the U.S. and in over 50 other countries on Saturday."[18] It is not clear which one was the original story or why it was changed (Monsanto got to them!) but your rationale for deleting it isn't and wasn't supported at any time. Whether it was reported as a straight fact by the AP or attributed to organizers, there's no rationale for deletion here. All protest numbers are estimated, either by organizers or by officials.
    Yes I stand by this. The site of the organizers is not a reliable source, and quotes from the organizers are not reliable. Information they provide about what they do needs to be attributed to them and cannot be stated as facts about the world. This is common practice on Wikipedia. If you want to do an RfC on this, you would see that. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    You are still not making sense. The AP was cited not the group or their website. The AP is the reliable source here, so you continue to be wrong in this matter. I do not require an RfC, I require you to stop making false claims about the sources. AP is a reliable source about the number of people involved regardless of whether they are attributing the number to the organizers or not. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  3. You removed "their first worldwide protest", strangely claiming that "we have no idea if there will be more...and "worldwide" because evidence for that is thin now and it sounds mighty promotional". I'm sorry, what? The sources quite clearly indicate that this was their first worldwide protest and that they are planning additional protests. And, how can you possibly say that evidence for their global protest is "thin" and sounds promotional? Exactly, what are you basing this on? There are hundreds of photos, videos, and news reports from all over the world documenting this protest. Are you really questioning that it occurred? That's the kind of bizarre statement I would expect from someone working for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, not from a Wikipedia editor.
    Yes, "first" is promotional. They may only do one. If they do two, then "first" makes sense. As for thin, right now we have sources for the US, Argentina, and Canada. That is indeed thin evidence for the global scope of the protests. If more comes in, then we can state in Wikipedia's voice that they were global. You will notice that I added content and sources on where protests occurred and the numbers who attended. So, no, I do not doubt that protests occurred. Nobody should take at face value the organizers' claims of how many protests occurred and where and the overall number - on Wikipedia we need reliable, secondary sources for such facts. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    You are repeating the same false claims again. There is nothing promotional with indicating this was their first protest as they are planning more. The sources support this statement. Also, the sources describe the global scope of the protests in spades, and your repeated denial is disturbing. Do you work in the biotechnology industry? It seems your COI is interfering with a neutral and accurate reading of the sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  4. You claimed that you deleted the content about the Senate rejection from the lead because "You cannot have content in lead that is not in body". That's about as specious as it comes. This was a stub with no sections before I began editing it, and I was in the process of expanding it. If you felt strongly about moving it out of the lead, then you should have moved it into the body. Instead, you deleted it, even though it was sourced. The lead can most certainly have content that is not yet in the body, especially when it is in the transitioning stage from a stub to a start to a C-class article. Exactly how many minutes passed from the time I expanded it from a stub to a start-class article and you removed the content? Your rationale was specious and appears to be agenda-based.
    Actually I did move the information about the Senate vote from the lead to body, both times I did it. The way you expand an article, is that you build the body and the lead follows. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    If this helps, here's another source for the global scope of the protests. It's from the German Spiegel Online (about as RS as one can get), and attests to protests in Germany, France, the US, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, Argentina. The second sentence of the article states that protests were held in about 250 cities worldwide.[19] Sindinero (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    Sure that is helpful! You should add that to the article! You may get some pushback in that it is not English but hopefully it will be allowed.Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  5. You removed the content about the Monsanto Protection Act calling it an "inaccurate description", and quite hilariously requested that I read the article that I linked. Well, truth be told, it was accurately paraphrased from the goddamn linked article, which is accurately sourced to Monsanto and the International Business Times. To add insult to injury, you also claimed you deleted it because it wasn't in the body, even as I was in the process of expanding the stub to a start and adding sections while also trying to add it to the body while you were reverting my edits. Sorry, Jytdog, but your little game is transparent.
    Yes your description of the Mon Prot Act was inaccurate. And yes you copied it from the critic's description of it, not Wikipedia's description. As I mentioned, the way you grow an article is that you build the body, and the lead follows.Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please demonstrate the inaccuracies. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  6. You claimed that discussing FDA labeling is off topic, which is quite possibly the most crazy thing I've ever read. Off topic? The entire protest movement is about labeling, you nincompoop. And the FDA is mentioned in every major source on this topic. The group objects to their ongoing conflict of interest of allowing Monsanto to regulate Monsanto from within the FDA itself. It's part of their mission statement. And there wouldn't have been a vote in California if it wasn't for the failure of the FDA to regulate GMO's in the first place. This isn't off topic, it's the locus of the entire dispute.
    With respect to Canal's motivation, if you find a source that says she was motivated by the the lack of a federal labeling requirement in the US, please feel free to add that. The sources I read all say that she was motivated by the failure of Prop 37. You cannot go beyond the sources - that is WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add that although my daughter was just out of the hospital, unable to march, we drove past the march in Akron, Ohio, beeping most of the way, we did consider ourselves to be a part of the march, thus raising the totals to 2,000,002. Carptrash (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas I see that you have been blocked for two weeks. I am sorry that this happened. btw I just noticed the quote at the top of your page... great aspiration! You have maligned me a lot in your comments above, and I do not deserve that. I hope you will be more WP:CIVIL, when you come back. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
If you've been "maligned" it's because I am frustrated with your repeated false claims, some of which you are continuing to repeat even when the sources clearly show otherwise. Your continued claim that this protest was neither the first one and your denial that it was global indicate to me that you have a serious COI (as reflected by your user page) and that you should not be editing this topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Amber Wolfe

