User talk:Viriditas/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Niihau reverts

Hi Viri, how's it? I notice you just reverted some changes at Niihau. These are the exact same changes that this person User 71.203.113.52‎ has been making. So let's keep an eye on it and if it happens again I'd assume it's the same person. Hope you're doing well. I am taking the bar exam at the end of this month!!! I should be studying right this minute. By for now. Makana Chai (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there! It's been a while, hasn't it? Thanks for keeping me in the loop about Niihau. Good luck on the bar, but I'm sure you won't need it. I know you will do just fine. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

responce

I was thinking of making new articles for each rebellion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that might solve the infobox problem! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is this Scibaby

Who is this Scibaby everyone keeps mentioning? She must be pretty famous around here, since I keep hearing her name! Pat Wynnon (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Old photos

Please do not remove tags, unless you are able to provide a source for the image :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide at least some indication of the publication/website or archive from which the 19th Century image was obtained. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you. What is it about the current source that doesn't meet your standards? Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

legitimate comment?

No, I don't think so. Did you read his "legitimate comment"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And what's the procedure when it happens to me? I didn't see you catch that earlier. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Erik's been taking down stuff I wrote on quite a few pages for the better part of the day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Invest in a dictionary

Perhaps English is not your first language. The primary meaning of prophet is and always has been a spokesman for God (or a god); one who predicts things is a secondary and derivative meaning. See [1]. If it wasn't clear enough from the context of the discussion, my explanation as to why Buddha couldn't have been a prophet made it explicit which meaning I was using.

You owe me an apology. A.J.A. (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your "primary meaning" exists only inside the confines of your own head. This is, of course, the problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you, I provided a source. A.J.A. (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The "dictionary" does not support your interpretation, and the secular literature is full of examples disputing your claim. Viriditas (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration."

"1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed."

That's what the dictionaries say. A.J.A. (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Or by divine inspiration". Enough already. Quoting the dictionary is just about the last refuge of someone who has no argument. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what quoting "or by divine inspiration" accomplishes.

I have cited a source, you have made assertions without any support, and then denied that the dictionary supported my "interpretation". In fact, it was almost word for word the same. That means you lied, Veriditas, when you said it didn't. Now you make the very fact that I have accurately cited a source (which you have failed to do) somehow a point against me. Admit you were wrong, apologize for the false accusations, and begin discussing this in good faith, please. A.J.A. (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. We don't cite dictionaries on Wikipedia when we are dealing with words, concepts, and ideas as used by specific groups of people in relation to specific beliefs and practices. We cite the relevant literature, i.e. books, articles, studies, reports, etc. Your pet definition has nothing to do with the article Buddhism and Christianity and the very definition you cited says that a prophet also speaks "by divine inspiration", contradicting your claim about a primary definition. The fact is, there are many different dictionaries, and all of them use different primary definitions. You are only serving to distract from the fact that you misrepresented the religion of Buddhism by trying to project your own personal beliefs on to who can be called a prophet and who can't. We don't deal with personal beliefs on Wikipedia, we deal with sources - sources relevant to the topic. Please stop quoting the dictionary like a 14-year old child. It is tiresome. I am close to telling you to go to bed without supper. Viriditas (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that would be original research. The relevant expert on the usage of a word is a lexicographer, as in, the writer of a dictionary.

Dictionary.com has two sets of definitions listed, and both have substantially the same primary definition. You obviously misunderstand "divine inspiration" somehow, if your comment is even sincere.

This is far afield of your original uncivil remark, accusing me of ignorance because of your faulty assumption concerning what I must have meant by "prophecy". I corrected you, and pointed out that my usage is standard English. You have said nothing to dispute this point except lie about what the dictionary says and then insist it's irrelevant because there's more than one usage. But my usage is still normal English and your remark was uncivil and mistaken. You still owe me an apology. A.J.A. (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, go to your room. No soup for you. Viriditas (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Admit you were wrong. A.J.A. (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your own "definition" contradicts your claim, so you are the one who is wrong here. The fact is, the secular sources refer to the Buddha as a "prophet" and contrary to your claim about the lack of prophecies, the Buddhist tradition has a rich history of them, the Maitreya is only one example. So, I think it is clear who is "wrong" here. You made a ridiculous claim about Buddhism and it turned out to be false. You also made a claim about Christianity, as if you were in a position to speak for the 1-2 billion adherents. I suppose the concept of a free thinking individual who has a personal relationship with their own understanding of religion separate and apart from official dogma must frighten you. We can't have people thinking for themselves now, can we? Clearly, you will tell people what to think, and they must listen to you. Right? Viriditas (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I never made any claim about the presence or lack of Buddhist prophecies in the sense of predictions. Another false claim from you. Your stuff about Christianity doesn't follow from anything.

In order for your claims to be true, you would need for "prophet" to only mean a maker of predictions or someone inspired in the loose sense of "inspiration" you seem to have in mind. But the primary meaning is someone who speaks on behalf of God or a god; even though other meanings exist, I am entitled to use the primary meaning. You are not entitled to decide for me that I must have meant some other usage that would have justified your uncivil remarks. A.J.A. (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You most certainly did make claims, and you made them here: (1) Christians do not usually refer to Jesus as a prophet without immediately aso specifying that He is more, and 2) Buddhism is not theist and therefore has no concept of prophecy. [2] You then tried to define "prophet" and "prophesy" to suit your belief system. Did you check the Oxford English Dictionary? Here's what we find from the Compact OED: 1 an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. 2 a person who predicts the future. 3 a person who advocates a new belief or theory. ORIGIN Greek prophetes ‘spokesman’.[3] So, we see that your primary definition has now faded into nothing. An inspired teacher sounds a lot like Śākyamuni (sage of the Shakyas), also known as a spiritual teacher, or more to the point, the awakened one or the enlightened one. A.J.A., you're done here. Viriditas (talk)

Of course I made claims, just not the one you attributed to me.

