User talk:Viriditas/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

A note on User page notices

Hello! Just a quick note.

Re: [1] , were you aware of WP:DNTTR yet?

Advice on that page may be helpful in future at least. Hopefully.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC) I was tempted to use a warning template to post this "DNTTRvio" . Sadly I'm not quite evil enough for that. O:-)

(talk page stalker)

I won't comment on that particular case, but when an established user is breaking basic norms and they should know better, I think templating is reasonable. If it's a more nuanced disagreement between people who already know the general rules, then templates are unhelpful. Because our user warning templates are mostly aimed towards newbies, templating somebody else is, effectively, treating them like a newbie; that's unhelpful, unless they're actually acting like a newbie. (We shouldn't have such a strong distinction between veterans and newbies, but it's a sad reality).

Sorry. Just a general wiki-philosophical point there. bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly be be in favor of renaming said page to DNTAE (Do Not Template Anyone Ever). I follow that rule myself. But regulars is a good start ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. It should be opt-in, anyway. Thanks for reminding me. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

<grin> --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Further reading discussion

I see you commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Change to further reading guideline fyi, the players have moved on to "misinterpreting" yet another section of the Guidelines: see User talk:71.23.178.214#Further reading_sections. As Arthur Rubin insisted, and his gang immediately "agreed" that meant consensus to delete, government and political activity is "not relevant" in articles about politicians:

*Delete (preferred), alternative is refocus and substitute, and mark the template substitute-only if kept. Some of the links are relevant for many congresspersons and candidates, and approach WP:ELYES unless already used as a reference. Among the documented tags:

• • congbio, congress: approaches "Official" and likely to have information which can and should be used
  • ballot: marginal; it is a quasi-wiki; not always relevant
  • fec: reliable, but not always relevant
  • govtrack, opencong, opensecrets, legistorm, followthemoney, ontheissues: generally reliable, usually not relevant
  • c-span, rose: Quasi-search results
  • imdb, nndb (sorry, that one's not documented), worldcat: Usually not relevant
  • bloomberg, guardian, nyt, wsj, washpro: much like a search result.
• My second choice (after an outright delete) would be to substitute only the congbio, congress, and fec links, and then delete and repurpose the template to a substitute-only use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Who knew? People might...actually become informed. Pillar of democracy and all that. There's more starting at Template talk:CongLinks#Violations of WP:ELNO if you're interested in that sort of thing. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pattycake (gorilla)

Very good! I would have passed it already, but you teased at much more in the lead, than actually appears in the article. Can you fill out the article with more content? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on it. I'll try to have that fleshed out by tonight. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pattycake (gorilla)

The article Pattycake (gorilla) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pattycake (gorilla) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Michigan Man

I'm a bit stuck. Any thoughts on how to proceed?

• User talk:Anna F remote#RE: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#The Michigan Kid

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. I think you've done everything possible (and quite a bit more, what's your superhero name, anyway?) The user, for all intents and purposes, doesn't seem to listen to anyone (or want to listen for that matter) and appears to be rogue. He says he wants to be rid of the Arthur Rubin goon squad but isn't willing to do the necessary work to get from point A to point B. Again, thanks for trying. To recap, I brought this issue to you because I was worried that Mr. Rubin was biased against the user. But as you can see, the user isn't willing to step up to the plate and follow the basic rules to alleviate the situation and move forward. Some people thrive on drama, and appear to be quite addicted to it. I think this person can't imagine editing without this kind of negative attention, and unconsciously is unwilling to become a more constructive user. That's my take, anyway. I was in their corner when this query began, and now I'm on the side of the AR goon squad. It takes a certain kind of person to turn an ally into an opponent. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Viriditas. Many, many thanks for the feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pattycake (gorilla)

Hello! Your submission of Pattycake (gorilla) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Little Red Rooster

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh

For the sake of redundancy, please don't post on Candleetc.'s talk page anymore. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to post there. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your kindness

..is much appreciated. I hope you're aware of this. petrarchan47tc 09:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sending some metta your way... :) Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuisine of Hawaii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Pattycake (gorilla)

v/r - TP 18:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 18:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actions on Hawaiian cuisine articles.

Viriditas, as I have recently noted, during this entire Hawaiian native cuisine boondoggle, you were not completely without fault. Below is a listing of all the significant actions by all editors that were taken in the process, I have collapsed them for readability.

Extended Content

History of the Hawaiian native cuisine article (only moves, redirects, creations, and AfD nominations are included): 16:17, 17 May 2014‎ Candleabracadabra - Creates Native Hawaiian cuisine 03:57, 18 May 2014‎ Viriditas - moves Native Hawaiian cuisine to Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine 03:58, 18 May 2014 Viriditas redirects Native Hawaiian cuisine to Cuisine of Hawaii {{R with possibilities}} 17:01, 18 May 2014 Candleabracadabra completes a copy/paste move from Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine to Native Hawaiian cuisine over redirect 17:02, 18 May 2014 Candleabracadabra nominates Native Hawaiian cuisine for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Hawaiian cuisine 17:37, 18 May 2014 Candleabracadabra blanks Native Hawaiian cuisine 17:41, 18 May 2014 Candleabracadabra redirects the Native Hawaiian cuisine to Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine 17:44, 18 May 2014‎ Kelapstick moved page Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine to Native Hawaiian cuisine (over top of redirect, as the history of the target was originally a copy/paste of the moved article). 18:45, 18 May 2014‎ Kelapstick closes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Hawaiian cuisine cuisine closed as speedy keep 01:27, 19 May 2014‎ Viriditas moves Native Hawaiian cuisine to User:User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine (wrong name) 01:28, 19 May 2014 Viriditas moved page User:User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine to User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine (intended name) 01:38 19 May 2014 Kelapstick deleted page User:User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial)) 01:27, 19 May 2014‎ Viriditas redirects Native Hawaiian cuisine to cuisine of Hawaii 03:21, 19 May 2014‎ Candleabracadabra nominates User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine) 03:30, 19 May 2014‎ Candleabracadabra moved page User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine to Native cuisine of Hawaii 03:31, 19 May 2014‎ Candleabracadabra fixes the AfD tag, including timestamp, to reflect the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native cuisine of Hawaii 03:35, 19 May 2014‎ Candleabracadabra creates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native cuisine of Hawaii 05:01, 19 May 2014‎ Candleabracadabra Redirected Native Hawaiian cuisine to Native cuisine of Hawaii

