User talk:Viriditas/Archive 31

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Exaltation of the Flower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aeolia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I want to thank you for your helpful advice you offered me in a July 24 ANI discussion. It is easy to get lost in all these noticeboards that say "this noticeboard cannot resolve your problem, try the other one" which possibly leads to another board twice that ineffective. I wonder if anyone does that for a living? Sincerely, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think all of the noticeboards need a facelift and a new user-friendly algorithm for traversing the maze. It just doesn't work for most editors in the current form. So, I'm clearly in your corner. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer. I would virtually welcome any change that involves better usability of Wikipedia and the entire elimination of a bureaucratic aspect here that seriously slows down the user experience. I think Wikipedia takes itself too much seriously which hurts the overall image of the project and of course has an impact on the number of its fanbase (or userbase if you will). ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Getty Kouros

Hi. In writing the article I relied heavily of the Getty Kouros Colloquium Report. I still have my copy, so if you would like to indicate what needs referencing I'd be happy to try and help. It should be said that there isn't very much literature on the subject. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 09:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Twospoonfuls: almost half of the article lacks inline citations. In order for me to pass it (or any other reviewer for that matter), it would require inline citations for most of the article. The reason I contacted you is because I was hoping you could add inline citations, nominate it for GA, and then perhaps myself or another editor could review it. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mancowbk1.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mancowbk1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Conrad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fascism or anarchy?

• "Wikipedia is fascism if it extends to giving the Foundation complete freedom, it is anarchy if it extends to giving editors complete freedom."
  (Apologies to blogger Trolldor)

Regarding this, might be easier for the community to influence the WMF board. By my reckoning we can vote in five seats and four more are appointed by the board themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to reply with a quote from Emma Goldman, but I won't. :) Since you clearly know more about this than I do, may I ask, what is the problem with the board now, and why isn't the community influencing them at present? Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably because voter turnout is so low (I didn't vote, did you?), board members from the community seem to be more of the administrative type rather than the editor type. [1] Imagine if we could get a couple of active editors on there? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The sculptor is thought to be Pythokritos of Rhodes.<ref>(Paul MacKendrick - The Greek Stones Speak, pub Norton & Company 1962</ref> When first

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation

The sandbox‘s Talk page seems otherwise occupied, so I thought this the next best place to leave a note: I’m getting a bit of cognitive dissonance from the second third passage. If the thesis is that the stele is about a metaphorical game, and contrary to prevailing opinion, it would seem to make more sense to say “More than (about) flowers … More than (about) Demeter & Kore.“ But in that case I would expect the French to read Plus que … rather than Plus de …. OTOH the style is somewhat elliptical, and it’s possible a sophisticated native speaker would read it that way regardless. (Or it may be an idiom of which I‘m unaware.) There may be further discussion in the review that clarifies the intent here.—Odysseus1479 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right. The author of the book seems to be adding an interpretation that succeeds the original one, that initially pointed to the women as goddesses rather than mortals. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I‘m beginning to be concerned that the quantity of copy-pasted material (and close translation thereof) may be stretching the boundaries of fair use. Do you think we should continue off-wiki? Feel free to e-mail me to discuss options, if you like.—Odysseus1479 04:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Can I send you the original the pdf? Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be great. I‘ve just applied at the Library for JSTOR access, but don’t know whether I qualify or how long it will take.—Odysseus1479 09:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, regarding your question in bold, I don’t think so: the passage immediately below says essentially that Hampe’s explanation raises more questions than it answers; the introductory disclaimer suggests to me the foundation for an Occam‘s-razor heuristic. Afterwards the focus turns to the evidence for the dominant view, a positive counter-argument to follow the negative one.—Odysseus1479 07:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, if you review the original pdf, you'll notice right away why I thought it was a quote. In any case, it sounds like you are able to identify Hampe's original argument as it appears in the book, and Picard's criticism from the review. This is exactly what I want to add to The Exaltation of the Flower article. If you are interested in having a go at it after you've read the entire review, please have at it. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2014 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—Odysseus1479 01:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: FYI... initially, all I did was use the "email this user" function. Since you didn't receive any of the emails, we seem to have an ongoing problem with the subsystem, or the email address you have set in your preferences is incorrect. You may want to have a look-see. In any case, I've sent you a new dropbox link via the dropbox interface, specifying the new email address you just gave me. I'm happy to continue to translate via Google if need be. Let me know what you want me to do. Keep in mind, the copy of the translation to date is still in my sandbox history. Thanks for your help on this. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your VPT comments