It seems you've decided to become childish like me by citing sources and abandon your mature practice of stamping your feet and shouting. Unfortunately, you don't know what you're doing. I've already established that my usage is a standard English usage. Proving that other usages exist is not the same as refuting my already established point, rhetorical flourishes about fading into nothing aside. In order to justify yourself you would need to prove that I could only have meant inspired leader (in the loose sense). But my already-cited sources prove otherwise. A.J.A. (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The claims were made you in the edit summary of an article, and were directly attributed to you using a diff.[4] Your usage is not "standard English usage" by any means, and the compact OED alone lists an "inspired teacher" before your pet definition. The word "prophet" doesn't even mean what you say it means. In a nutshell, the problem at hand is that you are continually trying to evaluate non-Christian religions using your own Christian POV. That's not how we write articles on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You have now spent hours debating against me about the meaning of my own edit summary, Now you're telling me I'm wrong about what I meant because the OED listed some other meaning ahead of the one that makes any sense in the context of theism vs. nontheism, which is what my summary was about. Give it up man, you made a mistake. A.J.A. (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I've spent hours waiting for you to address your concerns on Talk:Buddhism and Christianity, and you've wasted my time arguing about a dictionary definition. My only mistake was in assuming you were serious about the topic. Obviously, you aren't. Again, taking your Christian perspective of "theism" and trying to evaluate Buddhism with your POV is not how we write articles on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I said and threw out an insult. I corrected you. You didn't have to spend the rest of your time throwing a long series of disingenuous attacks out to somehow salvage the original insult. Now we have this stuff about evaluating Buddhism, which is made up out of thin air. This is why I'm not willing to try to persuade you to write a fair article, or to sit by while I write one. You're too much of a fanatic for any attempt at dialogue to be worthwhile. A.J.A. (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood a single thing, and being called a fanatic by you is the funniest thing I've read in years. I'm looking forward to your next one-liner. As for trying to "persuade" me, exactly what are you trying to persuade me of here? That your narrow, singular view of religion is accurate? That your chosen, pet definition of words that are used to apply to all religions, not just Christianity, is off the mark? You appear to be on the wrong site. On Wikipedia, we actually write articles based on sources, good sources. We don't try to "persuade" people based on our personal belief system, nor do we quote dictionaries to prove to others that our personal belief system is valid. Leave your personal beliefs at the door, please. They have no place here. Viriditas (talk)

On my Talk page you're complaining that I only apply the definition to Christianity. Here, you complain that I apply it to other religions. Over there, you make another faulty appeal to a dictionary, even after I explained why it doesn't to rescue your uncivil accusations. Here you're back to attacking dictionaries altogether. Do you even know what you're trying to say? A.J.A. (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please. If you can't follow two discussions, you have no business commenting. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories on Hapa

Hello, I noticed you removed the categories "Ethnic groups in the United States" and "Multiracial affairs" from the article Hapa. I was wondering what your reasoning was for this. Tweisbach (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the full edit history. I replaced those categories with Category:Hawaiian words and phrases and Category:Ethno-cultural designations. Hapa is not an ethnic group, and I'm not entirely clear on the purpose or the scope of the category "multiracial affairs". Perhaps you could shed some light on this. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dusting this off

		The Everglades Barnstar
		"It's curious that the ignorance about the Everglades has persisted all these years"—Marjory Stoneman Douglas, 1987. Thank you, Viriditas, for helping in our small wiki-corner, to right that wrong. For constructing Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport. --Moni3 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently commented that no one cares about the Everglades, using evidence by the lack of reaction to the articles and their low page hits. When I wrote and worked with a handful of editors to get five articles on the Everglades featured, I created this barnstar. I'm glad someone else is hammering away on the topic. It's good reason to dust it off and hand it out. Limited edition, even. Not worth much more, but kinda cool. --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, Moni3! The stub I created needs some serious work, but it's a start. Feel free to make any changes, take over the reins, or provide guidance on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a slog of my own right now. I see your reference list, and it looks pretty good. I wouldn't have given the barnstar if I thought you were on the wrong track. I have to backburner assistance until I can surface from this rewrite in a week or so. Maybe more, depending on how things go. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the barnstar! :) Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Leopold Report

Hi, Viriditas. When you place the article on hold, could you tell me what exactly needs to be done in order for the article to be promoted? I gather that most of your comments are only suggestions for future improvement. I don't have the time or inclination to research and write an FAC, so most of that will have to wait. María (habla conmigo) 15:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look a the current review at the top, the icons will show you that I'm currently reviewing for only two items, well written prose and focused coverage. I've commented on both items on the talk page and when I'm finished, I'll either pass it or put it on hold based on those items. The article was 13 kB when I started the review, which is fairly brief for an important article of this magnitude. I'm going to attempt to finish up by midnight my time tonight. Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's an important article, and I appreciate your help. BTW, by now you've made three times as many edits as I have. Were I to nominate this for FAC tomorrow, people would complain that I'd be stealing your thunder. ;) María (habla conmigo) 14:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I refuse to take any credit for this article, as I'm merely doing a copyedit. Anyway, I'll be finished with the review in five minutes. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I had this problem with both Bob Marshall (wilderness activist) and Robert Sterling Yard after they passed GAC. There really should be a section that includes ecological/conservation studies and initiatives. For now "North American history" might be the best bet. Thanks again for your help! María (habla conmigo) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess -- I honestly have no clue! If you have a better idea, feel free to move things around. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for attention

Dear Viriditas

Thank you for support. It seams that I have to wait for some time when there will be third party publications. --Ivan Kirillov (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Ivan Kirillov

Let me know if you need my help in any way. Viriditas (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: AMNation

In regards to your edit removing the link to the police report, I understand your reticence at using the source being a right-wing biased org, but the information (ie., the police report w/redaction) appears to be legit and supports the initial claim of police responding to a B&E call. If less necessary in the article, it might serve as an external link. Can I ask how you are basing your belief that the site is not an acceptable source? I don't recall Amnation coming up before in the RS noticeboard. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at the above post? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wedding industry

Hi there. Thanks for the note about the above article. Yes, i was aware that this article could have been quick-failed, and that would have been my normal course of action; however I am aware, from a posting by Piotrus (?) a while back on the GAN talk, that there are some assignment-driven articles coming through of which I believe this is the first. I want to post to him before I take further steps, as well as giving the group of students some time to react before proceeding. I think it may help them 'learn the ropes' better if the full review process gets followed, and I won't be deviating from the usual standards when it comes to whether the article gets rated GA or not (at this stage, as you can imagine, I expect not). If I do, I'm sure someone will take it up at GAR :-) Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. I wish we had more editors with your attitude. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonestown Peer review

I made some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jonestown/archive1 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

