Jump to content

User talk:Viriditas/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 38

Re: MONGO

Please stop commenting about MONGO. You are going to get yourself blocked if you continue. Should you be unable to drop the issue, go file a request for arbitration. The current notice board thread has deteriorated to useless bickering. Jehochman Talk 06:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jehochman:, are you planning on blocking me for requesting enforcement of the civility policy? The evidence shows that the last 50 contributions made by MONGO consist of nothing but civility violations and personal attacks. Is there a reason you haven't blocked him? And why, pray tell, would you be threatening to block me for pointing out this fact? Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You missed my point. I am predicting what will happen if you continue. I'm going to bed and won't be blocking you tonight. Jehochman Talk 06:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
MONGO has a long-term civility problem documented by numerous ANI reports in the noticeboard archives, resulting in blocks and retirements. Yet, he keeps coming back with the same civility problem, over and over again. Why then, @Jehochman: are you "predicting" my block for requesting that the community act to stop the problem? Do see you anything wrong with your statement? You came here to accuse me of "hating" on MONGO, but that is not the case. The evidence shows that this is a long-term behavioral problem with MONGO, and a review of the evidence shows that you are fully aware of it, as you participated in some of those discussions. Yet, you are here threatening me, instead of enforcing the civility policy. Why? Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If you think so, go file a request for arbitration with all the supporting evidence. Continuing to lobby from blocks at every turn on ANI constitutes feuding, and is unacceptable. ANI is not suitable to evaluate a long term pattern of activity. Jehochman Talk 20:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
That's news to me. ANI evaluates LTA on a daily basis, and metes out blocks accordingly. Given that some of the previous ANI civility complaints against MONGO could be interpreted as your defense of his behavior, I'm wondering if your warning and discouragement of using ANI stems from your close relationship. Jehochman, have you ever made a civility block before? Why wouldn't you make one right now in this case? I see at least three editors under attack from MONGO in that thread, one topic area disrupted with page protection in place on two articles, and continued incivility and personal attacks. Given the long history of civility issues by MONGO, I am confused as to why you haven't taken any action. Am I missing something? Perhaps I neglected to read the notice on your user page that says that you don't make civility blocks. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Viriditas, thanks for your many contributions to WP. And thank you for your comments on the recent AN/I. IjonTichy (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Viriditas, you claim I have personally attacked you...I am not able to recollect where this happened. I wish I could see the diffs when you get the chance so I can properly apologize.--MONGO 11:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor interaction tool indicates we have only likely talked with each other a few times, so aside from our recent spat at AN/I where you made this accusation, I would like to see any other examples so I can apologize and adjust my behavior.--MONGO 14:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Vitiditas you never got back to me. All I see is a couple snappy reverts that I did to some posts you left on my talk page awhile back. If there have been other incidents that have happened I apologize for them.--MONGO 19:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Because you disagreed with me on your talk page over a contrarian viewpoint based on evidence,[1][2] you called me an "absolute moron", threatened me in more ways than one, and then banned me from your talk page. That's not a "snappy revert", that's a serious breach of civility which should have been met by a block, but wasn't because you have several admins in your pocket. In any case, that's only one example, there are obviously many more. I believe this makes the admins look worse than you, however, which is why I don't buy into the "trusted members" of the community mishigas. Anyway, we've discussed this before already.[3][4][5] Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a comment here and out of the blue you posted on my talk page a less than polite comment here....I removed it and you returned....with more at which point I banned you. In your first post you did nothing but insult me...I must have said something to you that led you to make that first post. After that you posted the comments at your talk page [6]...my original comment wasn't directed at you and you had not even commented in that thread at all, so it still strikes me as odd you would show up at my talk page as you did. Anyway, I have like two admins in my pocket... it's a small pocket and I watch different news all the time to see how each network adds their own spin.--MONGO 02:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And once again thank you for the cookies! [7]--MONGO 02:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
In the scheme of things, there are so few of us on the website to provide the sum total knowledge for free for the world..“We few. We happy few. We band of brothers..." I'll make sure nobody blocks you again excepting of course if its a 3RR.--MONGO 03:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, please see How Dems Allowed the Tea Party to Rebrand the GOP, on the Real news network (TRNN), posted only a few days before the Nov. 2010 midterm elections. Moreover, TRNN has featured many dozens of additional interviews and investigative reports from 2008 to date (2015) featuring a large number of different scholars who have provided many different pieces of solid, tangible, convincing evidence that Obama's policies should be, to a very large extent, more correctly described as "conservative" rather than "liberal." The TRNN home page has links to the TRNN archives.
One may also want to read the paperback version of the book Locked in the Cabinet by Robert Reich, where Reich provides a large number of first-hand accounts of the fact Clinton's socio-economic policies were highly "conservative" in nature. I remember one particular pieces of evidence (among many) in the book where Reich, Clinton's first Labor Secretary, visited with the "leaders" of Congre$$ in Jan. and Feb. 1993, while Congre$$ was still "controlled" by the Democunt Party (before the Republicunt party took over in Jan. 1995 following their "Contract On America" victory in Nov. 1994). Reich reports in his book that the Congre$$ional "leaders" told him explicitly and un-ambiguously that Reich's planned efforts to ask for even the most mild or modest policies for improving the economic conditions of the middle classes and lower classes are going to fail, because, in the direct words of these "leaders," powerful financial interests, especially the giant multinational corporations, essentially own Congre$$ and the White Hou$e, regardless of whether the Pre$ident or the $peaker of the Hou$e are from the Democunt Party or the Republicunt Party.
And see the Wikipedia article on Senator Dick Durbin, citing Durbin as saying basically the same exact thing 15 years later, in 2008: "Durbin expressed a belief that many of the banks responsible for creating the crisis "own the place," referring to the power wielded by the banking lobby on Capitol Hill.[36]"
Reich left the Clinton administration after only the first Clinton presidency because Reich felt he was essentially working for a very conservative administration.
Many books and papers by many reputable scholars say that this is not very different than it has been for thousands of years. The sources say the socio-economic (and thus political) power structure in ancient Greece and Ancient Rome appears to have been, most of the time, very similar to the situation today in almost all of the countries of the world, with the most powerful economic (and thus socio-political) positions in society practically always owned by the highest financial bidder.
There are many reliable sources that say we live in a global society (not only the USA) where almost every aspect of life has been commoditized or is in the process of being commodified, privati$ed, corporati$ed, cheapened, triviali$ed, dehumani$ed, financiali$ed, quantified, moneti$ed, commerciali$ed, merchandi$ed, marketed, $old and profiti$ed: money appears to reduce almost everything into a commodity that can be bought and $old. Many reliable sources say the vast majority of the most important political elections globally, including but not limited to the US, are only a sideshow, a Bread and Circuses-type distraction, a Kabuki theater of the absurd, a World Wrestling Federation wrestling-match type of entertainment. These reliable sources provide ample evidence to prove that the real power is in the hands of the highest financial bidders. The sources say, for example, that the real difference between the Democunt Party and the Republicunt party is practically like the difference between Coke and Pepsi, and the differences between the political candidates from the two parties are practically like the differences between the celebrities endorsing one brand or the other in a TV advertisement.
There are many reliable, verifiable sources that essentially say the main difference between the vast majority of the "Right Wing" political parties and the "Left Wing" political parties almost everywhere globally, including but not limited to the USA, is that the "Right Wing" is in the right-hand pocket of the most wealthy financial interests (especially the giant global multinational corporations), and the "Left Wing" is in the left-hand pocket of the (same) financial interests.
By the way any attempts to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" are, in my view, intellectually lazy. The people who prefer to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" probably prefer to watch the unadulterated horseshit on Faux News (sorry, I meant to say Fox News) or the pure garbage on so-called "liberal" media sources e.g. the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times etc that are almost as bad as Fox News, and in fact sometimes [especially in the run-ups to wars] even worse than Fox News, instead of carefully reading the vast body of reliable scholarly studies and investigative reports. I have also seen cases where people say they have read some of these sources but in reality they have read them superficially without dedicating the enormous amount of time and deep focus necessary to delve deeply and with an open mind into the many reliable sources.
Chalmers Johnson, who in his excellent book Blowback, published in 2000, predicted an almost imminent serious attack on U.S. soil (although he mistakenly assumed it would come from Asia, the geographical area he was academically trained to study - he was not an expert in the middle east in 2000, although he studied the Middle East in-depth after 2001), once said: "I don't read the NY Times to find out the truth, I read the NY Times to find out the lies." Johnson also wrote an excellent review of the book Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism --- you may want to read the WP article on Inverted totalitarianism. I highly recommend the book and the other sources cited in the WP article.
I don't believe in any conspiracy theories. I believe in investing tremendous amounts of time and energy and focus in reading good quality published sources. And I don't dislike or begrudge a single person for their financial wealth. Many of my siblings or other family members and relatives and friends that I love, respect and admire are wealthy, and some are even extremely wealthy (several own high 7 and 8 figures and one relative has even accumulated low-to-mid 9 figures). And I myself own property and employ people. I worked for very large corporations in the past and made many good friends there including rank-and-file employees, senior executives and major shareholders, and I have several very large corporations as my business clients and partners. I hold no bad personal feelings against large corporations (including financial institutions e.g. giant multinational banks) or governments or the people in their employ. (And if anyone labels my comments as "Antisemitic" then again, regretfully I'll have to respond by saying they are being intellectually lazy, and besides I'm Jewish.)
Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frances Ames