The primary actions that you took that were offside are:

• Userfying the article into Candleabaracadabara's userspace after it was moved into draft space and then back again. Really, did you think that he would just sulk and edit in his userspace? And to answer the question you left on my talk page, no the default course of action when an article is moved from mainspace to draftspace, and the author tries to get it back into mainspace is not to send it back to AfC. Although that may be the case for a new user, for an experienced editor, it just creates disruption.
• Redirecting the page after the AfD was closed as a speedy keep

Now, I am not without blame here either, I should have either discussed it with you, or reverted your moves/redirects. Why I didn't do this, I don't know, but that is what I should have done in that situation. So my request is this, please do not bypass process like that again. We have means to discuss articles, and where they should sit (article, draft, or userspace). Disruption begets disruption. Actions like this never help the situation. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Kelapstick. It won't happen again. I do want to point out that the author in question did not actually "create" a new article with new content. They forked the cuisine of Hawaii article initially for the sole purpose of adding images. While this behaviour was strange and unusual, it was precipitated by the user's demand to be able to add dozens of images about Ancient Hawaii and traditional Hawaiian foods to the cuisine of Hawaii page. When he was reverted by multiple users, he copied this article to a new article and added the images. This kind of disruption seems perfectly contained by moving it to draft or user space, but as you point out, it doesn't allow for resolution because the user will just move it back and it could also be seen as disruptive move warring on my part. But seen in that context, it appeared appropriate at the time when things were fluid and situational. Furthermore, the user keeps making up new excuses for copying it. Now he says that he intends to discuss Native Hawaiian health and nutrition. However, none of the content nor the source copied discuss it. Again, this really seems to be about his need to create image galleries, and has little to do with writing about Native Hawaiian culture. I will get with Mark Miller and collaborate with him on how to resolve this once and for all. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand your point on the "created" nomenclature, my point is that he made the first edit to the article. And you are preaching to the choir, I know the isses, but I suggest waiting for the AfD to play out. There are two good editors waiting to work on it once the hand to hand combat finishes, as Cullen so appropriately put it. Patience is a virtue, so I am told, although not one I was blessed with. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Considering I have access to all of these sources and I have read them, I think I understand the content and the issues related to the content better than others involved here. Unfortunately, the "keep" votes in the AfD discussion don't seem to be familiar with the sources, the articles, nor the topic. And although Mark and I play on the same "team" (both of us are interested in Hawaii-related topics and write about them), he admitted that before voting "keep", he didn't read either article and isn't aware of the issue. He's also not familiar with how we write food and cuisine articles since he said cuisine articles should be about restaurants, which is highly amusing, but just wrong. Our food and cuisine articles are about culinary food history, dishes, ingredients, preparations, and sometimes mention a select number of famous restaurants in passing, but rarely. I think that in addition to a WP:BEFORE requirement for nominating, we also need a WP:BEFORECOMMENTING guideline. If editors admit that they didn't read the article that's up for discussion, then why are they voting on it? Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Brad Mehldau

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation or disconfirmation needed

Please see WP:AN#Hey admins; at the bottom of the current version, Hafspajen seems to say that you and Tarc think that a sockpuppet investigation is needed for the Candleabracadabra situation. Could you please go there and offer input? It would help if you'd confirm that you think this, or if you'd say "no, Hafspajen has misunderstood". Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it has already been put into process by another. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Kelapstick, this might mean nothing, but I think there are a number of "tells" that we might be missing. For example, my user name comes from a theme that appears throughout Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy of books. I'm a science fiction fan, after all. Salman Rushdie's book, Midnight's Children is a work of magical realism. In that book, the child of a character says his first word, "abracadabra".[2] And while the book mentions candles in passing, it may not refer to the book directly but to the phrase, "burning the midnight oil", also expressed as "burning the candle at both ends". So instead of "ChildofMidnight", it's reversed; "Midnight's (burning the candle at both ends) Child (the first word of the child is "abracadabra"). And guess who is interested in the author of Midnight's Children?[3] Something to think about... Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think in general the username is not really a tell. I always considered it like the before and after category on Wheel of Fortune Candelabra Abracadabra. I was aware he named himself after Midnight's Children and had seen this edit. Given the amount of behavioral evidence presented (over 36,000 bytes worth), I think that these username points, while quite interesting, are a bit of a stretch. I doubt they would hold water at SPI. You will note that Drmies did use your comment regarding climate variability, again, nice work with that. This has been a long and arduous processes, and not one that I have enjoyed. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What Kelapstick says. Viriditas, I trust you don't mind that I copied your section--you had posted it publicly, after all, and you were in the thick of things the last few days. Yes, well done. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Son of a.....!!! I begin to tire of the sock puppets on Wikipedia and how long it takes to catch them. Good Work V!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

An SPI

You are mentioned and may have an interest in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography

Hello Viriditas, If you have some time (and the interest), would you mind taking a look at Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography? I nominated this as a FLC over six weeks ago and haven't gotten much useful feedback. I have the resources to do what is necessary to make it a FL. Your comments would be appreciated. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ojorojo. I'll try to find some free time in the next few days. I'm definitely interested, but I've tried to remove myself from most Jimi Hendrix topics due to the persistent, how do I say this nicely, "eccentricity" of some of the more colorful people I've encountered there. I'm speaking, of course, of editors like User:Jameselmo (no, I won't ECHO him) who added lots of original research and a bit of added nonsense to Hendrix articles in the past. For this reason, I have to ask, have you vetted the entire article for accuracy? Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, you may want to review the WP:FLCR criteria and check that meets each one. Is the list currently stable? Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That editor hasn't done much in the last year or so (whew). Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced are now featured articles and Axis and Electric Ladyland are nearly GAs. It seems that the will is there to keep them free of BS. Except for some disruption by a banned socketpuppet in July '13 and a newbie recently (who did the same to many other discographies), the two JH discographies have been stable. Beginning in Dec. '13, I have made substantial changes to both, reformatting and adding a lot of material, while weeding out a lot. I've verified all of the information with at least one source and am confident that whatever inaccuracies are left are minor. Before a final fact checking, I hope to find out if the scope and layout are suitable, etc. (nobody else has looked at this critically). Meanwhile, I'll go through the FL criteria and other FL discographies again and compare. (BTW, I recently read a bit about the Brotherhood of Eternal Love-Rainbow Bridge-Owsley-Leary connection; may explain some of those "eccentricities"). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed the criteria and several longer FL discographies (David Bowie discography, Metallica discography, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography) and feel that this compares favorably. Here are some thoughts:

• Even split into the Jimi Hendrix discography and this posthumous one, the Hendrix discographies are among the longest. Maybe they could be split more or differently: separate videography, discography as accompanist, live discography, etc. (Madonna has 3: albums, singles, and videos).
• The lead in many discographies start: "The discography of ABC consists of x albums, y singles, z compilations... They formed in 1999 with A on vocals, B on guitar" etc. (the Led Zeppelin discography begins with the fragment "The discography of the English rock band Led Zeppelin.") I don't think that adds anything, but maybe a different introduction would be appropriate.
• Nearly all have up to ten columns for various countries chart positions. I don't think this works so well for older releases, before rock became more international. Although Hendrix charted in nearly 20 countries, US and UK releases dominate and most of the rest only have a few. Picking 10 countries would be problematic (the same 10 for the whole discography or the 10 most popular for each section or ?) and would still leave many "–" in positions. The "Other" column seems to be a better solution and leaves more room for release details.
• The layouts for this and the other discographies consist of a series of charts for the different sections (studio albums, live albums, singles, videos, etc.). Maybe adding graphics/images/audio samples or section introductory text would break up the monotony and make it more visually appealing.

I started with the Hendrix posthumous discography as a FLC first, because it is more difficult. However, whatever is done should also consider the Hendrix discography as well. —Ojorojo (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look later tonight/tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I shouldn't have started with the difficult one.[4] I'll work on the original discography and maybe it will get a better reception. Hope all is well. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

X-Men

While there is no Themes section as suggested, I did try to expand both the coverage and writing, particularly regarding the film's development. I tried my best to add references to the characters I could get info on, but some are too irrelevant and earned no results. Any way, I don't think it deserves a quick-fail, only that it needs a thorough review - or any kind of review given I'm waiting since March! igordebraga ≠ 04:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm sympathetic to your position. I think you have added themes, but you added them to the cast section. Do you think any of the material in the cast section should be placed into a new section? Maybe you should go back and read the last GA review to see what I'm talking about. If you have irrelevant, unsourced material that can't be sourced, it's not going to pass GA, and the last reviewer talked specifically about this. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Native cuisine of Hawaii

I've got all the time in the world...

I believe I once told you patience is a virture. I trust now that Candelabracadabara is now indef blocked, you Cullen, Northamerica1000, and Mark Miller can work on the article, as you all seem to have interest in it. I look forward to seeing the finished product. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, if you squint your eyes, it looks like patience is a vulture. Think about that for a bit. :) Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's probably because there is only one r in virtue, ha! Spelling has never been my strong suit, cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii Edit-a-thon

Viriditas, I've been looking at Hawaiian religion, mythology, and folk lore and it seems to me that there has been a desperate need for work to be done here. I think what we need to do is have an edit-a-thon. I'm thinking we should reach out to museums such as the Kauaʻi Museum and the Bishop Museum to provide coodination and help find interested editors and then try to arrange for the edit a thon to be a one of O'ahu's public libraries. The Aeia library is scheduled to open in July 2014 and this might be a great event for them to help advertise the new library. The library would be a great place to find books on Hawaiian religion and we could hold a quick tutorial on NPOV, sourcing, and editing style beforehand. Would you be interested in getting on board with that? I'm not sure which island you live on, would you be able to make it over to O'ahu?--v/r - TP 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. My exact location in Hawaii has been posted on the project page since July 2005.[5] I used to work closely with someone from the Bishop Museum on Wikipedia, but I don't believe they work there anymore. I think your ideas sound great, and you should know, there's a lot of good resources in the Islands to get your message out. For example, Hawaii Public Radio has a community events calendar announcement on either HPR1 or HPR2 several times throughout the day. There are also at least two technology-related programs that would be happy to have you on as a guest to talk about what you are trying to do, such as "Bytemarks Cafe" and "Tech Nation". And before you say, "nobody listens to radio", people are stuck in their cars in traffic on Oahu all the time. Thousands of people listen to those shows. Plus, they are also streaming online. I'm not sure how much help I can be as I'm quite busy with work. You sound like you know what needs to be done, but trying to arrange it in under a month is beyond my ken at this point. I think the Bishop Museum has an educational outreach program that might be able to hook you up with educators and their students. I think this would work really well for students. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a month is too ambitious. Are you aware of any Hawaiian holidays ~3-6 months out that we might be able to do this for?--v/r - TP 03:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it would also be a good idea to check some of the standard reference books like the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion. I think it has an article on Hawaiian religion, and some others on what might broadly be called Polynesian religions, with some at least decent reference lists. I seem to remember an older, maybe even PD, reference series of reference books on world mythology with some coverage of Hawaiian themes. I can check on that and if I find it maybe even upload it to Commons or something. And I imagine some of the editors with databank subscriptions from The Wikipedia Library might have more. I have myself access to a few databanks at least, and would be more than willing to help on this matter if someone reminds me when and if you all start. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've started a page Wikipedia:GLAM/US/Hawaii/2014_Makahiki_Edit-a-thon if you are interested in participating. You might also want to add yourself as a GLAM contact here. I'm reaching out to WMDC about support and a possible grant to pay for stationary, signage, and other coordination needs. If we get going on this, I'll reach out to some folks I know in public affairs and see if they can get me a POC with local radio.--v/r - TP 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you should shoot for either "Bytemarks Cafe" or "Tech Nation", and I know from listening to both that they would love to have you on. Also, the hosts of "Bytemarks Cafe" are very much in touch with the main members of the technical community in Hawaii, so you should probably get in touch with them anyway, because they will connect you up with the right people. I've got too much on my plate right now to participate. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Contact info. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Viriditas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Go Phightins! 02:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK proposal

Please ping me when and if you ever get a proposal started about how to reform the DYK process. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

John, can you help me identify the main areas of concern? For example, do you know if the current DYK guidelines adequately appeal to our main policies? So far, I see these specific concerns, but there are probably more:

1. WP:NOT: specifically WP:GRATUITOUS (offensive content), WP:NOTNEWS (unencyclopedic gossip), WP:INDISCRIMINATE (trivia of all kinds)
2. WP:NPOV: specifically WP:UNDUE (minority viewpoints), WP:IMPARTIAL (neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view)

As you can see, many of these apply directly to our recent DYK issues. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Casliber and User:Graeme Bartlett would probably be good people to help with this. SFAIK, some of our basic article guidelines can't be easily made to apply to DYK hooks, particularly regarding proponents of pseudoscientific or fringe or discredited theories or what some might call heresies. In a lot of cases, the best hook that can be made on some proponents of woo is something along the lines of "DYK that [foo] thought [something ridiculous]?" Such a hook might be one of the best potential hooks for Arthur Conan Doyle regarding fairies, for instance, and for a lot of articles on early heresies or modern divergent beliefs. Applying GRATUITOUS, IMPARTIAL, and even WEIGHT in a lot of these cases might be a problem too, particularly for new articles. I remember one bio of a Russian saint I put together had as a hook that her biography said Stalin covertly came to consult her about the upcoming end of WWII, which I don't think is necessarily accepted by Stalin's biographers. NOTNEWS and INDISCRIMINATE would be easier to perhaps strengthen the application of.

That being the case, maybe it might work to make some focus on how the editors involved conduct themselves. Both Barney the barney barney and OccultZone in recent incidents seem to have had issues not with the hooks or their content, but with their personal conduct. Conduct issues could definitely be clearer in the relevant guidelines. Particularly useful would be having guidelines that someone with a distinct self-declared POV should abstain from discussing hooks relating to that subject, and something like that I think is doable.

Part of the problem is also do the lack of staffing at DYK, and the occasionaly time-consuming nature of examining hooks. I might propose an experimental period with a smaller number of DYKs which have received multiple positive reviews on the main page per day or period, and add a link to another distinct page containing a broader number of current DYKs. It might get more attention to the DYK process too, for multiple reasons.

Mind you, I actually hadn't given this a lot of thought before and a lot of what I said above is just off the top of my head. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this sounds like a good idea. I'll have a think too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ramones

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your excellent and thorough review of Too Tough to Die and for helping me fix certain problems (while leaving me some good advice for further improvements), I thought you might appreciate this. If you need help with anything or simply need a favor, please don't hesitate to send me a message. Thank you for your hard work! CrowzRSA 16:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Molly Crabapple

If you want. I have something else that I'm trying to get done this evening anyway. But what's wrong with the article? Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything is wrong with the article. What's right with the article? The article is in terrible shape, covered in maintenance and cite needed tags, and is written in an unencyclopedic manner. Why do I even have to tell you this? Surely, you can see it? Just take a week off and let me work on it. Not the evening, the week. I say this because you and I do not work well together. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten (or failed to notice) that you specified a week in your request, and figured you had already addressed your concerns in the article. I certainly didn't think that combining some sections by removing some headings would run contrary to your cleanup plans. (Did it?) In any event, however, you do not have the authority to exclude other editors from the article simply because you ask them to do so. But if you really think that ANI will say otherwise, then file whatever report you wish.

As for my tagging, I do not possess an eidetic memory, so I can't be expected to remember every single tag I add to every article over the course of years. Nightscream (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to exclude anyone. I have spent years avoiding interacting with you, because whenever I am involved in any article where you appear, all you seem to do is disrupt it, not improve it. As if to prove me right, you are now, quite bizarrely, restoring a singular section heading for no reason while I am in the middle of expanding subtopics and adding headers. I've often felt that you deliberately disrupt articles on purpose, and right now, I'm getting that same feeling again. How else do I explain your absurd behavior? Please use the article talk page to discuss your proposal for adding a singular section heading. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"I've often felt that you deliberately disrupt articles on purpose, and right now, I'm getting that same feeling again."

Bullshit.

You tried to threaten me with an ANI report, based on----what exactly? The fact that I did not turn over sole editorship of the article because you requested it? That is WP:OWN-type behavior, and is indeed an attempt to exclude. I disrupt articles on purpose? Really? Does that include the three GA's I single-handedly wrote myself? Is that why I constantly get accolades on my editing, as seen on my user page?

You want to offer a difference of opinion regarding our views on structuring or editing articles, that's fine. We can discuss that. But when you make false accusations like the one above, without any evidence to exclude other, less nefarious motives, you're in clear violation of WP:AGF, and you don't get to play the part of the victim when you do that. Nightscream (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My feelings are not "bullshit". I've abandoned numerous articles because of your disruptive behavior. The one that comes directly to mind is Sicko. I was hoping to improve that to GA/FA quality, but your presence there chased everyone away. Since 2007, I've done everything in my power to avoid interacting with you. Yet, here you are again, engaging in the same behavior. You tagged the hell out of Molly Crabapple because you didn't want to do the hard work of fixing it, yet when I show up to fix the article, you then spend your time harassing and badgering editors who do the work. My guess in this instance, is that you feel some ownership over any article tagged by the Comics project, which is why you are acting like this. I don't really care, I just want it to stop. I politely asked you to stay away from the article for seven days as I did my work. Instead of abiding by this reasonable request (in an article you haven't made any major contributions to) you've continued the same behavior. What's your problem? I don't know and I don't care, I just want it to stop. Go bother someone else. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Young Living

Please help, I'm dealing with a Request for Deletion from a user that I am aware you have had to deal with previously (you can see who it is at the page). I believe his/her claims are without merit and I cannot understand why they would not simply edit the article to remedy their concerns, if their concerns are indeed genuine. Can you please consider arguing on behalf of preserving Young Living on the deletion page? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Living Thanks so much for all your hard work on here!Christopher Lotito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Divide

Did you read the divide? If so, I was just wondering what you thought. Thanks Brontobytex2 (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Brontobytex2, I'm only on page 166. I will finish it. :) So far, I like it, and Crabapple's illustrations are amazing, and she should probably win an award for her work on this book. Taibbi's writing is compelling for the most part. On Wikipedia, I've written a little bit about programs like Changing Lives Through Literature. Although I haven't finished The Divide just yet, I doubt Taibbi covers the efficacy of alternative sentencing programs like bibliotherapy, but it would have made a nice addition to his book. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Militant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Scott Olsen, Occupy Oakland,

and particularly Law enforcement and the Occupy movement need updating, can you do it? Recent commentary[6] and the report described as forthcoming in these outdated articles [7]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you found User:Viriditas/Scott Olsen. I'll take a look today or tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pa'u riders