GoldDragon

My experience with him has been limited to articles about Canadian politics, where I admit that I have found him little interested in either NPOV or BLP. I had a cursory look at his Gates edits and, while it looks to me as though you were right to revert them (especially the copyright one), I'm not sure they're all that flagrant. Have you observed a broader pattern of edits and, if so, could you supply me with some example edits? I vaguely remember going through some of his contributions months ago and finding that most of the time when he wasn't editing on Canadian politics his edits were okay, if a little grammatically questionable, but that could have changed or my investigation could have been too cursory. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See [5]. The user continues to deliberately add false information without proper sources to Henry Louis Gates and Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that President Obama, despite the lack of facts, made a statement calling the police actions stupid, so several figures from law enforcement criticized him for taking sides. It didn't diffuse the controversy that Obama also admitted that he didn't have all the facts, it is because he went ahead anyway to make an initial judgment. GoldDragon (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You distorted a citation, you misattributed a quote, and you pushed a POV. Those are the facts. Your edits cannot be trusted to be accurate or neutral. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack Herer

There is no source saying he is still alive on the article, but i am finding conflicting reports about his condition. I know people who know him personally and as far as they know he died a few hours ago, but according to Marc Emery he's still alive. Yonskii (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Revolution of 1954

This was a real kick in my face! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you are still working on articles. I see some cleanup issues, but I won't get to it until later this week. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - July 2009

The July 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16(talk)

Nightmarchers

Aloha Viri! I took the first day of the bar exam today and it was good fun! Not ready to jump into WP yet, but have you seen the recent edits to nightmarchers? It definitely needs help. Mahalo for all you're doing here. Makana Chai (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Makana. I'll try and talk to the user first. So, at what point can I start calling you "my attorney"? :) Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Citat that policy and/or guideline, pls

Regarding this edit, as I am inclined to revert it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I've replied on my talk. Mattnad (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied again. Mattnad (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

re:Gates

Thanks for your comments, I been in a wikibreak and articles from Puerto Rico are deep in POV, need some heavy cleaning, but I will look into Gates sometime soon. Im amazes how a nation can be so polorized, is like Latinos we are the hidden minority. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. I can't make any guarantees, but I will certainly take a look at the situation and see if I can be useful. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to help out in the effort. I sincerely appreciate it. I can think of two tasks that would be extremely helpful. One is immediate and the other relatively short term. If you could provide a GA/FA style review, detailing where the main article falls short of our good standards and what steps can be taken to repair the shortcomings, that would be greatly appreciated. I am also setting up a collaboration working group for Falun Gong at WP Religion. We will need some help and input regarding project guidelines for the topic area. If you could start putting some thoughts about what policies (or guidelines) most need clarification or explicit guidance for the area, I would find that most helpful. (If you could create some draft suggestions, "helpful" would fall short in describing their utility.) On the latter point, you may want to brainstorm a bit with John Carter (talk · contribs), as he is quite experiened with WikiProject work and is also helping out as a new/outside editor. The review would be most immediately helpful, but if you could assist on both fronts it would be fantastic. Please let me know what you have the time, energy, and will to do. If I could help provide more specific boundaries or clarify anything, please let me know. Again, thanks for offering to assist! --Vassyana (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now I'm in the middle of finishing up two GA's (active on only one at the moment), and trying to help improve Niihau, but I'll promise to take a closer look at the Falun Gong article tomorrow and get back to you with a more informed answer. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. May I have your permission to link User:Viriditas/Falun Gong at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group#Peer review? --Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My review is not yet finished, and I was hoping to stay as far away as possible from interacting with any Falun Gong members in order to maintain my neutrality (too late apparently, as one has just commented on my review page after seeing the link on your talk page). In any case, I need some time to finish the review. I am, however, deeply troubled by what I see, and the lack of critical thinking and healthy skepticism is frightening. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Take whatever time you need to complete your review. I agree there is a lot to be concerned about in the topic, but the process of new/neutral editors and outside review is intended to help mitigate that. If nothing else, the heavy focus on collaboration and content should make disruptive editors stand out clearly by improving the signal to noise ratio. --Vassyana (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the page has improved somewhat and page protection has helped encourage more discussion. Unfortunately, there are several active SPA, solely devoted to advocacy, and this is a problem that Wikipedia has not been able to deal with in an efficient, competent manner. These types of editors are more suited to advisory roles on related WikiProjects rather than as content contributors. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates again

It doesn't look like anyone told you about [6]. Too late to be exciting now William M. Connolley (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

List of beaches in Hawaii

Hiya Viriditas, I notice that you are pretty active on List of beaches in Hawaii, so I thought I would drop you a note. I have revamped it to put the beaches in sortable wikitables, rather than just a numbered list, that way they can be sorted by name or location. I also added a "Notes" section for any alternative names or other interesting information. Total length would be an interesting field to add if we could find it.

Another thing I did was remove the division by "District" from the Oahu list, I haven't been able to find anything that says what "District" means, there is no Districts of Oahu, or Districts of Hawaii, I am assuming they are Census-designated places, such as 'Ewa Beach, Hawaii. I am not opposed to re-adding the divisions, it is pretty simple to split the table up into the ~5 categories that it was before, but a little explanation about what is meant by "District" would be helpful.

And one more thing, I hadn't realized that you had them listed in order, clockwise, so I had mad Niʻihau alphabetical, I think I fixed it, but sometimes I don't read as well as I should. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work. The word "district" in this context refers to the Hawaiian word moku. These moku were further divided into ahupuaa, the names of which are still in use today. There are many things about Hawaii that are still framed in terms of Hawaiian culture and history, and this can be very confusing for mainlanders. I'll try and explain it in more detail. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sound's good, I split up Oahu again, perhaps location should refer to the city/town the beach is in, while it is sorted by district. I will leave that up to your call. Also I have a question about Mokuʻula, the lead of the article says it is an island buried under an abandoned baseball field in Lahaina. Is that right? Seems odd to me, isn't Lahaina all on the island of Maui, I suppose that there could be small islands off the coast that are included in the CDP and the historic city, (probably the case), but under a baseball field? That maybe should have some sort of explanation...I am going to see if I can find anything that references it, but if you know anything about it I would appreciate any information. --kelapstick (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did a bit of checking, and now understand. Probably should have done that before asking, I am thinking the baseball part should be in some sort of history section, or a timeline, since it is rather dominating int the lead....Not sure what the right answer is though.--kelapstick (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The lead should present a general overview of the topic first, and mention the specific nature of the location later. Good catch. So far, your judgment on editorial matters appears sound. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You've been reported again for edit warring.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Viriditas. Per the above you've been notified of the complaint about you at WP:AN3. The evidence on the article's talk page is not very favorable to your case, and an admin who wanted to cite you for edit warring would find plenty of ammunition there. Since the AN3 is still open, how would you like to make a conciliatory statement that might allow the case to be closed with no action? For example, you could agree to stop warring on the 'Beer summit' section title or any of the other issues currently on the Talk page. The steps of WP:DR would still be open to you. For example, you could open a formal WP:RFC if you think you can get the consensus changed. If you agree, and if I am the closer, I'd be inclined to close the report with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pinky the Cat

