User talk:Viriditas/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Hey, like your concepts for Medical Cannabis

Greetings,

I took a look at your suggestions and some are not half bad, lol. Check out my suggestions as well. My fear is that if we were to implement some of your suggestions it could cause for articles to become so broad, that they are not really going to be a resource for anyone.

Cleaning up the articles is a good idea, but moving some content into a vacuum helps no one trying to find information.

Moving information about medical cannabis into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_medical_status_of_cannabis would be the wrong move. That article is way too broad to be a resource for anyone. It is fine to conform with the standards set forth by this community, but one must also take into account the potential to diffuse information so much, that it become worthless to everybody.

Let us start a formal talk about how to improve this article, and make it more of a resource for the whole world.

Thanks for your time,

--The Pot Snob (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm and your efforts to contact me, but I'm afraid our approach to editing Wikipedia is very different. I'll address your arguments on the talk page of the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback - Loihi

-Responded ResMar 00:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the corelation; I'm a WP:SEAMOUNT guy and you're a WP:HAWAII guy. ResMar 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Socks etc

Sorry, I am touchy re check user after receiving a whole load of spurious accusations against me for my work on the pedophile articles, though I also do see check user as an invasion of privacy, something becoming much more relevant as the internet evolves technically (lest just say I am a tv loving Englishman living abroad). I do appreciate that before I came along you were the only experienced wikipedia user debating this issue and thus with a far better perception of what is not appropriate on cannabis articles, which by their nature attract passionate individuals on the subject. I have to say the word sockpuppet had passed through my mind before you had mentioned it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry for the confusion. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

See here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.0.4.224 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that the other day and forgot about it. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - March 2009

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Volcanism of Hawaii

This might interest you. Still gathering members! Sorry about spamming you, ResMar 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ambitious. I'll take a look. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Will be, if I can get enough people to help out. Also, I've replied to your comments on Talk:Loihi. ResMar 23:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied. ResMar 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied and moved to Peer Review. ResMar 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

hi there

Sorry, Viriditas, at this time i don't have the energy to engage in this discussion to the degree it deserves. I would probably only be repeating what i have already said, other then "where" on the page new Obama updates would go. It could be a new section altogether, as we have had so little to say in the past 8 years, it makes sense that there is no section for this already.Sarah Katherine 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, i answered you on the talk page, in the "new policies" section. Sarah Katherine 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I so appreciate your time and open-mindedness. Would you feel comfortable with posting your ideas from my talk page onto the main talk page? The reason is, i unfortunately cannot spend any more time on this due to my work schedule picking up here... but if we laid out these ideas, any of the editors on the page could come in and we could work collectively, which is the brilliant idea behind Wikipedia anyway! Again, thank you for your efforts on this topic and trying to keep everything NPOV and high in quality. Sarah Katherine 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I will go ahead and paste your suggestions to the main talk page, i'm sure since it's easily accessed info anyway, that you won't mind. Mahalo. Sarah Katherine 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is your "childish" comment here not a personal attack? Sarah sko1221^talk 04:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:Workgroup

Purpose it to bring the articles to GT, it's a long-term thing. Perhaps even FT, if possible. The group was designed like TomStar81's "Iowa Class battleship" workgroup; to get a certin specific group of articels, in my case the Volcanoes of "Big Island", to GT, and in the long-term possibly FT. What it is not is a WikiProject or task force, who have hundreds or thousands of articles under their juristiction. ResMar 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. In that case you should rename it to "featured topic work group", because that is what it is. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI... I just joined! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! That makes the tally 3. About renaming it, ZI think it's clear enogh in the mission statement. I don't want to end up juggling "Volcanism of Hawaii GT Workgroup" and "Volcanism of Hawaii FT Workgroup." The current title is nice and vauge, and doesn't force me make a commitment that I might fall back on. ResMar 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoo, just finished this thing. Took me an hour. ResMar 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finishing up a DYK right now (hope I finish in time, I might not), I'll try and help out later. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I have appreciated your input to the People's Park article. I appreciate also the sense of contribution that Apostle12 and Dlabtot have added. In having read the recent comments on the Talk:People's Park page, I propose a "breathing space" before editing comments or responding to Talk on the Talk page.

Peace, rkmlai (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

In addition to violating WP:TALK, your repeated removal of my talk page comments is in violation of the three revert rule. I am placing a notice on WP:AN/EW. Dlabtot (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This must be the first article RFC you've ever filed. They aren't about users. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: V838 Monocerotis

"In the case of V838 Monocerotis, the light echo produced was unprecedented and is well documented in images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope." I put the fact tag on V838 Monocerotis thinking the reference could link to those Hubble Space Telescope images the sentence is referring to. The unprecedented bit is OK as you clarified, so thanks.Pomona17 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Glad we cleared that up. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed Ricketts

Hello,

I thought you might like to update the page on Ed Ricketts to include the sea slug named after him, Catriona rickettsi. Also, many great references here: http://slugsite.us/bow/nudwk400.htm

Best, Maya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maya43 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm reminder. That's one species plus the other 14 that need to be added! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All 15 species are published on p. 243 of Beyond the Outer Shores. I'll try an upload them in a a few hours. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm too tired, but I'll do it tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tell me if you want me to add more. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

deceased Wikipedians

I added the "warning" because a number of people, who have participated in the AFDs and edit-warred over the page, have complained that the "casual reader" could be taken unawares and believe it's an article. Regardless of the merits, I thought it best to add the box to dispel such criticism. Since you removed it, I thought you should be aware the lack of a warning will be pointed out, I'm sure, again in the future. --C S (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Can you tell me who has complained about this? I've never heard anything so absurd. Project space does not include encyclopedia articles. If you must put the warning back in, put it back in plain text in the lead section using bold emphasis instead. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing it in the previous AFDs. Someone who has been pretty vocal about it recently is Scott MacDonald (see his talk page comments near the bottom). In any case, I don't care enough one way or another. --C S (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't get why anyone would be worried about it. But, you're right, it's not that important to either of us. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had suggested a box at the top as a response to Scott and others of his thinking on the talk page of the article. I thought that CS made the box in response to my suggestion, but perhaps s/he had the idea independently. Regardless, there are folks who are pushing to remove information from the page because someone might mistake it for an article, and if information in an "article" did not adhere to normal article rules, it would be a Bad Thing. (See the Emil Petkov not sourced section on the talk page for more details of the argument.) Aleta ^Sing 15:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave the outcome in better hands. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Neulinger

On March 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Neulinger, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:Loihi