Hi. The usage of the okina template actually wasn't what me and Miller were disputing. The bigger argument not mentioned there seems to the interpretation of the current rules now on the wikiproject page and if the correct Hawaiian orthography should be used within the body of one particular article (see Talk:Pa'u riders#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Orthography: special characters — Spelling within the article). Miller maintains that main MOS overrides the rules in the Hawaii wikiproject page and that the spelling should follow what the title's spelling contrary to the current rule on this wikiproject which states the correct spelling should be used in the body of the article. Miller says this is a recommendation not a rule and doesn't follow main MOS. I agree that this isn't a mandatory policy but maintain the correct spelling should be used for Hawaiian cultural terms such as the article in question and should be an exception to whatever main MOS Miller is bringing up. My other arguments were that apostrophe shouldn't be used in place of the okina and that the okina shouldn't be used without the kahako (you should use both of them or none of them at all in words which employ both of them or ignore it all) because doing so it distorts the meaning of the word in the Hawaiian language. My concern is more about the spelling within the article not the title (although I still maintain that it should be Pau or Pāʻū, all or none). I see Pāʻū as Pau, or Paʻu with the okina but not the kahako, or Pa'u with the apostrophe as a disregard to the Hawaiian language. What is your opinion? We need another voice. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think my threading confused the discussion. I was responding to the original thread query.[8] Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I suspect that.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you go ahead and update the MOS per that query? Do we still need the okina template? I think the answer might be yes for browsers that don't support it, but I could be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think he has already to some extent. I honestly don't care that much about the policy. I am just concern about the apostrophe being used in place of okinas and halfway/inaccurate usage of the orthographical marks using okina or apostrophe without kahako where the kahako should be.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons I asked you to make a list of concerns on the talk page discussion is because I don't see anyone discussing that. I only addressed the issue I saw under discussion. Everything else seems quite nebulous. Could you make a list of issues and post it on the talk page discussion? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue on the apostrophe seems about resolved. You may be confused by the entire discussion because I've been arguing another issue alongside the issue about the apostrophe which is similar but not exactly the same. What is your opinion on partial usage of orthographical marks like Paʻu or Kekūanāoa and Kekauōnohi? All three of these examples are wrong in that it uses one orthographical mark but not the other. I created a subsection to address it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The article titles, Kekūanāoa and Kekauōnohi have no dispute that I know of in regards to the spelling of the names, however we need a reference to show the spelling is accurate. Do you have a sorce Kave for the doubt in the proper spelling of either name?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It is partial use of orthographical mark in the title and we are voting about it on "2. When using the kahako and okina for a word in article content or title that has both these marks, use both or neither." It should either be Kekauonohi or Kekauʻōnohi and Kekuanaoa or Kekūanāoʻa. We currently rarely use Kekūanāoa and Kekauōnohi except as pipelinks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• searching Kekauōnohi -Kekauonohi versus searching Kekauonohi -Kekauōnohi
• searching Kekūanāoa -Kekuanaoa versus searching Kekuanaoa -Kekūanāoa

All the results are glitchy for the ones with partial usage, even thoug they show a few books (three for Kekūanāoa and one for Kekauōnohi) none show the words or sentence that uses the spelling. You won't find it in Kamakau, Kuykendall or Pukui's dictionary as these results claim.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The titles of both those articles have no issue I am aware of. You are saying that the two titles have an issue based on an MOS interpretation being voted on. I understand. What I am saying is: a) There is title dispute as yet so try not to create or stir up a dispute if possible. b) You claim this is a partial use of the orthography. I understand that but cannot locate a source that uses an ʻOkina in the spelling of either name. What is your source for the spelling of the name with the ʻOkina. Without that there simply is no furthering such a discussion on spelling or orthography for, either a discussion of a consensus or guideline to change them or to use as an example for part of an argument for the MOS.

Oh is that what you are asking. Check the journal articles written in the Hawaiian Journal of History in the Hawaiian Historical Society and other sources written after the 1970s Hawaiian Renaissance (why?, see an explanation in a book about the Kingdom by Julia Flynn Siler, the Hawaiian Renaissance and the appreciation and interest of the Hawaiian language, history and culture which stemmed from it is the reason why editors of the Wikiproject (back in the days when it was more active) believed in ignoring the majority pre-1970s source which uses no okina and no kahako and follows the spellings of Hawaiian academics following this period who spell Hawaiian orthographically correct such as Mary Kawena Pukui, Lilikalā Kameʻeleihiwa and others I can't name now. Also Dr. Jon Kamakawiwoʻole Osorio, a student of Kameʻeleihiwa, and a famous professor of Hawaiian Studies at UH Manoa in his own right (I intend to create an article about him in the near future too), who uses the correct orthographical spelling throughout his book Dismembering Lāhui for all the chiefs and politicians from the beginning of the kingdom to 1887 including Kekauʻōnohi (27, 264, 305) and Kekūanāoʻa (118, 109 and a lot more pages, every page that mentions him basically). If you want me to list other sources. I would be glad to. I am no longer interested in arguing Pa'u rider's title so please stop trying to find hidden meanings or agendas within my responses. I was specifically speaking about Kekauōnohi and Kekūanāoa in my last two responses and nothing else. And base on the lack of sources for the current spellings of no okina and kahakos. I am going to move these two article to non-orthographical titles to aid in the process of searching but retain the correct orthographical spelling in the body of the articles, as is done for Liliuokalani. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I object to the move. All of the above does not demonstrate a particular standardization and seems to rely on a handful of spellings.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You have every right to do that. But I will request a move in fhe future for these two article and other like it base on what the source says.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't just claim a spelling, you have to demonstrate it is accurate and standard. If the names are not using the proper orthography and is, in fact, a partial use of the Hawaiian orthography, it should be changed to the proper spelling. But if, you are claiming that this, in anyway demonstrates that you have found some argument for or against the Paʻu rider title, no, you haven't. Hawaiian, any regional orthography other orthography does not take precedence over the proper spelling of personal names, place name and names of organizations or groups. No, Wikipedia should not try to "Correct great wrongs" and use editors to be bound by any guideline that disrespects the very culture it is supposed to be sensitive to, just for a perception of the correct, "across the board" usage of a spelling no matter what. If the native Hawaiian usage of a native Hawaiian organization or group is to use an apostrophe, it is acceptable to make that an Okina, that is pretty clear because that is what we know it stand in for. As for Kekūanāoa and Kekauōnohi, I don't have a problem with the current spelling, but if a source were found and demonstrated to be used in a frequent or standard manner, than I would be all for a change that would represent a correct spelling.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Jim Bartels