The article Frances Ames you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frances Ames for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

GMO "scientific consensus"

Hi Viriditas:

I use Wikipedia daily to look up and supplement any research on a wide variety of subjects. If I find a Wikipedia entry that has problems, sometimes I will try to correct them. Recently, I have seen a number of false claims of a "scientific consensus" that GMO's are safe. I wanted to see how Wikipedia handled it, and was floored to see that this false claim was repeated in the article I looked up. I was tempted to fix it, but I also know that correcting a blatant falsehood like that is likely to meet with substantial and unreasonable opposition (from my experience on the Lennar_Corporation page) and that contentious pages are can be more or less "owned" by a small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject, and if one or more of them is an admin, they often threaten novice editors with their power to censure and block, their greater knowledge of the process and connections and credibility (deserved or otherwise), making any attempt to challenge their slanted view almost hopeless, except for those with extreme patience and perseverance.

So before jumping in to correct the bogus "scientific consensus" claim, I decided to see where it came from and who the players are on that page and what kind of resistance I am likely to encounter by stating the "inconvenient" truth.

The "scientific consensus" claim was added to Genetically_modified_food_controversies by a now defunct user "pathogen5" on 14 December 2010 (23:48), with a host of other strong pro-industry statements, some of which were quickly identified by Gandydancer on 24 April 2011 (11:14) and eliminated. Unfortunately, the "scientific consensus" sentence survived and I was unable to find any debate on it on the talk pages there. I looked up Gandydancer and this is how I found you, Petrarchan47 and Groupuscule. From reading Gandydancer's talk page about the March Against Monsanto, I see comments such as "I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page. I get that you see the 'scientific consensus on human health' claim as a lost cause, and maybe you're right." From my limited review of user talk pages of that time period on the subject, I got the sense that a number of the four of you were met with heavy resistance (some even blocked) for trying to put in the truth on this and related subjects. I definitely understand, I have been there too on a page that will remain nameless, but for which I did get the truth in after a 3 year wait!

So, I am contacting you and asking any advice on how to proceed with addressing the issue. I will likely write up my proposed edits and see what the 4 of you think, before I jump into the water of sharks with them...

David Tornheim (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you should contact Gandydancer's good friend, Jytdog. He seems to be an expert on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog already found me. I assume you are joking, right? Jytdog takes a strong pro-GMO stance.David Tornheim (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Humor is the best medicine. Don't focus on who is "pro" and who is "con". Don't respond to incivility with incivility. Focus only on an evidence-based approach using a scientific rationale, informed by bioethics. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for being one of the few that actually think that civility policies should be enforced. This not only because of events just yesterday, but because I know you're consistent in striving for a civil wiki. In that respect you and me are very similar. Happy editing! :) AmaryllisGardener talk 17:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for advice: On whether to split Chinese Canadians in British Columbia

Viriditas,

If you don't mind I would like to discuss a particular issue: the question of whether to split excess Vancouver metro area-related content of the Chinese Canadians in British Columbia into a new article titled "Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver". I had created the article with the intention of it covering the Vancouver metro (it initially had the title "Chinese in Vancouver"). I immediately filed a request to have the article returned to its original title but the article move request failed. Anyway, that was awhile ago and the article's focus has changed.

Since then I have wanted to re-establish a separate article focusing exclusively on the ethnic Chinese community in Metro Vancouver in particular (Discussion is at Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Enough sources to prove standalone notability of Vancouver Chinese and do an article split?).