I've restored this to User:Viriditas/Amber Wolfe minus the prose as some was definitely copyvio and I have concerns about the rest so aren't happy with undeleting that - I restored it all and then revdeled all previous versions as the best way of keeping the history for future use. Dpmuk (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please move it to Rosencomet's user space and delete it from my page. He's the author and he should be working on it there. Where was the copyvio from? I was under the impression that he was the original author or had permission to use the material. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted the page. If they want me to recreate it in their space they should ask me and I'll gladly do so. As for the copyvio I can't remember what source was my concern. If they were the original author they would need to follow the directions at WP:DCM so we had a record of permission and I can find no record of this being done. Dpmuk (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for Petrarchan47

Alternative radio host Thom Hartman claimed in an article on Truthout that media had largely ignored the protests...

User:Petrarchan47, this wasn't an article on Truthout. This was news commentary by Thom Hartmann from The Thom Hartmann Program, from a segment called "Thom Hartmann on the News". It was also syndicated and distributed by Talk Radio News Service as an opinion piece called "So Much For The Liberal Media". [20] Truthout just provided a transcript from the show, so it should not be mentioned. Further, I don't think it is necessary or accurate to refer to him as an "alternative radio host" as he is nationally syndicated across the country. That's not "alternative" in any sense of the word, but rather very mainstream, so please remove that term. Finally, his opinion is held by just about every mainstream media critic so it's hardly an alternative opinion. It's a known fact that Monsanto exerts a great deal of influence on the media (see the Lawsuit against WTVT as only one small example) and that the U.S. government agencies responsible for insuring food safety and public health were infiltrated by Monsanto executives many years ago. There's nothing alternative about this at all, it's all a matter of public, historic record. In fact, the Government Accountability Office itself began investigating this alleged conflict of interest between Monsanto and the government in the early 1990s. The corporate media is in bed with Monsanto, so you won't find any of this on the nightly news. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you for pointing this out. A simple fix. petrarchan47tc 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for bobrayner

User:Bobrayner, the statement you removed, "Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment", explains one of the reasons cited by the activists for their march. It should not have been removed. Further, neither the FDA nor Monsanto have proven that GMO is safe, and it has been banned by most countries for this reason. That is the mainstream view. The fact that U.S. government regulatory agencies charged with insuring food safety have neglected their duties and have issued regulations by former Monsanto executives within their own ranks, presents not just a conflict of interest, but a systemic failure of government to insure the safety of the food supply.