Hello. We talk about copyright issues before. Is it bad (I think it probably is) for me to just copy and paste the content from http://maoli.wikispaces.com/Jim Bartels to here as an article? Although the descent from John Young seems dubious and would be removed. It seems to be another form of Wikipedia. I don't care about taking credit for it. Or can the creator there copy and paste it here? Or is there some transfer device here on Wikipedia, kind of like images transfers on wikimedia or translating an foreign language Wikipedia, which allows for that. I just feel like Jim Bartels should have an article here, although I don't have the interest or time to create a new article from scratch about him.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is bad. Don't do it. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume so. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of things you can do. You can notify people (like myself) that you don't have time to create the article and point them to links like you did above. Maybe make a mention on the project page and see who will help out. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I am going to create a stub for now just because of his importance in our lifetime. And see from there. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that may not have been a good idea. I don't know if this figure is notable to Wikipedia standards and there may be some issues with sourcing.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Viriditas, you're a resident of Hawaii. Is Jim Bartels notable enough for a Wikipedia article and did I write his article in a non-neutral light?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good, but for those who ask, try to explain why he is notable, using the sources. He is famous as a local historian and curator. Further expansion should make this clear. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know how I can source he appeared on the 2003 documentary Conquest of Hawaii? Can worldcat.org or the documentary itself be used to sourced this? There is no secondary sources which mentions this but one can see and hear him in the video. I think finding books or news articles saying a person appeared in a video or movie is hard and never used for other articles on obscured stars who made cameos on Wikipedia, most are not even sourced showing a list of filmography. Am I allowed per Wikipedia's rules and policies to reinsert it as a sentence needing reliable sourcing? An article this size certainly does not need to have every sentence sourced with reliable sources, this is only a criteria I see on feature articles. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi

And thanks for letting me know about the discussion (I suggested naming it Anti-war, peace, and conflict studies). I love the quote on your user page going to the moon and discovering earth, I must have heard that before but never 'got it' until looking at your page. Thanks for that too! Randy Kryn 13:20 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny, you left me a message just as I was writing you on your page. :) Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I just saw that too. Yes, it's a nice sounding name, but I really think Anti-war has a meaning all it's own and could be included in an expanded title, no? There was a discussion of this somewhere (I almost never participate in these discussions, thanks for the alert) about redirecting peace activist to Peace movement which is only half-the-story. Sure, most anti-war activists want peace (or will hold their breath until it comes, RIP), but are focused on anti-war. Peace is a larger, more general term, imnho, and can include many things relating to nuclear issues, etc., yet war is war, as the retired Generals will tell you from their death-cots, and is a separate animal entirely. I like the idea of a larger title though (although I didn't even know a group existed and am usually not a group joiner on-line), so you've been thinking deeply about this it seems. Study anti-war no more? (lol). Randy Kryn 13:28 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Left a note on my talk page. I've been on a little anti-war roll since you wrote (check my contributions) and was wondering where I'd put my 10,000 edit and, thanks to you, used it to put the 'Anti-war' template on Phil Och's "The War is Over" page, one of the great songs and stories from Ochs' career. A sincere thanks. Randy Kryn 17:00 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How cool is that? Randy Kryn, have you thought about adding the anti-war project template to the talk page so that the project can see what is under its scope? The footer template in the article alone doesn't make it show up as part of the project, so we don't know about those articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(back from studying war no more) Hello. Except for the first line of your post I have no idea what you mean (what talk page, template, scope, articles, etc.), I'm not an active participant in any project here so have never gotten into the details (who arranges the parties and prints the tee shirts?), coding, or language. If you have a couple of minutes please explain, or just give me an example and I'll be happy to assist at some point. How active is the anti-war project, and what happens if someone jumps to the war project? There is one anti-war page I've played with, National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, that needs further expansion on each of its sections, as it covers and takes Wikipedia responsibility for several major anti-war demonstrations from the '60s. Has the group looked at that one? Thanks for dragging me away from the home-fire and into the trenches. Randy Kryn 10:56 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You're running the task force for Antiwar movements. :) I will have some questions for you soon. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a slight delay

I don't won't you to think I am ignoring your concerns so I wanted to mention that I have to take off for a while and may not get back to editing that article until the evening as there is a great deal of content and some other sources to add. I don't have an issue with calling Pauahi a legacy of the Kamehamehas. It could even be said (and possible referenced) that she was one of the more important legacies of the family, but certainly not the only part of their legacy. I don't have any bias for or against. While these are all distant relatives of myself I have no specific beliefs or understandings. Everything I know or learned has been in the past year. My only real concern is that the article be accurate and well sourced with proper context and information, prose etc.. Be back later this afternoon to begin.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I have about the same or similar content with more encyclopedic tone and reliable sources. I am still reading through that source I found that is really great and will be adding more content in a bit, but as always these things begin to branch out and I find other sources to also use along side, since the one source has tons of stuff on exactly how Pauahi is established as a legacy of the Kamehameha's so I tend to like to have other references as well. So, basically I am using this source as the over arching reference to most of the content and then expanding on sources further to back up claims so as to not use a single source for large chunks. I guess we can do that but, I like to see additional references when the content becomes very lengthy. Let me know if you have any concerns.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii material

Vol. 9 of "mythology of all races" is available at archive.org. Quite a few other documents relating to Hawaii are as well. It would certainly be possible to ask that the most useful of them that are available in .djvu format be added to wikisource, where I could at least start the effort of transcribin them so material from them could more easiily be added here. Feel free to add or request addition of files that you think would be useful and let me know which if any get added there. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a task for the WP:HAWAII project. I will take a look. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anglican Pacifist Fellowship may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref>http://ns1.c10hosting.net/~anglican/index.php/1/home Anglican Pacifist Fellowship website.]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Mauna Loa (Molokai)

Well, I suppose there'll always be someone who does not know that Molokai is a separate island and not in the Big Island. Just as there might be someone who does not know where Ontario is, so might think that London, Ontario refers to the place in England.