I've partially remixed the article so that it made more sense, added a table, more refs, a bit of other stuff, and generally tacked the issues you've raised, although there are still some on my agenda. ResMar 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. If we keep at it, we are probably only a week away from a GA nomination. Still, there are some glaring holes in some areas, and I'll try and identify them as well as patch them up as I find them. But, good job so far. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You say "McDonald ref", which one is that? ResMar 15:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Except for the ref issues (can't fix those until I find the ref), it seems ready for a GAC. Thanks a lot for the copyediting and stuff! ResMar 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gordon A. Macdonald is the author of Volcanoes in the Sea, a book about Hawaiian geology. You'll see it used in Hawaii-related articles. I don't think Loihi is ready for GA yet, and there are several issues that need to be addressed that I haven't had time to do just yet. But, it's getting close. I know you are in a hurry to see these articles improved, but we need to keep working on it. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not impatient...I hope. I'm just very, very bad at guaging article quality. Since it's an offline ref, you'll have to handle it. ResMar 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I just left you a comment about the see also section on the talk page. You won't have very long to wait. It is very close to GA, we just need to dot our i's and cross our t's. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues handled ResMar 23:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now that I have the ref I've expanded the "Exploration" section another para. SOme other concerns pending. ResMar 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, wanna laugh? Go here and scroll down to the very bottom to see some toilets. And then click on the "II" near the bottom. Looks like some sort of prankster got to it. ResMar 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dawm, the Hawaii Center for Volcanolgy resources are extensive, searched it and I've got more information then I care for at the moment. i'll intergrate that in now. ResMar 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. How's 17 refs? :P ResMar 20:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh you're right, we probably need fair use. The problem is that the photo itself is supposed to be PD, but the site its on is not, presenting a problem. I had a similar problem with this image for the article Ferdinandea. I was sorted out by more copyright-knowlegable users at WP:VPP. The problem is that faithful representations of work that is Public Domain, regardless of source, are also Public Domain. I'm worried this isn't PD. Oh well, the article desn't lose much in that resppect anyway. ResMar 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy replying. Nice idea "hiding" closed disscusions and good job on the captions! As such, please mention any refs when you want me to expand something based on left-out information, as you leave some pretty ambigous notes- there are 19 refs, after all! Also, once we finish this, I'd like to recommend another article, Hawaii hotspot (which I rewrote), for the next collab topic. Cheers, ResMar 20:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm going to catch up on my MoS today. ResMar 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps also this and this? ResMar 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the lead well enough, as that seems to be the outstanding problem at the moment. ResMar 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god I wish you never found that now I'm going to have to put this off mooonntthhss until all of the information from this motherlode is intergrated :( Well OK I'll get to it, but unfortunatly I'm busy with another thing at the momnet, so I'll have to alternate. It's obvious that we can scrap any "send it in" dates at this point. Gosh, 42 pages (although double spaced) and the diagrams...this is going to take some time. We should split it up into sections by year, yes, and I'll get to making a timeline for it. ResMar 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, there's no need to do anything just yet. I just wanted to see the secondary sources and the summary of the research. I'm not sure if Garcia's paper was published or not, but that isn't as important as getting a big picture overview of the topic, which is what I was looking for anyway. Also, if you get a chance, download the Malahoff 1987 paper (which is unfortunately part of a 300MB PDF file, Volume 1) and read it (it is linked in the further reading section as "Geology of the summit of Loihi submarine volcano"). I think that right now, adding a bit more about the many different research programs and cleaning up the geological characteristics section would bring this article to GA pretty quick. But don't worry about getting anything done right away. The timeline idea is nice if it only briefly summarizes the most important research findings and projects. We don't need a really long list. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I overstated the lenght of time required. Impressive finds! I gotta go, though. ResMar 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Turns out the version of Garcia's paper that is online is the author's personal version, and there is a published version that appeared a year later in Chemie der Erde - Geochemistry 66 (2006): 81-108, doi:10.1016/j.chemer.2005.09.002. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be adding material for some time to come. ResMar 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently adding stuff. Already +2000 bytes, and only thrugh the first batch of info! BTW, according to Garcia the naming of Loihi is miscredited, solving your paradox. ResMar 20:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this. For now I'll skip over it at least for Loihi; in any eventually FA noms I'll have to check it. This thing sumerizes 75 or so years of HVO work; there's simply too much for me to deal with in one shot. ResMar 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm about 3/4 done transfering data, after working on it all day. Added over 7000 bytes so far. ResMar 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the only thing left is minerology, which is a bit complex. In fact, I'm not sure all that complicated sci data is all that useful for the article. ResMar 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what's left? ResMar 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure there's all that much at this point, although as you noted, it can always be expanded, but is fine for GA. Let me take a good look at the article and get back to you. Good work! :) Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just like you said, I've sent it for GA. I've also started the "FeMO" section, but it's a bit of a stub. The problem I've hit is that I can only locate the logs for the 2008 expedition. ResMar 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I'm going to focus on some other things now, until someone takes up Loihi. ResMar 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lahaina, Kaanapali and Pacific Railroad

Thanks for the accolade, the train is a great ride in a wonderful location--I'm really glad this helped the wiki project hawaii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtalbot61 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you, especially for the great photographs! If we had a project award for photography, I would give you one of those too! :) Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing

even if you called my (long-winded) explanation "crazy" in deleting it! I guess you did read it!!

Hello Viriditas, NYScholar 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

New World Symphony

No prob, thanks for the fix. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of Hungarian Americans 2

I've gone ahead and refactored your comments per my request. I hope we can move on.

I've started a discussion to try to get everyone working from common ground, WP:LIST. We'll probably need to discuss list inclusion criteria, list maintainability, and similar lists separately, but it's a start. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal

[1]. Badagnani (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

You seem to be well versed with volcanology and geography in general. Are you interested in article building, by any chance, or do you prefer gnome work? Ceranthor 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I'm just trying to help improve Hawaii-related articles (which need a lot of work). So, there's a bit of both. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I've primarily worked with stratovolcano articles, but I think I'll be able, to, once my other plans are fulfilled, greatly expand the coverage of those articles. I was just asking, because I was wondering if you would be interested in a collab. Ceranthor 01:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If you feel like taking a look at Niihau and either helping us expand the geology/volcano/geography material or if you pass on that, feel free to make suggestions on the talk page. We've got at least three editors working on Niihau but they all have different takes and expertise, and we would love more! I plan on contributing additional material to it in the coming days, so more critical eyes are always welcome. :) If that doesn't interest you, I would like to also collaborate on Haleakala and/or Haleakala National Park as there is a lot of material available on the subject and it's easy to expand. Then again, if you find something else entirely, let me know and I'll see if I can help. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

You've got a different perspective on this situation that I do; perhaps I can learn from you. I know that there are three or four editors who have been reverting some of Badagnani's edits, and I've had some rather strange interactions with Badagnani. He wants me to help him, but only if I'm willing to play policeman, and spank the other editors. I won't do that, of course, but you argue that they should be admonished for opening an RfC.