Corporate spokesmen for Monsanto have gone on record saying that safety is not their responsibility while government regulatory agencies have claimed that food safety is not the responsibility of the government. In 1998, Monsanto's director of corporate communications infamously said, "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job"—while the FDA had previously gone on record in 1992 saying, "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety". Sorry, but this refusal to take responsibility by the corporate and government sector supporting each other while patting each other on the back can't continue. As Kurt Eichenwald reported in 2001, the White House has worked closely with Monsanto through at least [five] administrations to "get the regulations that it wanted":

What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto -- and, by extension, the biotechnology industry -- got. If the company's strategy demanded regulations, rules favored by the industry were adopted. And when the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing. Even longtime Washington hands said that the control this nascent industry exerted over its own regulatory destiny -- through the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture Department and ultimately the Food and Drug Administration -- was astonishing.

If both Monsanto and the government refuse to take responsibility for the safety of GMO's, then the burden continues to remain on those who claim they are safe, and what Monsanto is doing with the help of government regulatory agencies is forcing products that do not have a proven record of safety into the marketplace. That is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

This is just the funniest talk I've heard in ages. I'm not sure if I sent it to you before. (Click hour two and listen to the first 60 seconds to get a good sample.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anna Frodesiak, thanks for the links. The podcast is pretty good, and I haven't yet seen his YouTube videos, so thanks for "turning me on". :) Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for A13ean

User:A13ean, your recent series of edits removed sources about the topic sourced to the Associated Press and in their place, added off-topic sources that have nothing to do with this subject. You claimed that "there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food", yet you cited no reliable secondary source that actually says this. What you cited instead was a self-published news release by the AAAS that is full of fallacious arguments promoting Monsanto's products and their "special" relationship with regulatory agencies, while ignoring all of the problems with their products. I'm sorry, but we don't do science by press release. To date, there has been no effort to prove that GMO foods are safe, only unscientific and unethical calls by industry funded scientists to "prove it isn't safe". That's not science, and we all know what happened with DDT, PCBs, and BPA; the environmental costs of those "safe" products are still accruing. And what kind of ridiculous argument would highlight the safety of their products to conventional agriculture? Has the AAAS completely lost their minds? These same scientists insisted DDT, PCBs, and BPA were also safe and claimed that we had to prove they were unsafe, which was finally done after many decades. Of course, now the public has to foot the bill to clean up after the companies who claimed there was nothing wrong with their products, and we're still trying to fix the problems caused by their herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers. That's your best argument for safety? Ridiculous! Further, you removed actual sources about this subject, in particular, the AP source about the protest and the aims and goals of protester which reflected the content you removed. This is totally unacceptable and your edits should be immediately reverted. Wikipedia isn't a propaganda mill for Monsanto and until you learn how to edit Wikipedia in accordance with our policies and guidelines, you should remove yourself from the topic. Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, please see the post on the talk page for a number of direct quote from policy organizations like the AAAS and from peer-reviewed metareviews, among others. I'm sorry you disagree with their conclusions, but the consensus is pretty clear. I understand your concerns about other environmental issues, and share many of them. Nothing I added to the article meets the definition of a press-release. What AP source are you referring to? I don't think I removed any non-blog journalistic sources. PS: I almost missed this -- did they ever get the system setup where I can see when you link my name on a talk page like that? Thanks a13ean (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked again and the only change to a source from the AP was the one I added. a13ean (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for Arthur Rubin

Live 5 freeway exits north of Disneyland.

User:Arthur Rubin, are you aware that your user page sounds remarkably like The Californians? :) Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

(Notifications/Echo works....) I don't think I've watched SNL since they started that skit, so it's not intentional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
[21] Arkon (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I miss Kristen Wiig! She made it worth watching. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for Ixfd64

User:Ixfd64, you removed the link to the Wikiquote page for UC Davis pepper-spray incident instead of piping the link which is found on Wikiquote at "Occupy UC Davis". The reason the quotes on this topic are found at a different title is because the Wikipedia page was moved to its current, more inclusive title about the historical incident and the Wikiquote page was never moved to reflect this. Please add the wikiquote link back into the article with a piped target. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for Mann jess