Hi Viriditas. I can see that you are annoyed about the Reflinks/Toolserver issue and the wider software development situation at the WMF. But sarcastic comments like these[2][3] and less-than-civil comments like these[4][5] are not helping. If anything, comments like those are going to make WMF staffers a lot less likely to want to read VPT. On a scale of one to ten of comments that will get the WMF to actually change anything, I wouldn't rate those comments higher than a two. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I present to you Exhibit A. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Albinia

Just in case you're not following at the ref desk, I thought I'd let you know I updated Albinia Cust Wherry's ancestor chart. We have another article on one of her ancestors, Sarah Trimmer. - Nunh-huh 21:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm thinking of creating a bio, but not much to go on at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh: can you take a look at User:Viriditas/Albinia Wherry and make any additions? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, I can only think of using the standard ahnentafel template rather than the fan chart, so there can be clickable links. I've changed it, but you of course can change it back if you want. But I regret I don't have any additional biographical detail to add. Beatrix Albinia Wherry, her daughter, married Richard William Oldfield in 1914, and they had two daughters, Albinia and Pandora, but that probably doesn't belong in Albinia Cust Wherry's article. - Nunh-huh 04:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a fairly decent photo of Albinia Wherry, published 1929 in London in her final book The Albinia Book. I'm not sure that it's in the public domain, though, so I'm hesitant to upload it. - Nunh-huh 03:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is the photographer identified, or identifiable? Much hinges on that. Under UK law the photo becomes PD 70 years after he or she died, but if it’s anonymous that’s 70 years after first publication instead—here that would mean since 2000. Although WP only requires conformity with US law, the URAA basically respects foreign copyrights on anything published since 1923. So if it turns out that the photographer is identifiable but is not known to have died before 1944, we can’t be sure the image is in the public domain. OTOH once there’s an article that needs it, it can be uploaded locally with a fair-use rationale, since the subject is long dead (and assuming no free image of comparable value to the article is available).—Odysseus1479 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TPS :)

The photographer is not identified or identifiable; the only credit is "Illustrations and Genealogies collected by Albinia Frances Stewart". If that means the photo is PD under British Law, I think that means that it is PD under U.S. Law. Here's the reasoning: This is a work first published outside the U.S. by foreign nationals after 1923 but before 1977, published without compliance with U.S. formalities (there's no copyright notice), and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996. Per this table, that should make it public domain. - Nunh-huh 06:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(Addendum: due to various edit conflicts, I was replying to a posting suggesting the photo was PD as of 1991 rather than 2000. If 2000 is the date, it's a lot less clear. - Nunh-huh 06:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that; I somehow read the publication year as 1920 at first. I considered striking instead of rewriting, but didn’t think it had been up long enough … wrong! The URAA is a problem, because if the photo was still copyrighted in the UK as of 1996, it gets US protection until 1929 + 95 = 2024.—Odysseus1479 06:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Siduri

The quote was in a jpg which was copyvio and later deleted. See Talk:Siduri. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Maup Caransa, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You turned Dutch "de kampen" into "Nazi concentration camps" without supplying a reference for your change. Not OK. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source in question referred directly to German camps, which is short for Nazi concentration camps, as our redirect makes clear and as other sources in the article note. Your warning, as well as your revert, was completely bogus. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