Why not post a comment to the RFC, and say as much? That would send a message of encouragement to Badagnani, I have no doubt, and if your comment attracts a lot of support, that will send a clear message to the antagonists. I might be inclined to support - I'd have to see what you write first. Anyway, I appreciate your input. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly thought about it. But I generally don't try to discuss things with people motivated by fear, anger, and aversion; It's a waste of time. This is one of those situations where there needs to be more blocking and less talking. With the evidence of blatant, coordinated hounding, egregious edit warring, and incivility, it's clear that the 859 administrators don't find it necessary or important to enforce policy and guidelines. When you've got this many administrators and not one willing to step in and stop this kind of behavior, there's a problem. And the rampant dishonesty from those involved tells me we haven't seen the last of it and we can expect more of the same in the future. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that leaving positive comments at an RFC would not be a waste of time at all. I'm an admin, and I find it very important to enforce the policies, but it has to be done correctly. I think your input at the RFC supporting Badagnani would help me to help him, and I encourage you to do it. You wouldn't be engaging in discussion with the antagonists, because you could just make your statement and that's that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've thought of that too and yes, I know you're an admin. :) Frankly, I've played out different scenarios in my head, and I don't see any benefit to my participation in the RFC. These people have their mind made up, and when you are dealing with that kind of audience, nothing will change their minds or help. It's almost better to stay silent, and I've learned that from experience. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, etc. And these aren't horses, these are mules. I don't know if you understand me or not, but many people can't see a simple situation clearly. They view the world through filters given to them by their parents, their education, their culture, their nation, and of course, their own experience. And these people have had bad experiences with Badagnani. They are united in that one emotion, and they rally around it, giving it a life of its own. Viriditas (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They're not the audience. Badagnani is, and people finding that RFC from the outside are. Right now, it appears from that page that Badagnani has no support; why would you allow outsiders to think that? You wouldn't be posting to the people who formed the RFC, and I hope you would simply say positive things about Badagnani, and not negative about those initiating the RFC. That would not be helpful, unless gasoline has started putting out fires since the last time I checked. I'd be very sorry if you pass up the opportunity to show your support for your fellow editor. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I expected that response. But that's not what this is about, however, I understand that you see it that way. Badagnani has had plenty of options and has passed them all up. He could have easily chosen the 0RR route, but he didn't. Why, for example, has he not taken your offer of help? No, this has nothing to do with Badagnani, and everything to do with editors who feel entitled to hound, edit war, and attack because they feel slighted in some way, and this has to do with the 859 administrators who don't give a shit. And it certainly isn't about me. I already spoke up, many times, and my words were repeatedly deleted by multiple editors. I've done my part. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not accepting my help because he wants to see someone play "cops and robbers", yell at those four editors, and make his edits stick, which I will never do. First of all, I'm not a cop, and secondly, the edits have to stick on their own merits. He won't discuss the merits of his edits with me, because he's so upset that I'm not just blindly defending anything he does.

Can you at least tell me about a good edit of Badagnani's that they've been edit warring over? The only examples I've been given were disputes over pretty questionable edits. I can't tell someone to stop removing commercial links to non-notable products. How could I do that? If you could just point me in a direction where I can get some traction, that would also be very helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" edits. I'm sure Badagnani can handle himself just fine and everything will work out. In the end, he has to make the right decisions, not us. This might be a good time for him to take a nice wikibreak and get a little perspective on the problem. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope no one is offended if I contribute here. I've been trying to find ways to work with Badagnani for almost two months now. During that time I've seen him add references from Google books. While these are rarely the type of sources needed for GA articles, they're fine for the poorly-sourced articles where the many disputes have occurred. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, I am pretty busy right now and I don't have time to give you the 1000 word response your comment demands. In the interests of time I will say, that I suspect you are a good and intelligent person in RL, but here you seem to muddy the waters by mixing two separate issues together like an evil bartender. This nasty drink you've concocted for me consists of two strong ingredients, one bitter and the other sweet. Your attempts to work with Badagnani cannot be honestly self-examined. You have too much invested in the outcome, so others must weigh in and offer their opinions. So, I will not address that issue here, the RFC is the place for it. What I will discuss is your comment about Google Books (Gbooks). The use of digital archives for source and article building is acceptable. They are, after all, simply digital copies of the original material. I myself use them often, especially to search by keyword sources I already own or have access to, since this is the greatest feature that cannot be used with paper. Now, like anything else, it can be abused, and I can provide examples of that. But no source exists by itself, and anytime a question arises, other sources must be brought up for comparison. I'm sorry that I don't have time to explain this to you in depth, but I'm typing this on an iPod touch and the battery has just died. Please, can someone ask Apple to install solar cells on these things? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Ronz hasn't replied, I'm guessing the 1000 word discourse on the merits of The Gutenberg Galaxy and the historical momentum towards Google Book Search as a signficant endpoint to human culture and civilization before the chips are implanted won't be necessary. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying my position on books, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, etc., are largely not acceptable.[5]" These quotes are from WP:V. My position the merits of a book as a reference depend upon the reputation of the author and publisher. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

More than that. There's relevancy (Should we use Snoop Dogg's biography in an article about medical cannabis?), currency (should we quote a source recommending only the use of dapsone in an article about Mycobacterium leprae?) and what you refer to as "reputation", or as it is commonly called on Wikipedia, reliability. Is Adolf Hitler an authority on the History of the Jews in Germany? Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you understand the issues. Have you ever seen Badagnani ever express such understanding of any policy or guideline ever? So much of what he writes is just robotic repetition of what he's said in similar situations, rarely demonstrating any understanding of the current situation. If he recognizes someone he's had a dispute with, he makes accusations of stalking and harassment. If he sees someone bring up WP:SPAM, he accuses them of calling him a spammer. If he disagrees with someone's large, or seemingly large, changes to an article, he accuses them of blanking. The one area where I do see him aware of the situation and applicable policy is when he sees that he's close to violating 3RR, he now requests that someone else make the revert for him. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, please put the stick down and step away from the horse. The RFC is over there. I don't agree with your POV. My concern on this issue has always been one thing: hounding and edit warring by editors engaged in content disputes and the complicity of administators who either take sides or ignore bad behavior. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried multiple dispute resolution approaches to work with Badagnani, over a long period of time. I've tried some basic dispute resolution with you. I then tried to participate in this discussion, and in response you attacked me. Next time, simply say you don't want me participating in the discussion, or follow up on my previous request that you seek another dispute resolution approach. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to past DR cases? I would like to review them. I don't think a general observation of beating a dead horse is a personal attack. After all, I previously said I will not address that issue here, the RFC is the place for it. You ignored me completely and launched right back into that discussion after I said I would not discuss that aspect of it. As for asking you not to participate, you must have missed my request several days ago because I archived it after only an hour. Nevertheless, I find you interesting, and I would enjoy discussing things with you as long as you are not motivated by anger towards Badagnani, and you leave your negative emotions behind when you come to this page. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If I were aware of any edits being reverted that amounted to anything, then I'd be much more inclined to listen to your point of view, Viriditas. You stated above that "this has nothing to do with good or bad edits". However, reverting spam is not "hounding"; it's good work.