WP:NAMB tells us that you would not need a hatnote at all if the only possible confusion was with Mauna Loa. You would not need a hatnote note because the title Mauna Loa (Molokai) is already clearly disambiguated. But you do need a hatnote because the much greater risk of confusion is between Mauna Loa (Molokai) and Maunaloa, Hawaii, which is also on Molokai.--Mhockey (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. And while we could have both in the dab, I don't think anyone searching for Maunaloa, a town of 376 people, is going to confuse it with a volcano. They do not share the same name. On the other hand, Mauna Loa on Molokai is the same name as the volcano on the Big Island, and the talk page shows that they were indeed confused after you changed the dab. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bit you don't agree with. If you disagree with WP:NAMB, I suggest that you take it to the relevant talk page. Mauna Loa (Molokai) is not the same name as Mauna Loa, just as London, Ontario is not the same name as London, so does not need a hatnote. (The reverse is not true, because Mauna Loa could refer to the volcano on Molokai, and London could refer to London, Ontario.) On the other hand Maunaloa, Hawaii could certainly be confused with either volcano, which are both in Hawaii, so it has the right hatnote. You and I may know that one is spelt as one word and one as two words, but don't expect everyone to know. Put Maunaloa into Google and you'll get the volcano.

I don't think it's necessary to have both in the hatnote, but I have no great objection to that.--Mhockey (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that the volcano Mauna Loa, on either island, will be confused with the name of a small town called "Maunaloa", and we've already seen at least one person get confused when you attempted to implement your preferred change, so your theory was tested and falsified. I'm not sure why you still think someone searching for a volcano is going to actually be looking for a town that is virtually unknown, but I think you are mistaken. It is quite obvious that the potential to confuse two volcanoes of the same name on different islands is higher than confusing the name of a volcano with the name of a town on the same island, and we have evidence to prove it. It is safe to say that given the obscurity of the town, there is no potential for confusion. Again, the only reason I reverted you is because your changes caused confusion, and led other editors to mistake one volcano for another. This would not have happened if the original dab you removed had been left in place. I'm sorry, but I don't see any potential for confusion between an obscure town name and a volcano on the same island. While there is certainly room to link to it somewhere in the article, I think your proposal was given an adequate amount of time to test it out and has been shown to be wrong in practice, rather than the theory you defend. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the volcano Mauna Loa should not be confused with a town. But it's not obvious that the article title Mauna Loa (Molokai) refers to a volcano. It is obvious that it refers to something on Molokai. Both the town and the volcano are obscure compared with Mauna Loa on the Big Island, but that is not the point. It is reasonable to expect that a reader looking for the article on the town might land on this article. It is less likely that a reader looking for a volcano which is not on Molokai would land here. And I think you extrapolate too much from the mistake of one editor who did not know that Molokai was an island.--Mhockey (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you've thought this through. At least one editor did not know the famous volcano of Mauna Loa was on the island of Hawaii, not on the island of Molokai. However, this is probably a function of the search field, not the editor. Nobody is going to be looking for the ultra obscure town of Maunaloa when searching for Mauna Loa, and it doesn't even come up in the search field, so your argument isn't even valid. What does come up are two volcanoes, one on Molokai and one on the Big Island. In other words, placing a dab on the Molokai volcano pointing to a town, does nothing to help anyone, and I haven't a clue why you keep defending it. There is a huge difference between theory and practice, and you will need to bridge that gap to effectively use dab headers. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 04:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Viriditas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Nobel Laureates

At a minimum, my construction/locution is clearer than the present text. "Oldest ever Nobel laureate" is the kind of language that a good course in Freshman composition at any decent undergraduate college teaches one how to re-write; it is awkward and unclear, despite your insistence.

Further, Wiki has a policy of avoiding personal attacks. There is no need to do any more than explain your opinion. Sarcastic comments serve no purpose. I have two advanced degrees in scientific fields, so I think that I know when language can be improved. Be that as it may, I will not fight with you, and your vested interest in the sacred text as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.89.3 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Per your concerns, I have partially restored your previous edit. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

mail

Hey there -- I didn't receive any Wikipedia mail. You can try sending it direct to phoebe.ayers at gmail. Thx! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paul Conrad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paul Conrad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Moisejp. Take your time. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI

You reverted my edit with the other IP. Please be more careful in the future --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please register an account so another editor doesn't confuse you with another IP. Which is exactly what happened. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to take part in the community aspects of this website, particularly as the area that I edit in has a lot of openly sexist editors and it means forming an identity with them --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your position. But please, try to think it through. By not participating, you are enforcing the domination by the sexists. You have to act and make a choice in every situation. Not acting is a choice. And you have chosen to allow the sexists to rule. What would have happened if Rosa Parks got out of her seat and went to the back of the bus like she was told? Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I did have an account before but it was causing too much stress. It took days or weeks to get little changes made or argue against the constant ignorance and attempts to redefine gendered fields. I think the community here is already moving in this direction and it drains me having to argue against two or three of them by myself, when they claim consensus because they have more free time, even without sources. I will still put time into Wikipedia but there are too many of them here and I can see a trend setting --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for outstanding efforts on behalf of editors and the Encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Jim Cartar submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

My words cannot express what an excellent editor Viriditas is. An editor, joined over 9 years ago, now with over 100,000 edits (I have never seen him using AWB or any other automated tools). His words are so precious, so inspiring and so kind that any Wikipedian would like to frame his words. He is a perfect friend, perfect editor and a very kind person. He always helps new editors with patience and kind words. He is also an active GA reviewer. I'm glad to nominate him.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Viriditas

The foundations of the old Kamehameha I Brick Palace in Lahaina, Maui taken by Viriditas.

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 20, 2014

Known for his high quality contributions to articles and discussions, his diplomatic ability and going beyond the ordinary steps to improve the project.

Recognized for

his ease of collaboration, willingness to "find some free time" to assist editors, even off Wikipedia, with field work at local libraries and fulfilling image requests to improve articles. GA contributor as a reviewer and nominator. Collaboration on Hawaii and California related articles.