Thanks for creating this article. Pinky is classic, and that is one of the funniest videos! : ) --MPerel 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, stranger. Good to see you again in these here parts. I'm just now getting to expanding the lead, so if you want to help me, please feel free. :-) Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Loved that book

Thanks for the note -- I loved that book! Amazing what people do with their lives. Best wishes, Renee (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll help when I can on Three Cups of Tea. Love, love, love the photograph at the top of this page. Renee (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops (re: Pinky)

Ah jeez, my bad, I was going to replace it with a YouTube link, since the article talks about it being a YouTube phenomenon, but then I totally spaced out and forgot to finish what I started. Sorry about that, I'll just put them both there. Master Deusoma (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. BTW, did you know there is a high-quality version of the video online? I have been reluctant to link to it or grab screenshots from it until I can determine if we can use it on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it is an edited version that deletes the part right after the first bite. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force

Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: {{Wikipedia ads|ad=190}}

Wikipedia ads	file info – #190

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bold As Love - Moving

Hello! Why those pages have been re-redirected? Did I write something wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan8700 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As I said on your talk page, your page moves appear to be incorrect. What sources are you using for your page moves? And if you are using recordings you own, which recordings? As far as I can tell, the page names were correct (according to sources and recordings) before you moved them. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

From here, for instance, and also from the back cover. "Be sure before moving!", I should say! :) [7] --Dan8700 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be the Polydor, European version of the album which has misprinted the song titles. It's not a "misprint" so much as they have taken it upon themselves to correct the song titles for grammar (spelling out numbers less than ten, changing "you" to "you've", "floatin'" to "floating"). None of the Hendrix sources that I'm aware of support this name change. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even Barclay report them in that way. However, it doesn't matter to me so much, so here, let's forget it for this time. Regards. --Dan8700 (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then it appears to be an error duplicated by Barclay. The original song titles are "If 6 was 9" and "You got me floatin'". Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Counterculture of the 1960s

You are quite correct in Your rv. I misread the intro and so on. Bahh.... it happens. Thanks for noticing. Best, feydey (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As to your new concerns on "worldview:" it might be better for a contributor to bolster in writing the notion that 1960s counterculture was not primarily US-centric, rather than detract from the attempt at history as presented in the article. Simply saying that something was truly international does not make it so. Certainly, there were countercultural activities in Europe, etc. That fact should be better documented by a writing contributor. Does a lack of that equate with a need to detract from what was happening in the US, in this case in deference to an unwritten, undocumented vision of some global counterculture? I don't know, but flagging the site because you don't think it's global enough seems to be an easy alternative to not simply adding the global perspective you deem significant and necessary to the article. Just food for thought. I sincerely continue to appreciate you watching the article. BTW, I signed this post with 4~, so if they don't show (as usual), I don't know why. Leaner001

You've got the wrong guy. I did not "flag the site". Those tags were added by 86.138.73.140 (talk · contribs). See here. Viriditas (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it, but check it, I thought it went back to you. I don't care. No hard feelings in any event. I just want us to be sure this article is as good as possible. I don't have the energy to quibble if someone like you is not going to defend it. So please continue to do so. signed, but won't reg, so: Learner001

Gates controversy

A friendly reminder here. It's hard to keep count but please do be very careful to avoid even a technical violation of WP:3RR on this page - noting all the high speed editing of several editors, article probation, etc. You might want to take a break and make clear that you're not going to edit war. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to Jimbo on this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." The information I removed was not found in the source provided and was an opinionated commentary about a notable, living person, namely, the President of the United States. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you exceed 3RR in process of reverting edits that you claim are BLP violations, but on which others reasonably differ, you are at risk of being blocked. The same could be said for vandalism, sockpuppetry, cleaning up messes, copyediting, mere technical violations, etc... best to stay away from the close cases. I'm not disputing the validity of your edits -- I generally aprove -- just a friendly reminder as I said because I don't want to see you run into any trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've replied on my talk page. You'll see that I try to be conservative in what I add to an article and my response to your query is in that spirit.Mattnad (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will respond to your comment later tonight or tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

WP:AGF. Please read it. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayhawker

See changes I made on article Jayhawker and discuss on Talk:Jayhawker Cuprum17 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Full version of NICE to be released

Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have completed the survey. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You have been added to the full feature set. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ho'oponopono

Aloha Viriditas, Wonder if you would have a look at ho'oponopono. A couple of us have been working on it and feel pretty good about it, but it always helps to have an unbiased eye reviewing it. We'd like to get some photos of the people mentioned but still working on that. Thanks for your help. Makana Chai (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Makana. I'll take a look in a few hours.  :) Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Lot of stuff to address. I'm not sure if you want me to just go ahead and edit or make a list of things that I see needing work. Let me know which you would prefer. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't respond sooner - I missed this somehow. I would prefer a list if that's okay. Mahalo, Makana Chai (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I knew you would, that's why I asked. :) I'll put something together and drop you a note when I'm done. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahalo. It's only because I'm working with another editor, and we've sweated over it quite a bit...Makana Chai (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I know! We're on the same page. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: General purpose banner

See my response to your comments on my talk page. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I got that bug figured out as well. See my comments. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Jupiter Brain