72 Hours

You have been blocked enough to not need a template. You know the drill. Your recent edits have been disruptive but not quite block worthy. You crossed that line when you decided to undo an admin edit to ANEW because it didn't go your way. If you feel the admin was involved you should open a discussion about it, not revert them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If I feel the admin was involved? You must not be paying attention. Admin John proposed sanctions against me in the ANI thread on Drmies, and then he waltzed over and closed the EW thread in favor of Drmies. This is such an open, brazen violation of WP:INVOLVED that it is entirely appropriate for any editor to strike it out. It's simply hilarious though, that you expected me to open another thread (three total threads open, including ANI, RS/N, and EW) in which case, my act of opening another thread would have resulted in a block. I think it is safe to say that the Wikipedia administration is incapable of being held to the same standards as regular editors, and the involved action by John and your subsequent block demonstrates the problem for anyone paying attention. What you don't seem to understand is that I don't care about being blocked, I care about editors being treated fairly and equitably regardless of their user rights. However, I want to thank you for proving that the admin corps is incapable of controlling or patrolling their own. It's important that more editors discover that the policies do not apply to admins, and that admins are an elevated class of users not subject to the same rules as regular editors. The more people that discover this, the more we can change the system. So thank you for using me as a guinea pig. I appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Beetstra: No, you're wrong. I never made a single revert. Go look at the page history. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I said 'editors', not 'Viriditas'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but in context, it sounded like you were referring to me. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Sitush: Yes, I know about Jimbo and Carol, but please understand, it's far more complex than that. Check out our article on the Californian Ideology and please read "Anatomy of the Deep State". If you don't have time, just search the article for the keyword "libertarian". I don't fault anyone for subscribing to these kinds of ideologies, but in the 21st century, we need to move beyond these old ideas and find new ones that work. Personally, I'm especially interested in the intersection between the values we hold dear as a civilization (rule of law, free trade, research and development, environment, etc.) and the preservation of human values. There's just not enough work being done to study this interaction, as this is where all modern conflict and dispute originates. Thanks for your reply on Lightbreather's page. BTW, I'm still deeply jealous of the drawing Anna did for your user page. It's her best one yet. You are a very lucky person. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Spartaz: When you have a moment, could you please show me the evidence for this alleged disruption you say I caused? I just had a look at the last few days of editing and I couldn't find a single diff that could be construed as "disruption". On the other hand, I found major edit warring, personal attacks, and involved admin actions by admins, all for the purpose of protecting other admins. I realize you aren't very active on Wikipedia (and only seem to show up to block editors by proxy) but when you have some free time, I would love to see the examples of disruption you say I caused. Pointing out problems with content on a talk page isn't disruption. Attempting to fix those problems isn't disruption. Getting reverted isn't disruption. Making an ANI report describing these issues isn't disruption. Filing a RS report isn't disruption. And making a report on EW isn't disruption. However, according to your actions, doing all of these things is disruption if the subject of the reports and filings is an admin. Do I have that right? Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Surely you can understand that the sum of your actions can be disruptive even if no single action was. The forum shopping in particular was disruptive in my opinion, and that is disregarding other issues. It looked at lot like "asking the other parent" to me when you went from venue to venue when you did not get the answer you wanted in the first place. Chillum 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to offer your personal opinion. I value your commentary and seek to understand it. I also recognize that good people can disagree based on their own perspectives formed by unique experience and insight. Ideally, there is a middle where different views can meet. In this case, I'm having difficulty seeing what you consider as "forum shopping". The ANI discussed the overall problem in general, and the RS/N report focused on a single unreliable source. The edit warring report was filed much later, only because the edit warring had not stopped and had continued into the second day. While I would have preferred the ANI report to focus on the edit warring, it had been seriously sidetracked by thread hijackers and grudge match warriors, in addition to major distractions caused by editors misinterpreting what the report actually said. For those reasons, the edit warring filing diverged into a new report, initially focused only on the reverts, until of course, the traveling circus showed up to distract and evade from the central points once again. So based on the above, I must disagree with your opinion. At no time was I ever forum shopping. And since you don't appear to be familiar with my style, I must inform you, at no time was I ever attached to any outcome, nor did I express an outcome that I desired. Therefore, there was nothing to "ask" the other parent to do or act upon. Thanks for sharing. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The totality of your behavior was disruptive and your actions turned a simple content dispute to discuss on an article talk-page into a multi-headed hydra monster spreading across multiple venues. Your final straw was striking out an admins determination of your AN3 report which made it very clear to everyone (except clearly yourself) that you we going to continue your actions until you got the outcome you wanted. Clearly you don't see it (or pretend not to) but multiple editors warned you in various threads that you needed to dial it down but instead you kept ratcheting it up. This has nothing to do with any advanced permissions that other users might have but everything to do with your actions. Indeed, the last time I recall Drmies interacting with me was to harshly berate me for blocking Eric Corbett for one of his bouts of bad language. Instead of making sly allegations of bias based on admins sticking together perhaps you should look more closely for the beam sticking out of your eye. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, your comment shows that you are completely unable to demonstrate a single, solitary diff demonstrating "disruption" on my part. I'm afraid that's because this alleged "disruption" you claim exists never actually occurred. As the diffs on ANI that I provided show, I used the article talk page appropriately to discuss problems with the content and made very minor changes. In response, three different edits I made were reverted three separate times by an administrator, who has expressed little to no understanding of the concept of edit warring, and feels that policies don't apply to them.