Since you seem unwilling to help me find any reversions that are actually wrongful, I'm having a hard time seeing your point of view. I'm an admin who would be inclined to support Badagnani, if he showed any side to me other that what I've seen so far. My experience with the editor is that he is absolutely dead-set against any collaboration in which he is not held to be 100% right, and that he will attempt to lawyer any decision with which he disagrees to the death.

I really wish someone would bring some good edits of his to my attention, so I could have a reason to ask these guys to stop hounding him. The fact that nobody is showing me these examples leads me to believe that they don't exist. You could be of assistance in this matter Viriditas. You have, right now, the chance to get an administrator to take this editor's side. All I require is proof that good work is being reverted. This should be easy to find, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal

[2]. Badagnani (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[3]. Badagnani (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Even=handedness

Because after the 20 or 30 messages I've posted to that admin, requesting assistance with the very trying campaign of wikihounding I have been subjected to each day for the past two weeks, I am not convinced that he is even-handed. It has to do with this policy issue:

“ With the evidence of blatant, coordinated hounding, egregious edit warring, and incivility, it's clear that the 1,633 administrators don't find it necessary or important to enforce policy and guidelines. When you've got this many administrators and not one willing to step in and stop this kind of behavior, there's a problem. ”

Badagnani (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% willing to help you very much with the Wikihounding problem, but you want to insist that I do it your way. You refuse to work my way, and then you complain that nobody helps you. That's not very impressive Badagnani. If you truly want help, then you should accept what's offered. You play by my rules, and you'll win. You don't seem to be doing very well on your own.

I don't lose content disputes, and I don't get Wikihounded, despite making controversial edits. Why are you so stubbornly unwilling to learn from me?

If you are only willing to delay your demand for justice, then you will reap bountiful rewards. Want to keep refusing my offer? Got a better plan? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That is very kind of you; I hope you understand, though, that you've been confusing me with your last few messages to me. Badagnani (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea who you are talking to or what this is about, but Badagnani, please try to use indenting colons so other editors can follow the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

He's talking to the only other person who's posted in this particular section. Come on, this one's easy to follow. The first post was about me, directed to you. I answered it, and he replied to me. Was that so complicated? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What's up?

Hi. I notice that you've taken it upon yourself to add even more heat to the Badagnani situation. Can I ask why you think what this fire needs is gasoline? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This comment is in reference to these: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], which User:Caspian blue just informed me about. I now realize that it predates our conversation above by several days, which seems awkward now. I am very puzzled that you're seeing Badagnani as simply a victim, and the others as simply aggressors. Am I mistaking your position? I'm very interested in your thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

Oh... haven't you been around here long enough to know about gasoline? I'm very puzzled by that... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! There's nothing like coming home from work to a creative piece of fan fiction on my talk page. Should I compose a reply in-universe? Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what I'm wrong about. You know I listen. The links above are examples of escalation, but what are you thinking? Care to share? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

Look, I'm sorry.

You know I've been trying to help mediate this ongoing dispute involving a handful of editors. I've observed what I've observed, and I'e developed some opinions. I'm still learning. I'm also talking with different people, and trying to convince people talking about edits more, and about each other less. This is what I know, and it seems to work, at least some of the time.

Your input has puzzled me from the start, and then Caspian blue dropped those links off on my page, and I looked at them. What I saw seemed to me to be rather unhelpful. That's not the point - I can be right or wrong about that. Either way, it's clear I didn't look very carefully, but reacted rashly instead. Bad idea.

I was already upset because an editor was repeatedly restoring warnings to Badagnani's talk page, and I pointed out to him that reposting comments that someone delete from their own page is out of bounds. I may not have done it in the best way; like I say, I was upset. This is why posting while upset is discouraged.

I managed to get a bunch of tabs open, and I started getting the order of events mixed up, and as part of that, I became convinced that you were - right then - goading Eugene2x. I now see that nothing like that was the case, and that I was off by days. It wasn't the only mistake I made right about then. Maybe it was one of those things that comes in threes.

If you're willing, I'd still like to compare notes with you, I'm sure. This is not the place for that, though. I'm only posting now to say that I was not posting judiciously last night, and I'm sorry for barfing on your talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot

I'm thinking of brushing up Hawaii hotspot and sending it to GA while Loihi sits in the backlog. I've also de-redlinked Cross Seamount (in DYK right now), and decided to shot for an FA for Loihi...just as soon as I finish cleaning up Marine Protected Area. Can you give me some guidance? ResMar 16:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let's try and touch base tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied ResMar 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley

I mentioned a comment you made about AJL's edits to William M. Connelley's main space article. I didn't mention your name specifically but I thought you might want to know. OlYeller^Talktome 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote in intro in Domino article

I followed your 'lead' on the Domino article and moved the screenwriter's quote from the introduction to the screenplay section. I agree that it's silly and probably should not be there at all, but for those that disagree it certainly fits better in the latter section.

Cheers---Williamsburgland (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If you're interested, there's a lot of lost edits in the page history, and you might find something useful there, or not. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on my talk page

Yes, let's. I'd just like to keep it in one place. It's nice you're on when I am for once :) ResMar 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Back from an epic 12k two day edit session on Hawaii hotspot. Every time I seem to be finished, I find more material to add... ResMar 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopiakuta

It wasn't the request for page protection that was disruptive, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Hopiakuta. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. This is yet another example of groupthink decision making that often comes to the wrong conclusions. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page

Hi. I replied there. My Internet was down yesterday, or I would have replied sooner. I'm now just about to check in at Talk:List of liqueurs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, here's maybe what we're seeing: There's this group of editors who are reading the rules one way, and there's an editor who's reading them differently. From the group's perspective, the one editor is making many edits that are simply against our policies. From their perspective, there's linkspamming going on, and it needs to be dealt with quickly and decisively.

From the one editor's perspective, he's editing perfectly within policy, and his edits are very positive, and add value to the articles. So, from that perspective, he's clearly being hounded, unreasonably and unfairly. From the group's perspective however, it's no more "hounding" than cleaning up after a vandal is "hounding".

I'm not going to presume to say which perspective is the "right" one, or even precisely what that would mean. I feel that the best thing to do is to ask more people, and try to get a feel for what the community thinks - inclusionists and deletionists, eventualists and... whatever the dual of those are. That's what I'm doing, posting at various talk pages. (I know how I feel personally, but I'm not important, compared with a broad consensus of Wikipedians. As an admin, I serve the encyclopedia and the community, not the other way around.)