Thank you for your efforts to improve the Jupiter Brain article. The difficulty with that article, and several other futurology-related articles that I'd written in my early days of editing, is that it's very hard to establish notability of these articles to an extent that will satisfy uninvolved editors. The key to doing this will be to find bona fide published articles in reputable/mainstream journals (or near enough to mainstream) that use the terms in question, and then to ensure that the content of the article mostly reflects the contents of these publications (vs. what amounts to an extended "in popular culture" section, for Jupiter Brain). I'm no longer in a position to devote the time needed to do a literature search to build this type of reference list, and unless it's done, quite a few articles (computronium, femtotechnology, maybe picotechnology, and maybe others) will vanish from Wikipedia. I wish you luck, but am bowing out at this point due to semi-retirement from editing. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. If you have time, please make a comprehensive list of articles that need work, and I'll try to help out or ask other WikiProjects to collaborate. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time. I suggest looking over all of the articles in Category:Futurology. There are only a few dozen, so checking for adequate referencing shouldn't take excessive amounts of effort. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the pointer. I'll create a watchlist based on the contents of that category. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actual references in the Jupiter Brain article would still be helpful. Right now, we have a single essay, and I strongly suspect the article will be deleted. I'd oppose a merge with Matrioska Brain, as they're really very different concepts (related in that they're both attempts to optimize for computation, but that's about it). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic banned from Orly Taitz

I'd really rather not do this, but you are topic banned from Orly Taitz and associated pages until you feel you are able to communicate in a constructive and positive manner. When you're ready to discuss problems, rather than editors, simply drop a note on my talk page asserting your desire to so focus in the future. Note specifically that you are not expected to change the content of your objections for this topic ban to be lifted, merely their presentation. Dissent is absolutely welcome, assertions of cherry-picking, wikilawyering, and the like are not. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is absurd, and I do not recognize your so-called "topic ban". I have made it very clear that I have no interest in editing that article, but rather having my criticisms addressed on the talk page. You are an involved editor on that discussion. Furthermore, your attempt to squash debate on that talk page by "topic banning" me from a dispute you are intimately involved with is laughable. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator I am unbanning you from the Orly Taitz article, talkpage and associated pages - including those of contributors to the article - per your request at ANI. I would note that I express no opinion as to the appropriateness of your questions regarding the topic, only that Jclemens was incorrect to enact such a ban where they are a major contributor to the article and that the concerns they raised are those pertaining to interactions between you and them. Should this matter be raised in an appropriate manner I may or may not support such a topic ban, depending on the examples provided and policies involved, or may not participate at all. I shall note my decision to Jclemens immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Kirk Caldwell

Hello Viriditas, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Kirk Caldwell has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - state reps are normally considered notable & this one appears to have plenty of coverage (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q="Kirk Caldwell" hawaii&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Photograph request: Hawaiian Airlines HQ

Is the Hawaiian Airlines HQ convenient to where you are located? If so, would you mind photographing it? The article needs a photo of its headquarters. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your original request on the project page, as well as on User talk:Arjuna909 and in the category, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hawaii, so I'm already aware of the request. The person you want to contact is User:Joel Bradshaw. He's currently in the process of taking many photographs of Oahu, so if you ask him nicely, I don't see why he would object. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) I left a request note on Mr. Bradshaw's talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You might get a better response if you explain to him in e-mail, what you are trying to do and why you need a photograph. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fulmoth Kearney

Many sources within this article, including the ancestry section, doesn't mention Ann Dunham specifically. That's not really a reason. Ann Dunham's Irish roots are discussed quite a lot in Ireland and worth a mention.66.185.217.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

Trout Mask Replica

I hope this edit summary[8] was supposed to be "assess"...

Anyway, this article is a gradual long-term project of mine. It would be great to have a prominent article on this very important and influential album. Any suggestions for improvement would be much appreciated. Best - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It looks good so far, but lacks references. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK for Aniru Conteh

Sure, you can revert all my edits and comments there, if this matters anything. My time settings were showing me 8 september as the dates. Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the catch

Thanks for catching the broken ref in Ann Dunham that I inadvertently left - I must have been section-editing and forgot to go back and see the big red error message! Tvoz/talk 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Move

Hello Viriditas, I see you've moved the article on Obama's fake-State of the Union speech, but if you look at the talk page that discussion was still unresolved. Joshdboz (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My move does not have anything to do with that discussion, nor does it change the outcome in any way. I have addressed the move on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't think that I'm criticizing the move, I'm just saying that the original poster had listed 3 possibilities, one of which is the one you happened to choose, so next time it might be helpful to give a heads up on the talk page first. There isn't much rush considering there isn't even an article yet on this second speech. Joshdboz (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page after the move (only ten minutes before the new speech) and I created the new article. You all had plenty of time to change the title, and the time has come to disambiguate. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, I hadn't realized you created a new article. I just saw the move without explanation and wondered what was up. Thanks. Joshdboz (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"You Lie" by congressman wilson

Your source is only the text of the bill. It is not a proper reference for things said during President Obama's speech. Please remove, as improperly sourced potentially defamatory matierial is a BLP violation. — Mike :  tlk  01:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously in error. The source is the Associated Press, the incident was captured on film and audio, and it is currently being covered by every major media organization in the world. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to these [9] [10]. Which, at the time you added them and I posted my comment, had no AP link. It's fine now. — Mike :  tlk  01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama Healthcare speech

Sorry, don't know how to do this. Can you fix the URL to take out the comma after "Congress"? It is breaking links that I send for this wonderfully up-to-date article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.219.23 (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow up Obama speech

I was talking about this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_speech_to_joint_session_of_Congress,_September_2009

That comma after "Congress" breaks an emailed or posted link.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.219.23 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

another follow up

Correction....seems only to break the link on Facebook. So, don't mess with it, in case many others have bookmarked as is.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.219.23 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009

I have nominated Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. L0b0t (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wichita

http://www.videosurf.com/video/obama-kansas-to-the-capital-part-ii-58173163 Check it out Cladeal832 (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Of course, I've never head of KAKE-TV, but they are doing a fabulous job. That human interest story was very professional and engaging. Apparently, people in Wichita, Kansas have it together. Thanks for sharing that. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

HAPPI is ready for use

Hello, Viriditas. You expressed some interested in one of the interface modifications I was building a couple of weeks ago. Well, HAPPI is finally ready for some real world testing. Would you be interested in giving it another try and letting me know what you think? --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: NICE error messages

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at EpochFail's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Good to be back. Sure looks like there's a lot to do. Seems like I may need to call upon your voice of reason to help resolve some potentially sticky content-related issues in the not-too-distant future. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