First, our guideline on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing indicates that edit warring is a sign of disruption, and the edit warring by the aforementioned administrator is clearly supported with diffs provided on ANI and the EW board. There is absolutely nothing "disruptive" about providing these diffs and discussing them, so your allegation that I have disrupted Wikipedia by bringing an administrator to task for their disruptive behavior is without merit, and is nothing more than a silencing tactic.

Second, our policy on Wikipedia:Edit warring indicates that "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption." The admin who was reported was properly warned and yet continued to edit war against multiple users. In response to this disruption, an involved admin with a long, sordid history in the ANI archives of taking action while being involved, closed the report as no action—just after directly participating in the Drmies ANI, where he personally supported Drmies and called for my head. Once again, the evidence of the "disruption" can be found solely in the diffs of the administrators you and others are rallying around to defend, not in my actions.

When you are able to provide a single, solitary diff showing how I was disruptive in this affair, I may begin to take what you say seriously. Until then, the actual, documented evidence shows the opposite of what you claim. It shows that a group of admins have rallied around their own to defend and protect edit warring by admins, false allegations by admins, and personal attacks by admins. The evidence shows that at least one admin has misused their tools as an involved admin, and others as protectors of each other, not in defense of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I'm very glad this incident occurred, so that others can see the true nature of administration on Wikipedia, and how it does not represent the community nor regular editors, as it seeks to promote its own interests and its own values over and above the values of fairness that we should expect. No, it is very clear to anyone watching that the administration of Wikipedia has devolved into a corrupt oligarchy that has no concern nor any interest in moving the community forward. Major disruption to Wikipedia did occur, but it was caused by administrators, not editors, and it was administrators who failed to act and take responsibility. The community must come to terms with the fact that the administrator class no longer represents them and action must be taken. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There is some wisdom in what you have said. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I am familar with the policy here. You are not the first user I have blocked for disruption. As I said before your spawning of discussions across multiple noticeboards was disruptive but not quite to the point where it was block worthy. I am sure you are aware of your own edits but for the same of any passing readers you opened an ANI, a RSN and an AN3 within an hour of opening a discussion on the talk page of the article concerned with your dispute. Multiple editors asked you to tone it down but you continued the argument. Disruptive but not quite block worthy. What swung it for me was your decision to strike out an admin action at AN3 because your opinion was that the admin was involved through commenting at ANI although it appears that their commentary was in an administrative capacity which cannot make them involved. By this act you crossed the line and I blocked you for the disruption you caused. ANI thread & RSN Discussion. I would say that you were displaying disruptove behavior by refusing to listen to other editors and refusing to engage in consensus building (4a). Essentially you tendentiously insisted in your interpretation of a text and refused to listen to any opinions different to yours and caused a lot of drama and disruption as a result. In such circumstances you did not need to do very much to cross the line into blockable territory. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You are describing the behavior of the administrator Drmies, who I reported to ANI for refusing to listen to any other opinions different from his own and for insisting on the sole interpretation of his text and edit warring, which prevented consensus building. You appear to have blocked the wrong person, and I suspect you already know this. As for "multiple editors" telling me to tone it down, you got that wrong as well. Multiple admins showed up to defend their own (as you are now doing) and began accusing me of saying things and doing things that never actually occurred, never once providing a single diff, as you continue to do. Other editors showed up in my defense to point this out. This is a tactic of admins when they find themselves in trouble. They circle the wagon and make false accusations and yell "disrupt, disrupt" while ignoring the actual problem under discussion. Admin John's involved closing was rightly struck out, and he has a history of acting as an involved admin. Indeed, acting as an involved admin is disruptive, and to prevent further disruption, his close was struck. I don't expect you to see the error of your ways since you are no longer active on Wikipedia and only seem to use your account to defend the admin oligarchy, but I think that when an admin disrupts the encyclopedia as Drmies did, they should be treated like any other editor; reports on their behavior should not be automatically dismissed and closed by other involved admins. And I think that an admin like John who has been acting involved for a long time now, should have their permissions revoked. Finally, I disagree that inactive admins like yourself should be able to keep their permissions, as we see time and time again that they are misused. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw that you told Chillum, above, "I value your commentary and seek to understand it. I also recognize that good people can disagree based on their own perspectives formed by unique experience and insight." In that context, I sincerely hope that you won't mind if I make a comment of my own. It seems to me that Spartaz blocked you for this, noting that you could have, instead, opened a discussion about it, which you certainly could have done. I also think that there was a sum of your actions in terms of ascribing bad intent to Drmies, repeatedly, when other editors were asking you not to. I would also invite you to consider how saying "I realize you aren't very active on Wikipedia (and only seem to show up to block editors by proxy)" to Spartaz only serves to make the situation worse. Again, I hope that you do not mind my saying those things. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Even though we disagree on quite a bit, you've always gone out of your way to be polite and friendly, and I must recognize and bow down to your superior interpersonal skills which I can only emulate. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it was helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was, in a Good cop/bad cop sort of way. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have responded to your requests for explanations in a polite and constructive way while your replies have been increasingly personal and unpleasant. I'm not sure what your objective is for this behavior, but if it was to make me cross so you can point to a grumpy response and scream "involved involved admin abuse" then I'm afraid that I have far more unpleasant stuff going on in the real world to be bothered about to be upset by you. That said, the law of diminishing returns has clearly set in and I feel I have fully discharged any blocking admin's requirement to explain their actions so you can carry on any further discussion as a monologue, Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad admin, no hot pocket! Cheer up, friend. It can only get better. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin: I don't consider you my enemy. What is your reasoning behind that statement? And since I've got your attention, perhaps an ACME-certified sooper-genius like yourself can answer a simple philosophical question for me: why do libertarians self-identity as such, when the ideology they espouse is best classified as corporatocratists? Wouldn't it best to retire the label of "libertarianism" once and for all, and for all corporatocratists to finally come out of the closet? What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Libertarians do not recognize the premise that a limited government necessarily benefits corporations over individuals. In a sense, it would benefit the wealthy, because our government attempts to (what's the opposite of "benefit"? "detriment" isn't a verb) damage the wealthy. Since, as far as I know, a libertarian government hasn't been tried, we don't know what the consequence would be. But I'm what might be called a right-libertarian. Some libertarians do not think any government is necessary; people would naturally create a police force to enforce "natural laws", and accept "courts" to handle "breach of contract" and fraud. I believe that's been disproved. And there also exist "labor libertarians", who think that, with minimum government, labor unions would form, flourish, and be accepted. I don't think their theory has been tried, either, but I consider it unlikely, as I cannot think of many "strike-breaking" techniques which are not "legal" under a libertarian system. I'm afraid I do not understand the logic of libertarian socialism, so I don't really know whether it's a coherent theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. government has damaged the wealthy? Perhaps that's true in the Fox News Reality, but not in this reality. Income inequality in the United States has grown to its greatest levels not seen since the 1920s, with 46 million Americans living in poverty. This is what a libertarian utopia looks like my friend. Corporate profits are at historic highs because libertarians use the federal government as a welfare system while at the same time decrying its use by regular people. For example, Walmart cost taxpayers an annual $6 billion dollars by forcing their workers on to public assistance to survive; the fast food industry did the same, costing taxpayers $7 billion. In reality, your libertarian utopia depends solely on the federal government to survive, and without it, there would be no functioning large corporation in the U.S. It's time to get your own house in order, my friend, because when you look at the actual evidence, it shows without a doubt that libertarians vehemently oppose limited government, with the most "libertarian" American politicians responsible for expanding the size of the federal government to fight their perpetual wars in order to expand the size of their economic empires. And as far as the immigration problem is concerned, that's caused by the same economic policies supported by libertarians, forcing millions of people out of their home countries to avoid economic stagnation and strife caused by libertarian policies that destroyed their countries. And don't even get me started on the bailout of the financial sector (the majority of whom are libertarians), the endless violations of civil liberties, mass surveillance, and development of the police state that libertarians have helped construct and support. The libertarian "utopia" you promote is already a nightmare for 99% of the people on this planet. How about dealing with actual reality, and looking at what libertarian ideas and policies have done to average people, instead of talking about theory? The evidence is all around you. Libertarians want to suspend the rule of law, and the hard-won rights guaranteed to all peoples, regardless of class or income. Libertarians want to replace government by the people with government by the wealthy, and they aren't the least bit coy about this. Libertarians want to be able to trade goods and services without any responsibility to how their trade impacts people or the environment, and they don't want any restrictions on how they conduct their business. Libertarianism in practice, is indistinguishable from narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.[6][7] It is therefore, no surprise that libertarianism wants to get rid of government, as government is the only thing preventing it from taking humanity back to the Stone Age. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have no idea what libertarians are. To begin with, there are no libertarian politicians in Congress or the US Senate; I thought Ron Paul was, but it appears I was mistaken. If there are any libertarian ideas put in place, it's not because of any people generally holding libertarian views, but because the views are held by others, either populists or anarchists. According to surveys, most people holding libertarian beliefs do not vote, so it would be hard to believe that libertarians have any influence. Or, perhaps you believe the Tea Party's propaganda that they are "libertarian".