A solution I thought of is expanding the Chinese Canadians in British Columbia so that it can stand on its own two feet and so in the event a split occurs, it would not be redundant with a Vancouver-centric article. What do you suggest I do to resolve this issue? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again seeking authority to take his side because his rationales for conducting original research in public are being criticized, while he continues to deluge the article with additions that are off-topic and UNDUE and persistently POV and ethnoSOAPBOX. Again he's trying to justify a split he prefers to fit his WP:OWN series of articles...partly by adding more and more material to the Vancouver topics, often repeating the same information more than once, all from the same handful of sources, and rejecting other sources and information even when page-cited and online. I'll write you privately, Viriditas, there's so many guidelines and normal practices being violated by him at once that it's getting bizarre, as are his rationales and equivocations defending his work, and his very bad writing and admitted strategy of adding random material in pursuit of a context he admits he hasn't learned enough yet (see the replies to Shawn in Montreal on the CCinBC talkage, and note how he sought to hide my initial reply by inserting his post above mine, with the same indent as mine.....butting in and burying my comments below his own. Against guidelines and normal etiquette, but that's par for the course by now.Skookum1 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: I don't see a problem with a split. If there is a problem, it can always be merged back into the parent topic. You could also create it in your user space first to get outside feedback, or use the AfC process. @Skookum1: if there are problem with the split, then you can use the dispute resolution process to address them. In Skookum's defense, I have experienced the problem he describes twice in the last six months in two different topic areas, so it may help if WhisperToMe creates the split in a sandbox and requests input before moving it to mainspace. That's not necessary, of course, but it would demonstrate that WhisperToMe is giving community input a high priority. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok! I started a split sandbox at User talk:WhisperToMe/Vancouversplit. I am going to make a separate article on the New Westminster Chinatown and this will slightly reduce content at both the original Greater Vancouver article and then at the split article. What I will do after that is for a little while add Vancouver-related content to my userpage draft and any non-Vancouver content to the original article. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, you should have a good long look at the off-topic and UNDUE materials he's been adding to pad Vancouver-related content, and all the repetitions of same....and consider what I am saying about WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV which are the core issues of his activity and narrow sourcing and obvious bias, and also his deflections on technical issues like the page-cite matter/red-herring while fielding random data-trivia, much of it off-topic and with redundancies and repetitions.
I'll be watching the split article, of course, and editing his very bad English composition style and removing repetitions, but I fully expect the same OWNership attitude and bizarre rationales for whiteboarding in public space (you did read the exchange with Shawn in Montreal and my comments on it, no?);
"giving community input a high priority" is what he hasn't been doing, other than seeking people to condemn me for "interfering" with his "choices" while rejecting input and guidance from me nearly completely, even though he has also wilfully ignored, by his own strange reasoning, any reference to existing Wikipedia content and sources used there by asserting he has a "right" to build separate articles from his selection of sources. He has dismissed the notion that related content in the same subject should be integrated and cohesive; in other words that he has the "right" to compose an essay with different content/tone and POV/bias without "interference" or any respect at all for the collaboratively-written articles whose content he is replicating without context or without any regard to what's in the other articles.
At least with him sandboxing his pet project and not doing it in public like he has been, it will give me a chance to clean up and make readable and add balance to the article and make it coherent. That his creations of the New West article will likely follow the same pattern of random and UNDUE TRIVIA without context and hostile to other input and sources that do not fit his agenda/thesis is dubious; I've provided a source on a detailed account of New West's Chinatown which he may even use, I'm expecting POV cherrypicking of what's in it just like he did re Camp 37 from Morton; needless to say he hasn't even thanked me for relocating it, just as when he created the Chinatowns in Nanaimo article whose title I'd pointed out needed to be plural and not Chinatown, Nanaimo as per other similar titles, he edit-commented as if it was his idea, and it was him who found the sources I provided......Skookum1 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Skookum, please discuss edits, not editors. Don't make me remind you again. I sympathize with your position as I'm dealing with a similar situation in the Hawaii-topic area right now and I'm trying to figure out how to fix the problem. However, you need to change your attitude and your approach or extricate yourself from the topic area. If you want to teach Whisper a thing or two, you're going about it the wrong way. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't think I haven't tried; and he discusses/criticizes me all the time without naming me directly. His edits are the problem and his justifications about them which are of the same SYNTH style as his conflations of the verifiability guidelines; and how not to discuss bad writing without naming the editor doing (and defending) it? It would help if those "monitoring" these goings-on actually had some experience with the topics at hand and were able to recognize bias and distortions of sources when they see them, rather than fall back on discussing my behaviour/actions rather than the issues that have prompted me to have to respond the way I do. He has AGFd me since months ago, and continues to do so, both to my face and in his posturing here; fine, let him go whiteboard his personal thesis about ethnicity-by-city; he's left more than that article in disarray, others incomplete but started to counter my point that, other than one about Jewish life in Montreal, there were no other "ethnicity by city" titles in Canada; so he created startups and then walked away from them....yes that's talking about an editor, but was with "the Kwami affair" how not to discuss the effects of irresponsible editing and disruptive board warring and not name who did it?
I really don't think you've taken the time to look over his recent additions, and his very strange rationalizations and excuse-makings on that page and also his OWN behaviour on Talk:Chinatowns in Nanaimo. Fine, let him play in his sandbox, I have a front yard to clean up...and will canvass in the real world for informed input by people from those communities and associated museums who actually know what they're talking about.11:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
And re "canvassing in the real world", he's stated that he intends on recruiting a Vancouver-Chinese politico to "help" him deal with my insistence on fairness and NPOV; in other words, he's recruiting a person who shares his own biases and is known, in fact, for making a big stink about very little at all. Those I will canvass are museum staff, academics and journalists I know (some personally), and people I know who have the books I know of but didn't want to pack all over the world and saw fit to sell or give them to people who would enjoy them and/or put them to good use. I remember what I read, and understand it...I don't cherrypick items to build a thesis based on racial exclusivism and dismissals of sources that do not fit that mold which it to say aren't race-politics-based.Skookum1 (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Viriditas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your GA nomination of Chain Reaction (sculpture)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chain Reaction (sculpture) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Btphelps -- Btphelps (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