I don't suppose you know to what degree - if any - Wiktionary is viewed as a WP:RS? --Gene_poole (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends in what context. Are you talking about a RS in terms of using it in a Wikipedia article, or outside the site? Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RS in terms of use in a WP article. I'm talking specifically of the definition of the term "micronation", which is currently causing a few editors some angst. There's a listing in Wiktionary which would solve the problem, if we can use it. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend against using Wikipedia (or its sister projects) to cite Wikipedia. If you can explain the problem in some way, I might be able to help. If we are talking about definitions, have you started with the OED? That's the gold standard. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We're in the curious position of having to define a term that has been in common use in the media for well over a decade, and which has been the subject of several books and university conference papers - but which has not yet been listed in the OED, Websters or Macquarie. As a consequence, one editor is stubbornly insisting that because there's no concise dictionary definition, ephemeral statelike entities which existed before the word "micronation" came into use, are not actually micronations; this is like claiming that kiwifruit did not exist before 1950, because before then they were known as "melonettes" - and before that as "chinese gooseberries"; it's utterly specious - but it is nonetheless effectively clouding the issue. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: President Obama's address to Congress

I've added a ref from the NYT ([11]). Thanks for reminding me. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Query on tool

Heya! Could you tell me what tool (if any) you're using to list your reports at WP:AN3? I'm just curious as I'd like to update it to conform with the recent tweaks made to the listing templates we use there. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 10:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The tool is linked in the header of WP:AN3, six bullets from the top as 3RR report helper tool. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, silly me. Thanks! Nja²⁴⁷ 10:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site (listofmicronations DOT com) be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gene, I would recommend starting a discussion about the topic before making a proposal. That way, you can get your bearings on the issue, and structure your proposal accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm intending to do early next week when I'm back in town. All the likely interested parties should by then have had sufficient time to properly consider the matter without having to first sift through a torrent of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith perpetuated by those desirous of promoting some peculiar personal agenda or other. --Gene_poole (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Aniru Conteh

On September 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aniru Conteh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Wizard

thanks for the comments! I'm not entirely sure what you mean by tailoring it for WikiProject Hawaii though. What do you have in mind? There has been some discussion (WT:WIZ2) about adopting templates for different types of article (eg companies) but I'm not sure how adopting for a topic would look. I suggest raising this at WT:WIZ2; you could copy an existing part of the wizard (see the documentation link at the top of that talk page) to a sandbox if it helps. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 05:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is using Article wizard 2.0 for project-specific article creation, such that the subject, notability, sources, and content parameters can include entries that are populated by a file in WikiProject space. This would allow our new and technically-challenged editors to work with prompts, such as stub tags (Hawaii politician, Hawaii radio station, Hawaii geography, Hawaiian royalty) categories (Category:Hawaii), sources (many of our Hawaii articles use a limited set of sources, and we have resource pages that could be used to lookup pre-formatted references to add them to the page) and content (we could recommend creating a DYK and provide a wizard for that process as well, and have a "proofreader" script check information for accuracy and compliance). Depending on what Hawaii subtopic the user is writing about, we could recommend contacting a specific user on the project for review or questions. For example, if someone not too familiar with Maui was creating a stub, it would be nice for my name to come up as a contact person for questions or help if they needed it, etc. The members of WikiProject Hawaii have specific skill sets and interests, and users should be able to tap into it for help. If a project wanted to use the article wizard in their project, they would simply maintain a file with the appropriate parameters, and the wizard would use that file to populate the fields for that project. That way, any project could use the wizard customized for their project/topic. Eventually, with enough connections, you could turn this into an expert system, and given enough input, the system could write an outline, create an infobox, check against assessment criteria, etc. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds pretty tricky to implement (especially given the limitations of the MediaWiki software - its not designed for this sort of thing), and I'm not entirely convinced it would be worth the effort to standardise that much. I can see contacting specific users (or at least pointing to wikiprojects for certain topics) being useful though, and that can be tacked on relatively easily, in the form of a post-creation step where users choose their topic to get specific help/contact pages (including stub notice links etc perhaps). Do you want to move this discussion to WT:WIZ2? Rd232 ^talk 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's ok. I think the best way to address my point is to expand the "What is your proposed article about?" section. You've got a really limited set of topics listed there. Granted, you're trying to appeal to a very limited user subset, one who wants to write about their business or favorite band, but I think you should also make an effort to attract users who are experts in their fields but lack the technical knowledge to create articles. Right now, the user is presented with choices for creating articles about companies, biographies, websites, phrases, and music, but that is really the lowest common denominator. In my experience, there are many experts who would love to contribute to topics in history, science, math, and art, but lack the skills to do so, and I think this tool could help them, which is why there should be a way for WikiProjects to provide wizards for their subject area that would link into the primary tool. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

copied discussion to WT:WIZ2. Rd232 ^talk 06:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am registered.

Hi I am still alive and registered under Hawaiian Candiru can you help with that the search bar does not show up the Hawaiian revolutions can you tell me why. I got fed up with being unable to make articles, the Democratic Revolution of 1954 (Hawaii) is getting stranger and stranger the more I research.

-72.234.223.116 or Hawaiian Candiru

Can you be more specific about the problem? You can always use {{helpme}} at any time on your talk page, and someone will show up. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hawaiian Revolutions

This is freaky I didn’t expect you to respond so rapidly, anyway the search bar has gives suggestions on articles but mine does not show up as a suggestion, can you access it or is it only on my computer? Click Hawaiian Revolutions, I just copied this from the History of Hawaii article I hope I did not do any damage.

Please respond "Hawaiian Candiru (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)"

Everything seems fine, although I'm sure there's always room for improvement. I think the reason it doesn't show up is because it is preceded by Hawaiian Revolution of 1893. If that's what you mean. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check

Thanks, so is the articles real? I put up 1895 Counter-Revolution in Hawaii and Democratic Revolution of 1954 (Hawaii) on new pages, maybe t will take time until the suggestion database picks up on it. Hawaiian Candiru (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. You are right, it hasn't showed up yet. Well, there could be several reasons for this, including server replication time, but they were doing some work earlier today, so who knows. It should show up soon, though. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you help. Hawaiian Candiru (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dominis Conspiracy (Hawaii)

I was not sure if the "Dominis Conspiracy (Hawaii)" was long enough to be another article or not. I won’t objection to your decision, it can be deleted at your discretion. Hawaiian Candiru (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason I added the redirect. It simply wasn't clear what you were trying to do. Now, after following some of your edits, it appears that you were trying to split out the subtopics into separate articles. If that's what you want, then I will support a separate, stand-alone article, and I would be happy to restore it. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Inspired by Peace Pilgrim edits

I just took off what I had added and I wanted to let you know. He eventually quit when his body disagreed with his mind. Thank you for all of your assistance. Billyshakes 78 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing more of your story, if you have the time. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Leopold Report, redux