I think that the one editor is not sufficiently taking into account that the group of editors are acting based on their good-faith understanding of our rules and norms. I think the group has been insensitive to the fact that the one editor is a long-time contributor, who will very naturally be upset if he's dealt with as a common vandal. On the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to their actions, because if we're trying to keep spam out, then we're trying to keep it out now, and not just eventually. I think that it's very fair to say that the standard is to copy removed material to the talk page, and re-add it bit by bit as consensus guides us. The idea that the material should be re-instated wholesale, and only removed on a link-by-link basis seems wrong to me.

I'm interested in what you think of this description of the situation. Whether or not you choose to respond, thanks for listening. I hope I haven't bored you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, I agree with everything you are saying except for the hounding part. That data doesn't fit the model you've created, and the hounding took place by the same editors over multiple topics and articles. At one point, the editors were simply going down Badagnani's contribution list and reverting without even checking the edits. I pointed this out in past discussions, and one of the editors involved had a history of hounding and harassing editors.[9][10] The other editor involved had recently been blocked during a dispute with Badagnani, went to mediation, and started an RFC against Badagnani while simultaneously reverting Badagnani's edits on pages he had never edited before.[11][12] This is called hounding and there is no other explanation for it. I have repeatedly told you that I will not discuss the quality of Badagnani's edits here, as that has never been my concern. If you had done your homework on me, you would have noticed that my only experience with Badagnani has been in the form of disputes, just like all the other editors involved in the RFC. The difference is that Badagnani and I were able to resolve our disputes through discussion and compromise. These two things are necessary, and dispute resolution requires the good faith of all parties to work. So, I must respectfully disagree with your hounding assessment which does not appear to be based on all the facts, while at the same time congratulating you on your dispute resolution skills and respect your willingness and determiniation to take on the tough cases and follow them through to the end, wherever it may lead. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see where we're not connecting. I can't say that something is "hounding" if it's only spammy edits that are being reverted. Nobody has shown me any reversions that are wrongful, or not based on policy, and I haven't yet found them on my own. All I've seen so far is a clash between two extreme views regarding external links, and I've seen people who want to deal with the behavior issue as as behavior issue.

My understanding of behavior at Wikipedia is that, ultimately, this is an encyclopedia, and not a court of law. Whenever I've seen someone try to prosecute a dispute totally in terms of behavior, it hasn't gone well. When I see someone restrict themselves to arguments about edits in articles, I notice that their being grounded in actual encyclopedic edits gives them a lot of power, and they're then able to defeat the behavior issue. I tried to tell Badagnani this, but he rejected it as "confusing" or "bad advice." -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ever the purist, you are. :-) Viriditas (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As an editor who has taken an interest in Badagnani in the past, you might be interested in the discussion at WP:ANI#Edit warring, if anyone cares. If you're gonna help the guy, this might be a good time to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Turning Point (2004)

Thank you very much for undertaking the review of the above article, I almost thought it would never get reviewed!!!!!! I will take care of any problems with it as quick as I find out about them.--WillC 09:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess because I'm a dick, no I'm joking. Mainly since it is a wrestling article, they seem to not get noticed that much. It should be a good article, it is probably the 10th I've wrote for GAN. Lets see there was Lockdown 08, Sacrifice 08, Hard Justice 08, No Surrender 08, Slammiversary 08, Victory Road 04, Turning Point 04, Final Resolution 05, and Against All Odds 05. Lockdown went to FAC and passed the second time around. This is the seventh one I've wrote for GAN. I'm starting to be able to do them in my sleep lol. I hope you have fun reading the article and makes for an interesting read.--WillC 09:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but I'll make sure they link though.--WillC 09:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm always up late. I have a sleeping problem. No problem, I'm in no hurry. I had to wait near two months for Lockdown to pass GA and even get a review, it went through three with two not having enough time to complete it and it was my first article I ever expanded. The ip was me. If TJ Spyke was the one who reverted the ip it was me. I was on a different computer and didn't want to sign in. So, so far so good. Take your time.--WillC 09:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. I've never thought about using it. I only use Cite Video when I have to, I used it in Slammiversary (2008) to back up some claims in the article since TNA has a Youtube account and upload alot of videos. Other that that time, I've not had an urge to use it.--WillC 10:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay.--WillC 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I plan to add a summary to TNA Turning Point in the future, but not at the moment. With pasted PPV results with-in the article and making a new article for each of those would not be a good idea at the moment since there is no one to expand them, I'll just wait till they are removed. I plan to make TNA Turning Point alot like TNA Bound for Glory. I'll just finish the Lead problems and a few other minor problems until you are finished just to get them out of the way, if you are fine with that.--WillC 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, take your time. It doesn't matter to me. I left the house for a while there anyway. You can take a week for all I care. I've got FLCs and other GANs, so I've got plenty of articles to worry about, as well as school work. I'm in no rush.--WillC 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is cool.--WillC 05:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, listen it is cool. I unplugged my computer anyway; It is taking up too much time. So it doesn't both me. You'll have to do alot more to piss me off. At the moment, the revert and the waiting isn't even bothering me. I'm fine. So, dude don't worry.--WillC 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for passing the article!--WillC 01:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I just follow other examples. Try new things. It probably should be scripted buildup. Not really sure why I wrote it like that.--WillC 02:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert? When did I do that? Must have been when I wasn't paying attention to my edits. I tend to do that alot.--WillC 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ricketts

Thanks for providing references to Steinbeck's description of Ricketts. I presume the "Steinbeck 1945" reference is to Cannery Row. Unfortunately I don't find the description on p. 29 of my pocketbook edition. Could you provide the chapter number? Thanks.

My compliments on your starting the "Ricketts" article and on all the excellent work you've done on it. Nihil novi (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what a "pocketbook" edition is, so I can't help you with that, but the quote in question is quite famous, and is referred to in the previous two references that quote it. I can of course, provide the exact edition (Penguin Classics), but in the meantime, you are welcome to search for p.29 on Google Books and you will find it there; I don't think the quote requires a chapter number, but you can find it in Chapter 5.[13] Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pocket Books is a publishing house. People often run the two words together and write of a "pocketbook edition." cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Truthbody

I am not a sock puppet of Truthbody, please check our IPs and see for yourself. Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you were, but another user expressed the idea that you were on WP:AN3 and I wanted to get your opinion. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Talk:2008 Bahrain Grand Prix/GA1

OK. Thanks for the review so far. Apterygial 12:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem like an arsehole for constantly questioning your suggestions, I'm really not doing it intentionally, and I'll explain my reasoning as much as I can. You're doing a fantastic job so far, please keep it up! :) Apterygial 10:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Happy Easter, if you celebrate it. Apterygial 11:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm in Australia, by the way. It's long past day now. :) Apterygial 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your review was incisive and thoughtful, and one of the best I have seen. Now it is behind us, can I ask, at what point do you decide that an article is a GA, but continue reviewing for that singular and noble purpose of improving it? I am curious, not accusatory (often a hard view to contrast in words on a screen alone). FAC would welcome you, should you choose to enter its foreboding gates. :) Apterygial 12:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know (you are probably watching it anyway), but I've gone through the article and made the changes you suggested. C'est fini, je crois. Apterygial 10:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Viriditas, I have looked around on Wikipedia but cannot find the answer to this -- do you happen to know if one can edit one's own user talk page to remove any warnings, discussions in progress and so on, or not? I always assumed the discussions had to stay there or perhaps be archived, but now I am not sure. Where is one supposed to have editorial discussions (or disputes) with other editors? Is it always on the article in question? In which case, what is the user talk page for? Thanks for any help you can give me. (Truthbody (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi. I'm not in a position to write a detailed a comment until later tonight, but for right now, check out WP:TALK and WP:ARCHIVE. If you feel like it, go ahead and remove whatever you want from your talk page, with the edit summary "to be archived" and I can help you do that later. Either way, it is still in the page history. Talk to you later, Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Loihi is being reviewed!