MaranoFan

Lol. But on a serious note, is this sort of behavior grounds for a longer, if not indefinite, block? "Banning" anyone with whom you have a disagreement from your talk page is not indicative of an editor who is willing to collaborate. I'm considering notifying ANI of this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it needs to stop. Instead of going straight to ANI, I wonder if @Diannaa: might talk to them again about this problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There's lots of people who have banned other users from their talk pages; I don't think it warrants a block/ban. Opening an ANI whilst the editor is blocked is not a good idea, as they would not be able to participate, and it might be viewed as kicking them while they're down. Everybody needs to stay off their talk page. What was the urgency with nominating that image for deletion that it could not have waited until the block had expired? then the user would be able to respond at FFD, something that is not possible to do right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Just remember, Diannaa, you are also banned from MaranoFan's talk page.[8]. :-) Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I know, right? -- Diannaa (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Far left

I'm shifting this to your talk page because I'd like to keep that discussion focused on the source reliability issue. There is a thriving "far left" community, it just doesn't have much clout in Washington right now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you back up your assertion with evidence? The term "far left" no longer has any real meaning. It's a bugaboo used to distract from real issues that need immediate attention. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, just spend some time in the Peoples Republics of Berkeley or Cambridge and you'll notice it's not like they're ghost towns or everyone has shifted right or something. Bernie Sanders? Kshama Sawant? $15 minimum wage in Seattle and San Fran? And then I wouldn't put these in the same category, but gay marriage, pot legalization? Those were definitely fringe movements just a few years ago. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've spent time in both Berkeley and Cambridge, and I don't think they're the socialist-revolutionary hotbeds of far-leftism that you're suggesting. Likewise, arguing that people should be paid a minimum of $15/hour in one of the most expensive cities in the US isn't exactly Marxism. Gay marriage and pot legalization are not really "far-left" issues, or even left-wing issues at all—both enjoy significant support from right-libertarians, at least from the subset of them who are intellectually consistent.

I understand that these issues appear to be far-left in a country where Barack Obama—who would be well to the right of virtually any conservative leader elsewhere in the Western world—is viewed as a socialist revolutionary, but I think that's a matter of skewed perspective. Right now, the "left" in the US is fighting for things that are accepted as obvious matters of course in most of the rest of the Western world—things like universal health care, progressive taxation, action to combat climate change, access to contraception and abortion, and so on. I'd be pretty hard-pressed to identify a viable and non-marginalized "far-left" movement in the US right now, whereas far-right ideas have come to dominate, or least strongly influence, one of our two major political parties to an extent that would have been almost unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago. MastCell Talk 17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's all relative. If you choose to define the "far left" as something akin to Marxism then it's not at all controversial say that the "far left movement" has been pretty quiet since WWII. So I suppose you and Viriditas get my limited agreement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham

WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Retirement_of_project_member_WD_Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Heavy reverting"

I'm a bit surprised at this[9] comment, actually. I'd appreciate if you could provide diffs in the ANI thread.

Peter Isotalo 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you know perfectly well I was referring to your editing this week in various places, including this. You've been extremely busy reverting. And, you know perfectly well that you reverted two of my edits on a redirect before the discussion was even finished. To quote SergeWoodzing: "it only takes Peter about 3 seconds to revert things he doesn't like in an article he's guarding. Obviously that gives him no time to use talk pages before reverting". That about sums it up. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually I didn't know because you brought up those fresh reverts for discussion yourself. It didn't strike me as anything strange. It makes sense if you went into that discussion assuming you were merely reverting to a procedurally "neutral" versio. But that's pretty much the same idea that got people to dive into The Cleavage Wars. We had plenty of users who weren't edit warring, but merely restoring to the "neutral" version that someone else was edit warring over.
And as for Kim's and Serge's ANI complaints, why don't you read them for yourself? Not exactly paragons of procedural correctness. And that's the same dispute where I was called a "terrorist" for joking around in user talk. Kim and Serge eagerly pounced on that one and made good use of it with personal attacks and baiting. Why don't you try working with Serge for any amount of time? If you start disagreeing, you'll soon see some very bold accusations[10] or even administrative threats.[11]
I made the talkpage reverts over at talk:cleavage (breasts) because I got very upset. I saw nothing in it but griping and moaning at by a non-contributing editor. Not my best moment in this debacle, but I felt extremely discouraged and beset-on, especially since I was singled out in an ANI merely for making too many edits. I'm not very happy about being singled out as the nadir of this conflict despite no more active in reverting than anyone else. The rest is really just a perfect shitstorm coincidence. I mean, just have a look at the awful hatted mess over at talk:Danish pastry.
Peter Isotalo 11:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for sticking up for me and sharing your wisdom. There is much I can learn from you, so thanks for being willing to teach me. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why won't you help me at those articles? Are they too boring for you, or do you hate my writing or something? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

Viriditas,

I'm still working on the draft split. In the meantime a new edit to the parent article removes ""such and so in his whatever book/article said that" phrasing". I had the idea that the person making a claim/statement/opinion in the Wikipedia article should be identified as such in the article body ("Mr. ABC, author of WXY, says ...., Ms. DEF, author of YTX, says ...") partly because a source may quote other people, and because in my opinion using "One source says" without specifying who it is sounds vague. On the other hand, it would make article writing look less clunky if the author wasn't always identified.

I don't really know where to get editor opinions on this style difference. I may edit my draft based upon feedback on this style. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Attribution is best practice. Stylistically, it may be acceptable to remove it in some instances, such as for matters of simple fact or to maintain a consistent narrative. However, it looks like there are other problems with that diff, rather than just attribution. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Does this mean the article should specify that John Belshaw called the people who made the term the "bitter elite"? I think that the changes such as "Another wrote that" don't look good because the reader is going to be asking "who"? - The "who" is a part of "who, what, where, when, why".
What are your thoughts about the internal comments in that diff?
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: It seems appropriate to cite historian John Belshaw in this instance.[12] Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Been doing some thinking

Hey Viriditas, I've been doing some thinking about my own wiki-history and about the place the place that collaboration has in article-writing on Wikipedia. One of the things I realized was that were it not for your timely intervention and guidance on Loihi all the way back in 2009, I probably would have frustrated myself right out of involvement in the project. I feel responsible for failing to pass that on here, when I declined to help out another editor with his first article, with the aforementioned unfortunate results. ResMar 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: I'm sure you can find someone else to help! :) Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on the PK Dick television adaptation, re: status of article