Hi, Viriditas, how are you? Since you took such an interest in the the article, I thought you may want to know that Leopold Report has been nominated at FAC. It was because of your great suggestions that I feel confident about its chances. :) The nomination is here, in case you're interested. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, and good job (as usual) with the article. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu

For getting all links you can use Special:LinkSearch. To find all links globally you should have a look at my tool at http://toolserver.org/~merl/findexternallinks/query.php?eulink=http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu . If i should check all your links or simply create a list please tell me. Merlissimo 00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't I feel like an idiot. How long has linksearch been around? Thanks very much for the info and the offer of help. I'll take a look at the tool as well. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Aloha, I see you seemed to fix most (all?) of the links that were broken by the recent moving of the "Scholarspace" sources. I noticed they were broken, but did not have time to track down where they went, so thanks for doing the work so I do not need to! I am curious as to how you found where they ended up (evols.library?) when I looked google still had not found them for example. Any motivation behind the move? And by the way, we had to move back to the mainland (alas) and our crate has not yet arrived. So in the meanwhile I only have part-time access from my wife's laptop. I will try to finish off the Hawaii work I was in the middle of (and even the manual of style I hope). Mahalo. W Nowicki (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, but I'll have it done in the next few hours or so. There was a site alert on the right-hand side of the main page that listed the new locations. I think if we stick to the URI's (instead of linking directly to the PDF's) we should be ok. My understanding is that those links are good no matter where they move the files, however, I have not received confirmation on this just yet. Please let me know if I can collaborate with you on any of the Hawaii topics you are working on. I think we would make a good team. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you move a category?

How do you move a category to a different name? There are no move tags on the category pages. Keraunos (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't. But, depending on what you want to do, there are procedures you can follow. It sounds like you want to change the name of a category. You can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or let me know what you want to do, and I can try to help. For example, if you created a new category by accident, you can nominate it for deletion and create the correct category right away. There's also a soft category redirect tag you can use, but some editors discourage its use. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Really?

You'll notice I have 2 reverts one of which I self-reverted? Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw that after I placed the template on your page, so feel free to remove it, but I did just want to remind you. I don't understand why you are edit warring on that page. Is it that important? Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, hence the self-revert... Soxwon (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Salon.com

When I say fringe, I am not suggesting they are not a sizeable viewpoint, I am merely pointing out that they represent a liberal viewpoint. A MSM source would validate them. Soxwon (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I wish there was a better word. What I mean to say, is that yes, Salon.com is good for representing a liberal point of view consistently. However, unless a MSM source is used to corroborate it, there is no way of knowing how much of the rest of the non-liberal (I.E. 80 %) views it. It's good for providing a liberal POV, but not necessarily anything more. Soxwon (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not from Boston, but no, what I base my statements on is the fact that PEW polled and found that 19 percent of Americans identify themselves as liberal. So I would think Salon would be good for that 20 percent of the population consistently and more, depending on circumstance. However, to prove that circumstance, you would need other WP:RS backing it up. Soxwon (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

*gasp* How dare you act as though Henry Gate's isn't important compared to Pakistan's democratic gov't, the Iraqi's happiness, or China's pollution! :)

I'll get the link soon, I have an essay to write for school, however, so it'll probably be this afternoon. Soxwon (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, what I was getting at is the fact that we focus on the unimportant issues while the real ones simply pass us by. Soxwon (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We're both in agreement. What does that tell you? Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The universe is actually a circle? :) Or perhaps we're not so different after all ;) Soxwon (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Viriditas. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please accept my apology

I apologize for my behavior during the incident. I should not be talking about you at all over the email with anyone. Now I fully realize this. I promise to avoid any articles you edit or compromise with you on any subject if I am not banned by Arbcom. Sorry.Biophys (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. However, how do you justify messages such as [20090607-0440], authored by your friend User:Biruitorul? This kind of overt, matter-of-fact justification for antisemitism can neither be forgiven nor forgotten. Viriditas (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I can not justify any messages or actions made by others. I am only accountable for myself. I do realize now that it was wrong to make any comments about any WP participants over the email, exactly as Thatcher said. But members of the list held widely different views. Some of the participants did not even read emails. I usually did not read and did not respond to any excessively nationalistic messages, although I can understand some of their feelings.Biophys (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what you understand. As far as I know, this mailing list was only for the true believers, and there was virtually no disagreement among you for this reason. There was some debate about who to invite and who to keep out. This tells me that it is likely you share Biruitorul's beliefs (which I can only describe as "racist" based on his comments) and this explains why you claim to understand his feelings. Am I wrong? Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

True believers in what? God? Communism? Anti-communism? Polish nationalism? Russophobia? Please explain. Members of the group hardly had the same opinion on any subject. No, I have no recollection of anyone in the group who said anything "racist". What exactly thread do you mean? I do not have such. Did I commented in this thread?Biophys (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked the questions to try and understand your position. In your reply, you deflected the questions back at me, defeating the purpose of discussion. I cannot accurately tell you what you believe or what your list looks for in a true believer. I can only give you my opinion. That's why I asked you about it. As for the racist messages, I already started you off with a reference to the exact message enclosed in brackets above. I'm still waiting for the answers. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any message with a "racist" statement by Biruitorul in my archive. I do not know what you are talking about and therefore can not answer. But I only kept threads where I participated. Hence my question if I commented there. I already said that members of the list did not shear any common beliefs. Answers to what? What do I believe in general? This is a poorly defined and totally irrelevant question.Biophys (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Message [20090607-0440] is very clear. What part of it don't you understand? Are you saying it is not racist? Oh, and your claim that members of the list did not share common beliefs is clearly false. For example, how did one get invited to join the list? There, your claim is disproved. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am using gmail to keep most of the threads I was involved in discussions. I checked again, but did not find any messages by the user you are talking about, which would be even remotely "racist" during this period. I am certainly not going to download the stolen archive to my computer for several reasons. One of them: I have no right and moral authority to read any messages by members of the group sent before the time I joined it. Now I understand this more clear than ever.Biophys (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The message is dated Sun Jun 7 06:40:40 2009 and you participated in the thread. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Then could you please send me this particular message over wikipedia email for verification?Biophys (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, and you know I can't. The Arbitration Committee forbids it. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought you could because I am a member of the list. If not, this is dead end.Biophys (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Viriditas, this is painfully similar with my old 2007 Biophys thread. People just never change. 91.149.190.145 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not answer your question yesterday. What kind of common agenda brought members of the list together? The answer is: none. The members of the list have been invited by co-optation from current members of the list based on two criteria: (a) being good and productive WP editors, and (b) being trustworthy and interesting people (see emails). When I was invited to join the list, I thought: would it be interesting to socialize and talk with these people? This is all. Because of such approach, we soon had Polish and Ukrainian users arguing with each other. Biophys (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Kind of Blue