Look sharp; Mattisse took up Loihi. ResMar 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

She say's it sharp, so far. ResMar 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Great; it's passed! Now let's get right to improving it for an FA. ResMar 23:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a problem. Garcia dates Loihi, the newest volcano, to 400,000 years. But according to the Wikipedia articles, Kīlauea, Hualālai, and Mauna Kea are all younger! ResMar 18:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: EmilEikS

Hi and thank you for the note. I'm not sure if you are aware of this and this, which resulted in a range block. The notes on User talk:EmilEikS provide the rest of the history.

At this point, I don't know what else to do about the situation. User:Jayvdb said the next step is opening an arbitration case. If it comes to that, I'd be happy to provide information regarding my interactions with the user(s). Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 07:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed Ricketts (2)

In return I would like to apologise to you. I think I boxed you into a corner, as I have done recently with other people over copyvios. I've decided my over zealous approach is not the right way to go (that is, zealously combating other people for being over zealous). The copyvio problem bothers me. I recently offended twice myself in unwitting ways, and was treated in, what I think, was totally inappropriate ways. So now I have some commitment to improving Wikipedia procedures in this area. It is a really important area, and I understand why, given the lack of appropriate Wikipedia procedures, you felt you could only act in a peremptorily way. Maybe we were both barging into that situation with a different focus, you focused on getting the copyvio cleaned up, and me focused on wanting it cleaned up in a spacious way – and both of us getting over intense because of a lack of sensible backup procedures. And I could see that you were actually trying to help Nihil novi tidy it up, but I wasn't going to bloody well acknowledge that so long as you kept repeating I was mistaken :). Of course I'm happy to work with you on Ricketts. I'm not sure there is a lot more to do, though perhaps the three of us could have a go at working it up to a GA? --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Contact (film) GA review

Thanks for the heads up. I kinda rushed that section when I was adding info from The Cinema of Robert Zemeckis. I forgot to cite it. Thanks once again. Wildroot (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Loihi Seamount

I ran Copyscape over Loihi Seamount (nice job, bye the way). It gives a clean bill of health (for online sources only).

The only hiccup was a real estate site which has on this page the following passage,

"The Big Island of Hawaii has it's own undersea mount, Lo'ihi, which in 1996, was rocked by the first ever directly observed eruption of an active underwater volcano in Hawai. The eruption was preceded by a swarm of 4,070 earthquakes, the largest of any Hawaiian volcanic eruptions. A total of 4 to 5 square miles of the summit was altered; one section, Pele's Vents, collapsed entirely upon itself, and formed the renamed Pele's Pit."

This can be compared with the following passage added by Resident Mario on the 8th March,

"In 1996 Loihi was rocked by a large eruption, the first ever recored of an active eruption by an underwater volcano in Hawaii. The eruption was preceded by an earthquake swarm measuring 4000 hits, the largest of any Hawaiian volcanic eruptions. A total of 4 to 5 square miles of the summit was altered; one section, called :Pele's Vents", collapsed entirely upon itself, and formed the renamed "Pele's Pit.""

However, the real estate site was updated on the 20th March, and precisely mirrors later tweaks that had been added to the WP passage, so I don't see there is any problem. Regards --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Althogh I'll certainly run a check of our sources, I think Loihi is clean. By FA-technical criteria I was refering to this (cr. 5), or more specifically WP:PUNC. Regarding coverage:it's comeplete enough; I mean, we can sqeeze a little more ou of Garcia I guess, but Loihi is longer then Mauna Loa already! ResMar 14:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vid, I really do truly believe that the article is long enough. I can squeeze in some more from Garcia's paper, but not much. ResMar 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding prose quality; I sat down with the article for an hour to fine line it, like I said. plus, you've worked on it and Mattaise scanned it for the GA nom. I got Michael Devore to agree to work on the prose, too. Regarding external resources; hmm, many of them are rather old. this is nice though. ResMar 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

90% is a very conservative estimate. Nevado del Ruiz, a FA be Ceranthor, is of similar length and composition as well as similar in importance. In fact, it's shorter. The GA reviewer called Loihi "comprehensive." I'm sure there won't be a problem with "too short" at FA. While you can probably squeeze a bit more into it, I'm not a big fan of gorging money on offline resources. I feel it's long enough. Wikipedia need not include absolutely everything about something; there are whole books written on Yellowstone National Park, for example. ResMar 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mount St. Helens is only just longer then Loihi. ResMar 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Deborah Digges

In a few days I'll be back to solicit your help in creating a new article on Deborah Digges. Chag Sameach : ) --MPerel 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, it's blue, someone just did it today! --MPerel 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you try to get permission to use a photograph (or two) for her biography? I would like to help improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudaimonia & Eudaimonism

Hi, am i right in thinking you added the merge tags to these articles? I couldn't find a merge discussion, so created a section on it from the "discus" link. If you support merging, can you add something there? (too often i merge things then get complaints that it wasn't consensus, even with no opposition given).YobMod 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to low traffic, initial discussion was started on the project page on 30 November 2008.[14]. MiszaBot II archived the discussion several months later on 27 January 2009 to Archive 3,[15], but there is no sign of it in Archive 3. This is because an administrator named Kubigula deleted the archive at 04:34, 2 March 2009[16] (for what reason I don't know) but this deletion was immediately followed up by a page move by User:Gregbard approximately 13 minutes later at 04:47, 2 March 2009[17] which apparently replaced the deleted archival material with a new archive. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, well that explains why i couldn't find it. I'll merge the discussions from history. Thanks!YobMod 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for grabbing the bull by its horns. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review

Thanks for the in-depth GAC review at Crab Bowl. A lot of times, people don't seem to look at GACs very closely, so I appreciate your thoroughness. Strikehold (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for writing a good article. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Loihi FAC

[1] ResMar 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Your user page is brought up here. Ikip (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll respond on the discussion page. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I see the discussion was archived. Well, I can always just have the page deleted, so I'll do that instead. I'll tag it now... Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Assistance needed- Okina struck from Kapaʻau article