User:Mann jess, regarding the edit war on militant atheism, (talk · contribs) is editing from India and appears to have created Lagoy (talk · contribs), and looks remarkably similar to Anupam (talk · contribs) who vanished in late February. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My name is Michael. I am an American living in India. I'm happy to share my contact information/facebook for verification. I just can;'t accept such a biased and inappropriate redirect of Militant Atheism. Lagoy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The redirect was placed according to consensus and Anupam (presumably also living in India based on his comments) was the only person who objected and edit warred over the redirect.[22] Lots of coincidences there. I assume that you are both Christian missionaries living in India? Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The IP address geolocates to Kolkata (Calcutta). Presumably, if the IP and Lagoy are socks of Anupam, then Anupam might be expected to have shown a greater interest in articles about Kolkata. This does not prove to be the case: Anupam touched Kolkata-related articles extremely rarely, and if so it was part of a series of similar edits performed sequentially on related articles, such as adding Hindi language to a series of Indian court articles. I do not think a case can be made for sockpuppetry. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but I can't see any difference between the two users, both of whom claimed to be in India. Anupam was the one who strenuously argued for a disambiguation page,[23] and now this "new" user shows up from India strenuously arguing for a disambiguation page?[24] I'm not buying it. New users don't even know what "disambiguation" means. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
And now he's role playing and pretending to be a "militant atheist" who is an expert on the topic.[25] This is the kind of "block on sight" account that does nothing but troll that we've come to associate with Conservapedia minions and their followers. It's very surprising that editors are treating this obvious trolling as if it were a new account. It's one thing not to bite the newbies, but quite another to play the role of a rube who tries to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's remember who is behind this charade. Anupam (talk · contribs) disappeared from Wikipedia in February. Since that time, he has been editing the article Militant atheism on Conservapedia, with his last edit on May 26, 2013[26], just a week before Lagoy created his "new" account on Wikipedia and began engaging in the same Anupam-style behavior. I think this is clearly a duck quacking. Obvious sock is obvious. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm no fan of the way Anupam worked to make the militant atheism article be as much of an attack on new atheists as possible. Remember, I am part of the group who successfully argued Anupam down, and got the NOR- and POV-riddled article deleted. (I started in August 2011 by trimming 45k of fluff, repeatedly reverted by Anupam, then in September 2011 I started the discussion which resulted in the article getting deleted.) However, Anupam has been editing the Conservapedia article since May 2011 with a little tweak, then in September 2011 with a giant 130k dump of text that was brought there from here, when he saw how the deletion wind was blowing. That shows Anupam did not suddenly start working on Conservapedia after disappearing here in late February 2013. There is no causality or even coincidence between Anupam's timeline of editing and Lagoy's, or the IP from Calcutta. The only thing connecting them is the interest in having Wikipedia host this article. If you are right, though, it looks like Anupam may have waited just long enough for his account to become stale relative to checkuser before starting a sock. I expect no useful results from checkuser even if I could convince them to take the case. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my god. You people are nuts. Conspiracy theorists. I'm a fucking liberal, and American, and you think I'm some Hindi-speaking (I don't speak a word of Hindi) nutjob who edits for Conservapedia simply because I have an IP address in India, a country with more than 1 billion people? Jesus Christ. I don't even live in Kolkata; I have a dynamic IP through Reliance Communications, which sources from Kolkata and Mumbai, and perhaps even other cities. You people are crazy. I'm gone. (Lagoy (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC))
Look, when you troll a website, the first thing you need to do is remain consistent. You gave the game away when you wrote, "associating modern militant atheism, which is nothing more than New Atheism, with the Soviet Union can send the wrong message to believers or others who oppose atheists" and when you described yourself as a "militant atheist" who is only here to set people right on Dawkins, who is "encouraging" others to pursue militant atheism. Go back to Conservapedia, the jig is up. Viriditas (talk)
How Indian do I fucking look? Seriously. Crazy people. (Lagoy (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC))
You are claiming that New Atheism is militant atheism. That's what Conservapedia claims on their website, and they cite Christian physicist Ian Hutchinson as their source. So, you are making all the same arguments as Anupam, whether or not you are both the same people. So, if you aren't citing Hutchinson, who are you citing? Previously you said Dawkins, but you were corrected on that point. Again, Conservapedia also claims Dawkins as their source. If you want to participate in that discussion and try to convince people you are right, then do so, but you will need to have good sources. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
But I wasn't actually corrected. The individual who cited the "New Encyclopedia of Unbelief" mis-cited that text as by Dawkins, when it was actually edited by Tom Flynn (Dawkins wrote the foreword). Richard Dawkins, in his February 2002 TED talk, encourages "militant atheism." The problem here is how we're looking at this. You're taking a relatively old meaning of "militant atheism," which supposes forceful suppression of religion; I am using the sense that is claimed by many strong atheists today, which simply implies aggressive opposition to religion. A simple search online for this sense arrives at many instances. It is in this sense, certainly not the former, that I would call myself a militant atheist, and I imagine it is in this same sense (unless he's a closeted Soviet) that Dawkins also encourages the term. Why is everyone so irrational, here? (Lagoy (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC))
I don't see anyone encouraging the term except Conservapedia, and they are using it as a pejorative. You are really going to need to do better than pointing people to a TED talk from 2002. Anyway, you don't need to convince me, you need to convince the people participating in the talk page discussion. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────FWIW, I worked with Anupam extensively, over a fairly broad range of articles, every day for many months. I don't believe Lagoy is Anupam. I disagree with his RM, but I don't find it implausible that someone would self describe as a "militant atheist" (indeed, I've met some who would). I think WP:BITE and WP:AGF are good advice in cases like this. It's good to look into this stuff, and information is always helpful, but as long as there's no disruption, we shouldn't aim to scare anyone away. Thanks for the message.   — Jess· Δ 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for User:Thelmadatter