Notable work(s)

Ed Ricketts

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You really did deserve this and I am happy to have seconded the nomination and help fill out the content of the "Eddy" infobox. Congratulations Viriditas!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on being Editor of the Week! My review of Paul Conrad is taking longer than I thought simply because I've been pretty busy, and have only managed to get onto Wikipedia for short times. I hope to make some headway on the review this weekend. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Take as long you need. I'm busy too. :) Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Conrad

No matter how right you feel you are with your additions, please ensure that you are not engaging in edit warring behavior on Paul Conrad. Even though you haven't broken 3RR yet, it can still be considered edit warring. Thanks. —LucasThoms 03:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Uncalled for. It does not appear to be edit warring.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. While it was not edit warring yet, it could have easily devolved into that. In my warning, I did not say that it was edit warring. I think this editor definitely knows better than to edit war, but a reminder like this does absolutely no harm.—LucasThoms 04:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding...I still believe you need not have made the warning at all. And yes...it does do harm. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with your view on the purpose of messages like this. I personally view 3 reverts in a short period to be a lead-in to an edit war, but I can definitely see how it could be seen as otherwise. (Please don't read any of that as sarcasm. It might sound like it, but I'm actually being sincere.)—LucasThoms 04:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no sarcasm. I see concern. That is commendable.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In the future, I'll definitely be more careful about preemptively warning, especially when it comes to editors with this much experience. Thanks! —LucasThoms 05:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Frosty (Talk page) 09:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my thanks

Just my personal opinion, of course, and not an "official WMF stance", but I am with you 100%. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cebrennus rechenbergi

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thx Viriditas, great work :) --Sarefo (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

Biomimetics

Sorry that was not my intention to break things or cause work concerning this, I added comments to the talk section about the change after you mentioned it but nobody replied. I tried searching for 'change name' and a bunch of other variants on WP but did not think of trying 'move' and consequently didn't know about the history merging. Thanks for doing it the right way, I've commented on the subject, that's what I am supposed to do now correct? I have been away on research otherwise I would have replied a little sooner.SylvanD (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Iselle

I see it stalled over the big island last night and you're getting hammered. I know the water is out for you and you've got some severe flooding but when you get a chance let us all know you're safe. --v/r - TP 17:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: we are fine on Maui. I think the volcanoes ripped it apart, so we only got about an hour or so of rain in the south. Julio is still a threat so let's see what it does. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My recent edits

Do you think I'm getting too iron-fisted? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Do you mean Iron Palm (which is a good thing) or Dim Mak (probably not so good)? :) I guess if you have to ask, then do a diagnostic on your own thinking. Something like this, perhaps:

1. Did I get enough sleep last night?
2. Did I get any exercise yesterday?
3. Am I stressed out today?
4. Am I avoiding doing something important?
5. Am I in a good mood today?
6. Did I eat enough food today?
7. Did I drink too much caffeine/alcohol/other?

Depending on how you answer, you can self-adjust your own behavior. Now, putting that diagnostic checklist aside for the moment, your question applies to your approach to problem users. One thing you might do is look at your talk pages and logs and see if you can recognize any patterns. If you do, you could create specialized templates that might "pad" your iron fist (a good thing) with a velvet glove. On the other hand, you might decide to change your focus and work on something more enjoyable to you until you feel differently. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Did I get enough sleep last night? I'm an on an off sleeper, but it adds up.
• Did I get any exercise yesterday? Plenty
• Am I stressed out today? Never
• Am I avoiding doing something important? No
• Am I in a good mood today? Always
• Did I eat enough food today? Yes
• Did I drink too much caffeine/alcohol/other? No

I like your idea about checking my log for patterns. But really, what do you think? Do I seem the same as before? Am I getting nasty? And speaking of Touch of Death, someone sneezed in my face last week, and I felt that I had a touch of death for a few days afterward. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Anna, just in case, take a look at the article on sleep debt and review the image in the lead. :) I forgot to also mention, make sure you have a comfortable pair of shoes. People get awfully irritable in bad shoes. I don't think you are any different (except for the third arm you are growing and that horn coming out of your forehead) and you don't seem nastier; but if you are truly concerned, why not take a break from admin duties for a week and just do something else for a while? Did you listen to the BBC program about Wikipedia tonight? They talked about a lot of interesting ideas. Sugata Mitra was on talking about self-organized learning environments (SOLE) which made me think that's a huge missing piece of Wikipedia. For example, let's say someone wanted to learn about sea slugs. How would they go about doing it, besides just reading the article? Is there a list of key concepts, or a roadmap they could follow? What about a guide that could navigate them through the subject matter? Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The shoes are fine. I only wear fancies once in a while because I don't want to get squishytoe. Sleep debt, hmmmmm, I think I'm okay there. I'm not unhappy with my admin calls. I just need regular feedback to know I'm not drifting. I will try to get the BBC bit. You know, I was the one who found the Mitra's image for the article. I've listened to some of his talks. I like him, though he has a funny breathing/slurping thing when he talks that is sort of distracting. I'll think about that self-organized thing. Interesting. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll bet his breathing thing is from sleep apnea! ;) I'll try and find you the audio link the BBC program. I know it's around somewhere. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I know a special someone with sleep apnea. And yelling "HEY!" is not a cure, but it is good way to treat it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sharp nails on their back does the trick too! :) Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Easter Island Syndrome listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Easter Island Syndrome. Since you had some involvement with the Easter Island Syndrome redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ÷seresin 06:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ten Steps

Wolf outlines ten steps that "closing societies" — such as Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Stalin's Russia — have historically followed. These steps, Wolf claims, are being observed in America now.

The steps are:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors.
10. Suspend the rule of law

Your GA nomination of Paul Conrad

The article Paul Conrad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paul Conrad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations from me personally (not the bot)! Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your hard work, Moisejp. I hope you don't mind if I ask you for advice now and then...BTW, if you have some good ideas for a DYK, let 'em rip. Feel free to nominate if you so desire, I don't mind. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, I'd be flattered if you ask for my advice now and then! Maybe I'll ask for your advice sometimes too if that's cool. As for DYK, I've never actually tried that yet in my years as a Wikipedian. Maybe I ought to sometime. Moisejp (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)