Pleas read my comments on Modal/Russell in the talk session on Kind Of Blue. All Blues and Freddy the Freeloader are blues - what mode would they be in ? Tell what mode fits the changes for Blue in Green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azgolfer (talk • contribs) 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Signing at the noticeboard

Thanks, forgot about that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Aniru Conteh PR

Glad to help - I really enjoyed that article and only wish it had a happier ending. Sorry to hear about your experience with the Jonestown article. Sigh. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

message regarding a correction in the Druid article

I recently made a correction in the Druid article, and I received a message from you saying that the correction was not constructive and was reverted. I went back to see what edit I made to see what you were referring to. It turns out I made a correction on subject-verb agreement. The original subject and verb was "they notes". That is clear subject-verb disagreement, and the correct should be "they note". If the subject is plural (they), then the verb does is singular. Not sure why ensuring proper subject-verb agreement is not constructive, and I noticed the correction is still there, despite your message saying that it was reverted back to the original. I'm new to having a Wikipedia account and making corrections, so I was wondering why making a legitimate and accurate correction is called "not constructive" and why "reverting" it back to the original means leaving my correction they way I made it. Thanks for helping unconfuse me. Drpsyc1014 (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism to the article from another editor.[12]. This did not have anything to do with your edits. However, a vandalism message was placed on your talk page by mistake. It was intended for another talk page and I've now reverted it. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

That book definitely looks like my type of book. I read the description and review on Amazon and just asked my local library to order it. Thanks for thinking of me and keep sending them my way. Best, Renee (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Samurai

Hi again this is 72.234.223.116 I changed my user name to Hawaii Samurai' but I lost some of my abilities do you known why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaii Samurai (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you be more specific? What did you "lose"? Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I don't think we know each other so I hope it's ok to post. I saw that you reverted an image and an IP reverted you. It was the only post the IP had so I just reverted back to your position using your reasoning in part for my revert. I just thought I should bring this to your attentions since there was a lot of drama around this account. I felt the picture was offensive the way it was used. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notification. I've gone ahead and removed the white supremacist/neo-nazi rune currently in use by those organizations and replaced it with a neutral version of the rune available on commons. If they choose to keep using the other image, I will have to bring this to the attention of the noticeboards. Considering the undertow's admitted past, I don't think it is a coincidence that he chose to use that rune, and per Wikipedia:User page banned users (or any users for that matter) should not be using their user pages to post images that are not only divisive but that could potentially bring the project into disrepute. We know that this particular version of the Odal rune with the broken arms is specifically used to pay homage to Neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations, and most notably, this rune refers historically to the Flag of the Croatian Volksdeutsche 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, whose brutality in the Balkans consisted of shooting, torturing, and burning men, women, and children alive, including pregnant women and the elderly. I am quite certain that the undertow is aware of these things, since he has talked extensively about his past concerning his beliefs about white supremacism, so I will find it difficult, if not impossible to believe his use of this symbol is entirely innocent. That Wikipedia should be the "web host" for a banned user using their user page to promote the most unspeakable and disgusting crimes against humanity is troubling in the extreme. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure if he should have anything at all like this on his page. Saying "Not welcomed" is not what I saw it meant which along with what you showed for a dif made me remove it. If it continues I would think the arbitrators would want to know about it. I agree totally with what you say about it. My grandparents would be rolling in their graves if they knew people still think like this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree wtih you, but since the material keeps getting added back in, I thought it best to take the middle way, and use the same rune, but one that is not associated with any hate group. My first preference would be to blank the talk page and protect it, and I don't understand why this isn't being done. The user has already allegedly come back with another account, and I doubt very much they will stay away from Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Samurai

Hi again, I lost my abilities to edit some secure articles, but I went over some past events and made a couple of new articles here are some:

• French Incident (Hawaii)
• French Invasion of Honolulu
• United States Invasion of Hawaii
• Statehood Day Takeover (Hawaii)

None of these are article are completed, but you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to the Iraq War

There are too many examples therefore I have highlighted just a few. Please see the relevant talk page for more information. There is no way this stuff can stay. It's far easier to begin again, slowly, providing quality sources that actually support the statements being made. Dynablaster (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job. It's very important to do that whenever you remove large swaths of material from any article. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for keeping an eye on Historyprof101. He's really (redacted), who self-published a translation of "Mein Kampf" that he has been promoting vigorously, claiming it is the best because he says it is. I removed the material from the "Mein Kampf" article, so has decided to "punish" me, I think, by trying to remove all references to my work that is cited on Wikipedia. I appreciate your watchfulness. Bytwerk (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Per WP:PRIVACY, I've removed the persons name from the above. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And I hadn't realized that using a name was against the rules. Thanks again! Bytwerk (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New Articles

Hey, so what do you think of the new articles. Hawaii Samurai (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've been busy with a few other tasks so I haven't had a chance to give it my full attention. It might take me another day or so. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I can help?

Hey, I see you have been working on the Father Damien's page well I got an old book with pictures of Lepers in Kalaupapa, this is awesome we got a saint (even though I am atheist, it is still awesome!). I will give you the reference format of the book below, The author cites the source of the pictures as Bernice P. Bishop Museum and the pictures were released in 1891. I have also seen picture in the book on Wikipedia, so are the pictures still under copyright protection?

• Scott, Edward B. (1968). The Saga of the Sandwich Islands Volume I. Sierra-Tahoe Publishing Co.

Hawaii Samurai (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. What do you mean by "the pictures were released in 1891"? What exactly does it say in the book? If my understanding is correct, they are still in the public domain. This gives us something to go on, at least. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If the source of the pictures is Bishop Museum, they take the position that they own the copyright and that permission to use the pictures must be obtained from them. I just spoke with the IP administrator there a couple days ago about putting their pics on WP and was told they have no interest in doing that. Makana Chai (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PS she said that they will not even allow pictures of their exhibits to be placed on-line. Makana Chai (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)