Lanier's suggestion of payment sounds like it would be of great benefit of those who control how that money is collected and distributed and perhaps secondly to those whose works are very widely read. I didnt see the video but I read his WP page. He forgets that the function of an encyclopedia is to remix and disseminate well-established information, not create something new.

User:Thelmadatter, your criticism appears misplaced and quite strange as you have the facts backwards. Micropayments under Lanier's model benefits the artists, writers, and contributors who do the work and who need to put food on the table. Lanier's criticism is well supported by solid evidence and it sounds like you should actually read it rather than commenting from ignorance. Further, the "function" of an encyclopedia has changed with the times, and Wikipedia's version of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be is unique and has little to no foundation. In other words, an encyclopedia is whatever we want it to be. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Some comments on your current disputes

I understand the high tensions on this talk page, but I think that it would serve youbetter if you did not post angry, vindictive talk-page messages to users whom you disagree with. Even though I am quite sure that you are correct on most counts, such comments will only result in more and more blocking. I, like you, have a strong desire to purge the useless, parasitic bottom-feeding cabals of POV-pushers and their enabling admins from the encyclopedia, perhaps banishing them to their own Internet forums where they can continue their disputes. I think that you should simply wait until you have a proper series of ArbCom cases, rather than rashly becoming the next large sacrifice to the Dark Side.

Someday, the parasitism will have to end—from Jimbo Wales to administrators, we will replace the current, unsustainable system with a new one built on order, efficiency, and protection of content builders. Even if the current situation is part of the battle to create such an improved system, it's best not to anger the beneficiaries of that system too much. Wer900talk 01:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you must have misread something. I am neither angry nor vindictive, nor do I have anything to be angry or vindictive about. I live in paradise and I'm content to never edit Wikipedia ever again. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
You are a valuable editor of this encyclopedia, and should not leave. After the blocking of Rich Farmbrough, I think that you are one of the most important symbols and actors of resistance for the rest of us slaves, who want to contribute to the sum of knowledge but get a very different treatment from the bottom-feeding warlords of the Web.
WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for serving our encyclopedia well for years, and for bravely persisting despite your endless recent hounding. You are a hero to us all, more of a god than Jimbo could ever hope to be. May you continue to champion our cause. Wer900talk 01:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for Cla68

Then why don't you administrators do your jobs, investigate this situation total, and come to a conclusion instead of just trying to put a band aid over it.

User:Cla68, because then they would be called editors, not admins. Admins don't resolve anything, they just choose to ignore the problem, and failing that, block and walk away. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)