Could you give some input on Talk:Kapaau, Hawaii#Okina in name? Maybe I misunderstand the guidelines, or maybe the other guy does, but we are deadlocked. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in responding, as I've been offline. Basically, the problem with using the okina as the title of an article stems from a unicode compatibility issue with older browsers. Do you know if the Wikimedia foundation has published statistics on the number and type of browsers visiting the site? That could lend some insight into the problem. There is no simple answer, as each solution is dependent on different philosophical approaches to the problem. So, for example, keeping the okina out of the title prevents users with older browsers from seeing strange characters in the title bar. Meanwhile, this doesn't prevent them from seeing the same characters in the body of the article whenever special characters are used. I realize that you are approaching the problem from a different angle, but for me, the compatibility issue was first and foremost. I don't know if it has been solved or not, but I've been told recently that newer browsers don't have a problem with it, but I'm not sure if this is true. My past preference has been to forgo the use of the okina in article titles for this reason, but good arguments can be made on both sides. There is no simple answer. Looking at your discussion, it look like Hi'iaka does not use an okina in the article title but an apostrophe, which for all intents and purposes is just as wrong as not using it, is it not? Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing okina in the article title- the dispute has to do with okina in the body of text of the article. As for apostrophe or anything other than the unicode for okina- that would be wrong because text algorithms- most significantly searches would generate missing hits or false hits. An example of a false hit would be a search for Kapa cloth would hit on Kapa'au (using apostrophe, accent grave, etc.) since such characters are treated as word breaking characters, unlike okina, which is not since it is a letter.

Browsers- I am unfamiliar with the issue, but from an engineering perspective, this shouldn't be an obstacle. There might be a solution if legacy browsers (eg IE6) and underpowered browsers (eg phones, kindles and third world computers including those crankable low cost PC) probably can't handle unicode. -J JMesserly (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, that's why I made it clear that I understood you were "approaching the problem from a different angle". Whether it displays properly in the title or in the body, the problem is the same from my POV, since for me, the compatibility issue comes first. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just doing a few checks, it appears this isn't a problem any more for browsers, except for okina in the article title.

IE6: Title: Okina is an empty box. In the article body, it shows up as okina.

Low end browsers/phones: Kindle shows no Okina, either in title or body of text. EG: Niihau begins "Niihau, or Niihau..."

In what other browsers is this still reported/ rumored to be a problem? -J JMesserly (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I last reported on this in August 2008 in a "usability report" copied to {{Hawaii talk}}. Please edit it to include any findings you have. You probably should review Okinas in town names, a discussion from June 2007, and problems on the German Wikipedia reported from 2007. Meanwhile, this and other discussions should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style. There are special cases and exceptions, and Niihau is often used without the okina since the inhabitants weren't using it the last time I looked into this. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks for the info. My guess is that Treo and IE mobile apps are accessing [Mobile Wikipedia]. Surprize, surprize, the "nihau nihau" text is there too- so the problem with the body text not that the browsers aren dropping the ʻOkina, it is that we (mobile.wikipedia) are not even sending it. But we sometimes do send it. See the article on okina- mobile wp is sending the okina if it is in the title, and kendal for one will not diplay the unicode for it. This theory that wp mobile is messing up the body text is just conjecture- do you want me to update Hawaii talk with this speculation? This would suggest that we need to make a request to mobile wp to substitute an apostrophe for okina rather than strip the character from the body text. Fixing okina in the article title I imagine would be much more difficult. -J JMesserly (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please update the template. I was going to change the name to something like Hawaii usability report, but if you can think of something better, by all means do it. You can even add a box or design it any way you prefer. My original idea was to transclude the template in certain key areas and have editors like yourself update it as necessary. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote of the day

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

IP

The dynamic IPs (I think in the same range) began showing up about a week ago at a handful of articles, usually using longish edit summaries that show familiarity with WP, take a legalistic and fairly aggressive tone, and accompany removals of text or references. Often the IPs would begin operating once a day had come to a conclusion and various editors at the pages in question had already "used up" their two reversions for the day. I wouldn't guess who is doing this, but what I do know is that it's wrong. Badagnani (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I also observed that their editing time was parallel to another editor. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Classification

I saw that were wondering if the two pictures you posted of the correct classification (File:Apis mellifera wailea maui hawaii 01.jpg and File:Xylocopa wailea maui hawaii.jpg), hopefuly no one already told you, but the first one is probavly correct, but the carpener bee one is more likely Xylocopa violacea. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Do you know much about them? There's a field of them where I live and I would like to get some better photographs. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I study Insects a lot, and currently have done a lot of work (see insect page history) And there are many sorces on the net if you want info, or you can just ask me. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, it is actually Sonoran carpenter bee (Xylocopa sonorina), mistaken identity, because this is the only species of carpenter bee found in Hawaii acording to this resource. Do you aslo see somewhat orange ones too? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No orange ones, but this page pretty much confirms that they are Sonoran. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the misidentification, but you sure non like these? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in South Maui, no. But, I think you still got it right as Xylocopa sonorina as they appear on the hear.org site. However, if you can find out if they come in different colors and why, that would be interesting. Question for you: Should we create an article about the Sonoran carpenter bee? I have the ability to study them in their habitat on Maui. They do get a bit annoyed when I make too much movement around them, but they are very gentle as long as I stay still. Even the Apis mellifera don't mind, and will completely ignore me as I take photos. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with gender, and making a page would be wonderful, but do you want to make it or me? But anyway, there is an interesting site with info on this species, [18]. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you prefer! You are welcome to create the page, or ask me to help, and I will create it. :) I'm curious, have the naming conventions debates settled down? Would the new article be titled Xylocopa sonorina or Sonoran carpenter bee? Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my really late response, a lot happened seance Friday; i am use to people answering on my talk. For the name, I would use the binomial and create a redirect with the name. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll create it in my user space right now. Hopefully, you can review it. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Too late! I see it has already been created. I should try and help expand it. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but if you want, there is a lot more info from the link above (or here). I would avod the Further reading section until you have a lot of refs, so I cut the further reading only a little. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Arjuna

Hey V, I've been too busy lately to do much Wikipedia-ing, but just thought I'd let you know that I slightly changed my username to Arjuna909. I don't know how such a change appears on articles, talk pages etc, so just thought I'd let you know in case it's not easy to find me. I'll be back with more editing one of these days -- for now it's just minor rvvs etc. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, good to hear from you. Send me an e-mail if you get a chance. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Surfer

Aloha! You can adjust the size of the picture thats not controlled by the box. As for the non alignment I have no idea how that happened as it was fine the other day. Not sure about empty parameters if you copy and paste the paramters from Taylor Knox for instance they should all be like that. I've asked someone to correct the alignment anyway. You just have to ensure you copy all the paramters and don't leave any out this is why is shows up with {{ }}. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I seem to have fixed the alignment anyway. I only got around to adding a few. If you are unhappy with the image size just reduce the px in the box manually. E.g Kelly Slater. There are hundreds of surfers missing from here though, sometime I'll get around to adding more! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean the gap at the top of the page before the text begins. Mmm I dunno about that, I'm not a template expert believe it or not. I'll ask. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi... what's up?