I agree entirely with your statement there. How general is your concern? Chat here? Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@71.239.87.100: Which discussion page? Man in the High Castle? Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the cleanup at that article, is the interest to which I was referring… Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: do you mean Talk:The_Man_in_the_High_Castle#Cleanup_needed? Please be specific, as I participate in many different talk page discussions. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you took the time at that article to list many areas where the article needed attention, and I found, after significant lapsed time, no change, and so added a cleanup tag. Just wanted to find out if this was significant or passing interest, so I could keep you posted about developments, there. Note, this was a "public service" edit of mine, and not in line with my expertise or interests, and so not something either of us should waste time on. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

I have more or less finished doing the proofread of a book called "Myths, Martyrs, and Marines of Mokapu" about the Marine Corps Base Hawaii for addition to wikisource, but find that, being the incompetent I am in computerese stuff, I still can't get my .djvu plug-in to work to allow me to upload the .djvu file available at archive.org here so that I can start an "index" page over there to add the proofread text to. I don't know if you are any better at that than I am, but if you could add the .djvu file to commons and let me know that I could do the hard part of the proofread over at wikisource and maybe make the text more freely and easily available. I actually thought of this when TParis retired, as I thought it might be nice if we could put up some sort of "thank you" template to him somewhere for all his work here. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Sounds interesting. I'm always happy to help. Let me look into this. TParis' pings didn't work when he posted the original retirement message because he didn't sign it, so I wonder if everyone he thanked knows about it. I like your idea of a "thank you" template, and we should pursue that idea further. Wouldn't it be great to memorialize the editors here, like people do with plaques and tiles elsewhere? Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: I couldn't get the DjVu plug-in to work either, but I'm using Linux at the moment. However, I'm fairly certain that the files you are looking for are located here. Do you still need me to upload them to Commons now that you know how to access them? Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, I think I can upload the .pdf file to wikisource and set up the index which is required for the proofreading of the basis on its basis. If someone else really wants to have it as a .djvu, they can upload that particular file themselves. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Vancouver subsections

Thanks! What I may do is see if I can add more content to each subsection, and if they remain small have them folded back into the parent section. That way the "bigger" subsections remain but the smaller ones do not. I'll work on it some more as I get time. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the best way to move forward with User talk:WhisperToMe/Vancouversplit is to open an inquiry at the Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard and ask third parties if they think there is a POV issue with the split article compared to the Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... Why not use the AfC process? Isn't Anna Frodesiak an admin who helps with that process? And considering she's Canadian, she might be your goto person. I didn't ping her because you might not decide to go that route. I will tell you, however, that dealing with Skookum1 isn't going to get you anywhere, so stay away from him. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the AFC process sounds like a good idea :). I contacted Anna here: User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#AFC_inquiry:_Using_AFC_on_article_that_is_in_my_userspace WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Anna suggested that I should just split the article now, and the other party can do an AFD or a requested merge if there is an objection. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
And I stand by that. Using AfC will put approval in the hands of someone other than you. But, we can assume that Skookum will jump in and object and scare any potential approver away from accepting it. I've seen Skookum take issue with content at lots of articles, but this is the first time I've seen anyone take issue with a creation before it is even created. Nobody has the right to prevent something from being created nothwithstanding SALTed pages. I think you are being too considerate. You are reluctant to be bold because you do not wish to infringe upon his right to preemptively reject it. I say throw it into the mainspace and then it can be handled however he sees fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
In a way the article had existed before. I had originally created "Chinese in Vancouver", later "Chinese in Greater Vancouver" (see diff, see early article history) but Skookum moved it to "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia". I opened Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Requested_move to object to the move to "British Columbia" but the had failed. Previously he had objected to my creating Indo-Canadians in British Columbia as a separate article from Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, but you're not moving anything. Chinese Canadians in British Columbia will still exist. You're just breaking part of the article away and adding some new content, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct! This time I'm breaking off a piece of the old article and making a new one WhisperToMe (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
So that is totally different from moving pages. I feel strange saying this because you've been around 12 years and have bzillions of edits, but you do not need prior permission to make new articles. If it were me, I'd throw it into the mainspace as good product, and anyone who doesn't like it can modify it (observing WP:BRD), PROD tag it (which I would personally remove), or AfD or merger propose it. Heck, I say get it into the system. You are building the encyclopedia in good faith. He can wait till it actually exists before attacking it. Anyway, that's what I think. Others may disagree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

ATA and the Mission District of San Francisco

I'm sure there are many institutions in the Mission District. That does not mean that the article should link to all of their websites. WP:ELNO suggests that we avoid adding links to sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject. The Artists' Television Access websites will not contribute to readers' understanding of the Mission District. ATA is a very specific subject, and the Mission is a much more general one. Therefore, these links do not belong in the article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stepheng3: Please familiarize yourself with the history of the MIssion. ATA has an important role, as much as any other links. Ideally, the links need to be turned into content and mentioned in the article. Your deletion of these specific links makes me think you aren't familiar with its role. You are certainly welcome to self-educate yourself by starting here, and adding the relevant content to the article. The sources are clear: ""A key media-activist hub...The ATA office is one of the most famous rooms in the Mission District..." Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Whether ATA played an important role is not the issue. Artists' Television Access has its own article on the English Wikipedia, which is where those external links belong. They do not belong in the Mission District, San Francisco article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Stepheng3: you've directly avoided the central issue. Again, is Artists' Television Access discussed in the Mission District article? As I explained previously, the person who added the links did so in lieu of adding the material to the article. External link sections were once used similarly to further reading sections; in other words, if it isn't discussed in the article, add it. You seem to be refusing to work on the encyclopedia, instead preferring to act as some kind of automaton who cherry picks links for deletion based on no rhyme or reason. There is a history to the use of external link sections, and there is a reason you're supposed to add the content before removing it. And you should be removing all the other external links as well instead of focusing on ATA. The encyclopedia isn't either or, black or white; it has a history and its editors aren't machines, they're humans with the ability to discern and make judgments beyond "keep" or delete. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
About me: I'm here to help build the encyclopedia, and sometimes that involves removing content which doesn't belong. I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm a human being with the ability to make judgments.
Perhaps we view the issue (of external link inclusion) differently. The ATA is mentioned in the Mission District article, in the "Art scene" subsection, so by your rationale (if I understand it) the external links are no longer needed. And however external links may have been used in the past, I think we should apply current policies and guidelines, not outdated ones. It's likely there are other inappropriate external links in the article; I don't feel any obligation to review (and act on) all of them at once. For me, Wikipedia is a long-term project.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
With reference to current WP:EL guidelines, what justification is there for retaining the www.atasite.org links in the Mission District, San Francisco?—Stepheng3 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A user