What's going on between you and Caspian blue, Viriditas? I'm back online after a week, and I see a major grassfire going where there was only a severe threat of one before. What happened? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything appears to be ok. There was a small brush fire started by a child playing with matches, but it looks like it went out on its own with a little bit of cool rain, turning the rolling hills a nice, lush shade of green. Rainy days have their benefits. I heard about your family and the funeral on your talk page; Please accept my condolences. Welcome back. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The rain has been nice. It cleanses, and makes flowers grow. Or, in my case, it seems to make radish and okra sprout. How can I complain? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have to ask. How are your squirrels? Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They're actually learning. I've stopped leaving the feeder out when I'm not home, and I've only had to pepper spray each of them in their furry faces twice or so to get the point across. (It's a mild pepper-spray.)

The best — and I've seen this three or four times :) — is when one of them creeps right to the edge of the roof, almost starts to lower himself to the feeder, then thinks better of it, changes his mind, and goes back! If they can learn to adapt.... then dammit, so can Wikipedians. To think that I'd have my faith restored by rodents. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I really hope you can setup a video camera and upload this to YouTube. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alcapurria

That article is not well written, but I do try to add images to food-related articles when I can. Recipes should not be included in Wikipedia articles (as our guidelines state), although an article on a specific dish should obviously indicate, in a general manner, a dish's ingredients and basic manner of preparation: what is it made of, and is it baked, boiled, fried, etc.? The fact that I didn't fix that article is simply indicative of the fact that I was primarily concerned, at that moment, with adding an image (and, if you check my image upload log, you'll see that I often do this), not in improving the article in any other way. Badagnani (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. My only request is that you get in the habit of using informative edit summaries. If you are doing some kind of image patrol for food and drink articles, it would be extremely helpful to get some kind of acceptable edit summary from the project. This would have the added benefit of standardizing the process as well as inviting other editors to help you. You didn't use any edit summary at all[19] and this can cause confusion for people watching recent changes. When I saw your edit, I said to myself, "why didn't he add the copy to commons tag and update the assessment on talk"? Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the above. I suppose I just went ahead and added an image, didn't use an edit summary because I was in a hurry and the edit was self-explanatory; is there confusion about what I did (add an image) that a click to see the diff didn't indicate clearly? Badagnani (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell me which part you don't understand and I'll explain it a different way. Perhaps you are referring to the use of edit summaries? Let me approach this another way: You said you were adding images to food-related articles. Users who engage in repetitive, project-related tasks like adding images tend to use a standard edit summary to inform others and to bring other editors into the project to help out. Surely, you've seen these types of edit summaries? Take a look at a live snapshot of Special:RecentChanges. What do you see? There are automatic edit summaries, which are inserted by the software when you do certain things, such as creating articles, moving, etc. I'm sure you've also seen edit summaries created by automated tools, such as Twinkle, AWB, etc. When I use the Reflinks tool, it fills out the edit summary for me with Converting bare references using Reflinks, and links to the tool. You may notice that editors working on project-related tasks will do this as well, and can recruit other editors to help them with links in the field. So, if you wanted to find editors to help you with adding images to food-related articles, you could link to a project subpage in your edit summary, as well as explain what you are doing with something like Adding images to food-related articles. You can help! where "help" is linked to the project subpage for images. Keep in mind, the more you use edit summaries, the more you are helping others understand what you are doing as the page scrolls by in their watchlist and recent changes. This may actually cut down on much of the misunderstanding that can result from not using edit summaries. Basically, we use the edit summaries to tell others what we are doing. I myself have grown lazy recently, and my edit summaries aren't as verbose as they should be, so I will be taking my own advice on this matter. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, I didn't remove the "photo needed" tag at Discussion. Clearly I should have, but I guess no one is perfect, and that's why we check on and help one another. Thanks for noticing; you could have gone ahead and removed that tag if you had noticed that I'd forgotten to. Badagnani (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, but was there any reason why you didn't want to assess the article?[20] I still think the {{Copy to Wikibooks Cookbook}} tag should be added. Can I do that? Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your question: assessing articles is one thing I've never learned how to do. I enjoy starting articles, adding content, references, and images, etc. but have never figured out how to assess, leaving that to editors who have more of an aptitude for that aspect of editing. Badagnani (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Question for you: Do you usually do the same tasks on Wikipedia, or do you ever try new things? I ask because you may be interested in some of the findings coming out of modern neuroscience. Researchers suggest that in addition to regular exercise, one of the best things you can do to keep your brain healthy and active is to try new tasks on a daily basis.[21] I'm not sure if you were aware of this, so I'm sharing this with you in the event that you hadn't heard this before. Walnuts help, too.[22] :) Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Roux

Hi Viriditas - the stub-sorting project does have a manual of style - WP:STUB, supplemented by WP:WSS/NG. I pointed Roux to WP:STUB and to the proper forum to discuss any changes he thought worth bringing up for discussion - sadly, he wasn't interested in going there. Grutness...wha? 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging me on this. I'm genuinely curious about the topic. I looked at the discussion over at User_talk:Roux#Piping_on_Cat:Canadian_heraldry_stubs and don't see any link to the manual of style. I also don't see anything in the stub MOS about "stub categories piped using the symbol µ". Could you add it? It would also be more informative to change the title to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stubs) so that this is clear to everyone. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the bit about µ - it did say that categories were piped to keep them away from other categories, but not how. I'm not so sure about changing the name of the page, since it covers a lt more ground than a simple manual of style (including a lot on the creation process), and quite a few of the things which would go in any manual of style are on the naming guidelines page. It would probably be a good idea to convert the pages into separate "how to" and MOS pages, but that would require quite a bit ofm work - I'll make mention of it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, see if there are any bites. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

PS - thanks for the kind words about my health. I'm almost back to normal now (just having to avoid some foods for a while). Another few weeks and I should be completely back to normal. Unfortunately things like this business with Roux haven't exactly helped my stress level! Grutness...wha? 06:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your addition is certainly an improvement. I'm not particularly happy with the name of the MOS because it isn't immediately obvious it is an MOS, but that's just me. :) I'm glad to hear you are feeling better. It's too bad you and Roux got off on the wrong foot, but I hope you understand that these things are frustrating and appear esoteric to most editors. You do have a good reason for using them, but it can sometimes be difficult to explain it in a short paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Translatio latine

Sorry, I meant one who can't hear, not death I'll fix it, thanks! Bugboy52.4 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I could of fix it, but it would have been tomorrow, I am doing a last minute/due tomorrow project tonight, not really that important. If you want, you can try to fix the translation to see if it is correct. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)