Would you possibly mind helping to deal with an intransigent edit-warring new user over at Plate lunch? He doesn't understand wiki policy and is insisting that his edits not be touched. I have explained matters and even warned him on his talk page. I'm not sure if you still have this article on your watch list, but if not, it could sure use a Hawaii resident with competent English skills to help either calm this editor down, explain the finer details of proper copyediting (and English usage) to him, and/or warn him about edit-warring. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender:. Sure, happy to help. It may be a few hours before I can get to it, however. I wonder if it may be a returning user... In any case, it may be wise to let things die down a bit, wrong version or not. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thanks. (Definitely a very inexperienced user, who didn't even know how to post on talk pages or where.) Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Pekay2 (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ANI

See section at ANI--MONGO 08:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI -- your name mentinoed

FYI, I mentioned an edit you made on an ANI board here. I am posting this in compliance with the requirement that I must tell other users about their name if it is mentioned at an ANI board.David Tornheim (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for just walking away. That was a wise and humble thing to do. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

2 notes

Hi V. First, just wanted to note that I hatted and removed the subsection header to your response to Sandy at ANI, as lfstevens responded below it, and that response went lost. I hope that is OK with you.

Second, i didn't remark on this in my response to you, but I thought your response to her was overly harsh. I know you are championing civility lately... that was a bit sharp. (i can be harsh myself - there is some pot calling the kettle there, but ... it takes one to know one? Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your actions, and to me, this is proof positive that my assumption of good faith in regards to your position was naive. SandyGeorgia made numerous false accusations which I corrected, and which you have now hatted and left unanswered in the body, as if they had merit. For me, Jytdog, this is the last and final straw. Don't contact me again. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request, involved party

Hi Viriditas, please do not remove yourself as a party on arbitration pages. If you don't think you should be included please make a statement to that effect so that the Committee can consider the issue if they decide to open a case. For the Arbitration Committee (as a clerk), Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: that's a reversal of the burden of proof. I have to prove why I shouldn't be a party to the case? Do you really think that's reasonable? The evidence clearly shows MONGO trolling MrX's talk page, demanding that he add me to the case.[13]. His comments are quite revealing, indicating that he's doing his best to distract and evade. I've never been an "antagonist" of Collect, that's just something he invented. I have, OTOH, supported Collect in various discussions (such as the Marcus Bachmann dispute) and I've even complimented Collect on his knowledge of Wikipedia process and invited and requested Collect's participation in a review of Paul Conrad, a liberal cartoonist (which he agreed to do).[14][15] I'm surprised you let users like MONGO troll arbcom like this. I haven't participated in a single article, talk page, Xfd, or dispute-related noticeboard connected to this case. Meanwhile, Collect and MONGO are working extremely hard to distract people from the problem by focusing on things that have nothing to do with it. I have no plans on participating in this case, as I feel very strongly that the way forward is to enforce the already existing sanctions in this topic area. I have nothing more to say on this subject. You are welcome to copy my comments over to the appropriate place, but asking me to prove a negative goes too far. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The list of 'involved parties' is for the benefit of the Committee and, at this stage, exists only for tracking purposes (mainly notifications). Due to that we keep the list of parties as it is, though sometimes (rarely) people add themselves. Really people can add as many users as they want when first submitting it this case had many more, and it's a regular question the clerks ask when we're going to open a case (i.e., who are the parties?). If and when the case is opened, the Committee decides who it wants as parties. So if you don't think you should be one you need to make that point so if and when they decide to open it they can decide. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: due to an edit conflict, I've had to update my original comment above. This is my final comment on this matter. You are welcome to copy it to the appropriate place, but I have no more interest in this matter. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Echoing Callanecc - if it's any assistance, please accept an assurance that you don't have to "prove" uninvolvement, and you are not a party to the case as no case has been accepted or opened. Anybody can propose' parties at the case request stage, but there's no immediate reason to assume the Committee would accept all those proposals when/if a case actually commences. A hypothetical editor with no significant role in an issue, or no prospect of any credible allegation against them, is unlikely to be named by the Committee as an involved party in an accepted case.
Not sure if thats helpful, but happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your hard work on the 'carnism' entry! Mavaddat (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sheldon Wolin

Hi Viriditas,

Thanks for your contributions to the recent discussions of Wolin's work (on two users' talk pages). I enjoyed reading your comments and learned a lot from your cool-headed, calm, rational, logical, evidence-based approach to discussion and conversation.

Your approach to debate is very similar to the scientific-method-based (evidence-based) approach of Wolin in his powerful book Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitariansim.

If you have the time to read them, here are some recent articles I'd like to recommend to you:

Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Exaltation of the Flower

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Exaltation of the Flower you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I dream of horses, Editor of the Week

Hi Viriditas. You nominated, seconded, or supported (the nomination of) I dream of horses for Editor of the Week, which was recently awarded. Please offer congratulations to I dream of horses on their talk page. Thank you! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Chain Reaction (sculpture)

Well done. Very well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran PR

Hey Viriditas, its been a while, how are you? I recently took this film article starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai to GA status and nominated it for FAC, but it was withdrwan due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues, most if which have been resolved by User:SandyGeorgia and User:RHM22. Do let me know if you are interested in leaving additional comments at the article's 2nd PR. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've got too much on my plate at this time. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

drop box

For some reason I had a problem with drop box and was unable to use it. In any case, the text I was sending wouldn't be that long, and could probably be emailed through WP as plain text. The only authors whose writing practices I have any inkling of are Tolkien, Rand, Frank Herbert and Robert Graves, oh, and maybe Robert Heinlein, although I would have to look for sources. If you have something written up with other authors to use as a template I could maybe fill in a bit. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: thanks for following up so quick. I will let you know as soon as I can start developing the topic. I'll probably ping you sometime next week. Have you had a problem with dropbox recently? I'm pretty sure the latest versions are all cross-platform. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It was with my current computer and browser in the last six months. Like I said, there wouldn't be any huge file that I couldn't just cut and paste and send through WP. Do ping, later. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abby Martin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Abby Martin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CookieMonster755 -- CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Viriditas,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chain Reaction (sculpture)

The article Chain Reaction (sculpture) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chain Reaction (sculpture) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Btphelps -- Btphelps (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad I caught this. Congratulations. You worked on this for a while.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still not happy with it, however. User:Mark Miller, feel free to use the talk page to make suggestions for further improvement or dive right in. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Frances Ames

Harrias talk 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Chain Reaction (sculpture)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Exaltation of the Flower

The article The Exaltation of the Flower you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Exaltation of the Flower for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for W. Maxwell Cowan

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne

Thanks from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abby Martin

The article Abby Martin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Abby Martin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations for another job well done! CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Exaltation of the Flower

Thanks from the DYK project and I Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me in the nomination, Viriditas, though considering the slight proportion (and tardiness) of my contributions I feel rather undeserving. I just thought I should drop you a line to let you know I appreciate the gesture.—Odysseus1479 04:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: is this an example of the stereotypical Canadian modesty? :) You translated important source material and you helped correct a very serious error. Even though I helped write the article, you deserve the DYK more than I do. Congrats. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Viriditas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hoping this template works ok - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


"You Really Got Me" GAN review

Hello Viriditas, I've just about completed my first GAN review. I focused mainly on MOS and verifiability issues. Any comments or suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: it looks good. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nexus for Exoplanet System Science

Hello! Your submission of Nexus for Exoplanet System Science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z22 (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wanna help?

Would you like to collaborate on the article?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: thanks for the offer. Right now, I just want to see the telescope covered as best as possible. I think you did the right thing by splitting the protests off into a separate article, and you should be congratulated for taking the initiative on that. However, after splitting, the protest section in the parent article still needs to be chopped down in proportion to its coverage. This means one or two paragraphs at most, not half of the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: can you help with trimming the protest section in the Thirty Meter Telescope article? We now have a separate article on the protests, so there's no need for so much coverage in the telescope article. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your words of encouragement. I believe the mistake was adding the proposed location section as part of the Protest section. I have separated them again for due weight and sensitivity to the project/telescope itself. But I can assure you that, if then, the section was not half the article. Anyway, I did the separation in part due to your concerns but to be honest, the article needs both updating further (there are still dated references well past those points) and expanding in both the telescope coverage and the opposition or protests. At this point I feel proportion to coverage is not the right move as, well....that favors the protesters and opposition actually. There were protests to stop telescopes on Mauna Kea before the proposal of the TMT and is what stopped the Outrigger telescopes, the last proposal for the observatories. Proportionately, most mentions include references to the protests if not the main focus. This isn't a stretch or taking a particular side in this discussion, just that proportion of sources would mean the section isn't big enough and I'm not concerned with size at the moment but accuracy and neutrality. Asking for the section to be trimmed just for size alone doesn't seem appropriate, but a good copy edit could reduce the section considerably from how it is written. I moved most mentions into the section, which is not normal. We generally do not segregate content in this manner, but for the moment IAR seemed the right move here in that particular regard. There are still some mentions spread out in regards to delays and approval etc, but that cannot be helped.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I disagree with you about the notion of "dated material" as much of that is very relevant to the history and development of the telescope. You're also engaging in a bit of recentism by giving the protest more than enough coverage in the telescope article out of proportion to the importance and material about the telescope. The best thing you can do right now is review the protest section in the telescope article and see if you can cut more content out of it. It's already got its own article so not much needs to be said about it in the telescope article other than a summary of the main facts, which shouldn't be more than a large paragraph. My time is far too limited for me to debate this further, but I think my request is reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I already got most of them but I mean like: "the TMT Foundation anticipates that construction will begin in April 2014.[61]". That kind of "dated" (meaning a mention of dates).--Mark Miller (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But, as I said, proportionately, the section should be larger but I'm not worried about making it longer, just getting all the relevant facts. But, if you could suggest something specific that concerns you, that would help me a bit.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What should happen is a good sweep through the sources for improper use of primary sources. Both the TMT and other opposition sites like KAHEA (an environmental site) should be replaced by proper secondary sources or have the text removed entirely if it is only promotional with no encyclopedic value. I put KAHEA in the external links so it should probably not be used to source facts in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lise Tréhot

Harrias talk 06:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nexus for Exoplanet System Science

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your reverts of the IP vandalism edits. I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:Lise_Tréhot#Landscape_with_Two_People_.28Paysage_avec_deux_personnages.29--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thirty Meter Telescope

In your edit summary for this edit you said: "Removing absurd history of telescope material. Why in the world is this here?)". The brief overview of history is basic content for the context of why telescopes advance and what direction they are advancing. In this case the TMT is a huge advancement in technology. As is the E-ELT. There are two overarching sources that I am using for this content, both of which refer to the newer technologies. Regardless of your opinion, it wasn't absurd it was sourced and relevant and you did not need to delete it. Your summary reasoning was aggressive but also just POV editing to remove something you just don't like or understand. We could well have worked on this together. I make note that I have been civil and cooperative with your concerns about the article but this was uncalled for.

Also, this edit was way too much and now it reads like a child wrote it. WTF was that about? Your summary reads: " Trimming to absolute essential facts after requesting this for several weeks with no action. It already has a separate article". Well, that was just ridiculous. You began the discussion on my talk page:

Thirty Meter Telescope I'm having trouble understanding your gutting of the Thirty Meter Telescope article. For example, one of the most important images in the article appears to have been removed by you for no reason. To make matters worse, you've introduced a significant NPOV issue by devoting a large part of the article to the protests and removing the most important information about the telescope. I'm having trouble understanding your POV here. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Beginning 16:45, 3 May 2015‎, I began to copy edit the article to trim. On May 5th I did a lot more and even more on other dates. See edit summaries. One actually says "trim, general edit". Why are your severe edits not considred POV. If we are going to trim back, Viriditas, everything un-sourced has to go. Also, why the heck would you refuse to collaborate when offered in good faith, take you concerns to heart, make changes based on your concerns (because you didn't want to edit) and then turn around and chop through the article with shredder like edits leaving misleading edit summaries to make me look like I ignored you. Seriously. This is really not cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: this is very simple. 1) I have no objection to you modifying the protest section in any way provided that the prose does not greatly exceed its present length. While I attempted to note only the most important points, I admit it is far from ideal. Ideally, I would like it to reflect a good summary of the daughter article you created, focusing on the primary reasons for the protest but not exceeding (by too much) the current length. So, with that said, I have no objection to any modification of the content in that section, provided it is only about the most significant aspects of the reasons for the protest. As for the history of telescopes, that has absolutely nothing to do with this subject, and the feeling I get is that you inserted it into the article to make it seem like there wasn't an undue problem with the protest material. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas. I don't work like that. You said you had weight concerns and I addressed that and more. My additions of the history section is for an article on the proposed largest (second largest if E-ELT goes up first) telescope in the world. The history of achievement in the technical science advanced in terms of "largest". "Largest telescope" (which is why they generally name them by size) has been what helped to drive advancements in astronomy and science. I really don't know how much interest you have in the subject of astronomy, telescopes, the general sciences etc., but I sure hope you are not assuming I am stuffing the article to push a political agenda? I created the background section and then moved some content into the section that was out of place. I had been working to edit the new history subsection down to be less wordy but the basic premise is, that of all the advancements in the history of the telescope, the TMT and the E-ELT (this section could well be copied with some modification for that article as well) are the biggest leaps we have attempted since we sent Hubble into space. The biggest mirror we have is only ten meters. TMT is thirty meters and E-ELT is about 40 meters. That's a big leap in size alone but the adaptive optics, that has been heavily invested in, are also making these new telescope far more effective than Hubble to view planets already with just the limited size mirrors we have. I am taking my time but I have gotten behind on the background because it is missing the entire introduction about the proposal of the OWLT or OLT (I think), The Overwhelmingly Large Telescope, the original proposal for a 60 to 100 meter telescope. I also feel some mention of the technology to build mirrors is important, the segment technology being proposed and a very small mention about observatories in general. They've been around a very long time Also, I don't think we should shy away from the mix between science and religion where notable in these terms. The Vatican ends up building an observatory and eventually even pardons and apologizes for Galileo. Why is that important...because it was the Vatican observatory and a Catholic Priest that proposed the big bang theory. one of science and astronomies most important contributions to mankind's understanding of the universe. That is what these telescopes are about, furthering mankind's knowledge of the universe. Without some, limited amount of background, history and technology and discovery overview...its just a giant shiny thing that rotates and shoots a pretty light beam.
I propose the following. I will return to the article after some further work on the other article to seriously update it, check for sources and add some responses and anything else that needs attention. I'll come back to this article and address my overall concerns about the edits with a more final draft of my over all direction with as much brevity as possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was a momentary slip on your part, but telescopes don't shoot a light beam... I agree with Viriditas and Cullen328 that a general history of the telescope isn't warranted in this article. As a general history is a common aspect to all telescopes, making reference to the general telescope article is a logical division, and facilitates maintenance of this history by keeping it in one location. isaacl (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? The light beam references the laser used for adaptive optics that creates an artificial guide to aim the telescope. A general history is a common section used to give context to complicated technical issues and/or the importance of the discovery or advancement. I stand by adding it back in an edited version with proper context and sourcing. Not every telescope has this much reliable sourcing referencing the history of the technology in regard to this being a next step" and a big advancement. If what I add back is simply removed we can cross that bridge I guess. Not prepared to speculate on that since I have not edited the article yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a momentary lapse of memory on my part. The advantage of a hyperlinked encyclopedia is that context can be layered in a hierarchical manner; the most directly relevant context can be included within the article, and less direct information can be provided by reference. Thus readers can easily jump to the level of context that best suits their needs. History of adaptive optics and challenges in building larger mirror telescopes, for example, are directly relevant; the origin of looking up into the sky is considerably more distant. Also as you are aware, keeping enough eyes to maintain articles is a challenge; if all articles include a comprehensive history, it eats up a lot of editor time. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hyperlinks do not dictate the actual writing, research or structure of the article. A history section is a common first section in many articles to give a quick "Overview to this point" when the subject is notable enough, or most commonly referred to in a particular that manner. "The world's biggest" does seem to indicate a reference to history that is also a part of the advancement of the technology. Articles, journals and other reliable sources do use this same context. There is precedence, logical reasoning and overarching sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Form does influence content; the editorial needs for an article intended to be read by itself are different than an encyclopedia article which is part of a comprehensive whole, thereby relieving the need for each individual article to be comprehensive. The advantage of being able to easily navigate from article to article in Wikipedia also influences article structure, versus paper encyclopedias. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
MOS, or our Manual of Style influences content structure and guide us on writing articles. I do have some understanding of how Wikipedia works. However, you are misunderstanding the difference between a comprehensive whole, which is every article on the subject and all related subjects, and being broad in coverage. Having links to other articles was, and is never meant to override the individual needs to give subjects context. Which is why we have a history section and why we look for articles that are "broad in scope and coverage" without going into too much detail. Too much detail would be going through even half of the advancements, developments and new sciences that have taken place in the astronomical sciences over the last two thousand years, but these telescopes are actually looking into the past. I very strongly believe the proper context of what makes this so special is indeed needed for a balance of the available sources and academic consensus. You forget something isaacl, this isn't a thing yet. it is just a proposed telescope. Why is the proposal important? How did the proposal come about? What makes this a special telescope compared to any other telescope. There are tons of sources that use this approach on this subject. It isn't spin. It isn't original research and it isn't padding, fluff or cruft.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
We agree on the individual needs for required context (and I've described my thoughts on this matter); however multiple editors have disagreed with you on the extent of the background information required directly within this article. As I noted, general purpose sources have different editorial needs than Wikipedia; they are intended as standalone reading. isaacl (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe we agree on context. I have also explained my edits, discussed and addressed the concerns of Viriditas and Cullen and will continue to do so, as these are two editors I hold in high regard. Much of your arguments are philosophical and opinion of your own particular perception of what Wikipedia is. As a stand alone article about a non existent, proposed technology of record breaking magnitude, some background (perhaps more than you are used to seeing) is appropriate, when used in the context that other over arching sources discuss the subject. I believe I should have given the prose the proper context in writing with those sources, as it made the section appear random and simply dropped in. This is why I have not just re-added the content. All my work, sources and text are all still there to retrieve anything of encyclopedic value. The other section I discussed with Viriditas is an issue of sensitivity to the involved people, company. He said weight to the size of the article, but I think we only have a balance guideline about content being represented with due weight to their proportion in academic consensus. But I recognize Viriditas' concern and believe that reacting to it as a sensitivity issue is appropriate. I have decided that before any update to the section on the TMT is made, the other article should be updated and gone through for sources etc.. After that I would return to the TMT article and approach the sections slightly differently.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, just as you did, I described the guiding principles behind my editorial judgment (which is in accordance with the rationale for Wikipedia's summary style). I also gave specific examples and covered practical aspects. I trust this multi-layered approach has been useful. isaacl (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_33&oldid=1257429435"