By definition, libertarians oppose unlimited government. Some support limited government, and some believe no government is necessary. Hence, the people you call "libertarians" aren't, even if they called themselves "libertarian". You can't blame libertarians for the so-called "economic libertarians" who are "social" and "military" non-libertarians, and who ask for government subsidies for their own businesses, as well as demanding to have their business practices unexamined.

For that matter, some libertarians (and it had been a plank of the US LP at one point) are in favor of environmental "taxes" and laws; representing the principle that an entity can be held liable for probable general damage, if the damage occurs, even if no rational person could attribute specific damage to the entity. Some libertarians even support unionization, although I don't see it as being compatible.

I could say more, but I see no need to engage in personal attacks, as you've done above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please say more, as you are bordering on No True Scotsman in the above. And there's no personal attacks anywhere in my comments, unless you consider attacking an abstract set of beliefs as "personal", which is a strange interpretation. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I see your point re No True Scotsman; however, I believe (well, most of the time) in the version of libertarianism I learned in the mid-70s to early 80s, so you should not expect me to defend "libertarians" who have views inconsistent with that version. The actual "famous" libertarians I have met include David H. Koch to the right and Samuel Edward Konkin III to the left. Konkin was an anarchist (in more than one sense), and Koch said that he no longer supports the Libertarian Party (at least, per our articles). Whether that means he's no longer a libertarian is open to debate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. But your claim that I "have no idea what libertarians are" is way off the mark. From what I've read, the observation that libertarianism can be viewed as "prepolitical...applied autism" has a lot of support. My criticism up above is echoed by dozens of reliable sources. Peter Corning says it better than me, however: "...we now have overwhelming evidence that the individualistic, acquisitive, selfish-gene model of human nature is seriously deficient; it is simplistic, one-sided and in reality resembles the pathological extremes among the personality traits that we find in our society. The evidence about human evolution indicates that our species evolved in small, close-knit social groups in which cooperation and sharing overrode our individual, competitive self-interests for the sake of the common good...We evolved as intensely interdependent social animals, and our sense of empathy toward others, our sensitivity to reciprocity, our desire for inclusion and our loyalty to the groups we bond with, the intrinsic satisfaction we derive from cooperative activities, and our concern for having the respect and approval of others all evolved in humankind to temper and constrain our individualistic, selfish impulses (as Darwin himself pointed out in The Descent of Man)... libertarians generally have no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests...The benign free market model of society is equally deficient. Many libertarians seem to be myopic about the prevalence of self-interested "organizations" in the marketplace, from the many millions of mom-and-pop businesses with only a few employees to mega-corporations with hundreds of thousands of workers (whose freedom they may severely restrict). These "corporate interests" sometimes oppose the common interest and perpetrate malfeasance. (Do we need to rehearse the recent examples of Enron, Capital Management, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, BP, Massey Energy and other disasters?) So-called free markets are routinely distorted by the wealthy and powerful, and the libertarians' crusade for lower taxes, less regulation and less government plays into their hands. Perhaps unwittingly, anti-government libertarians would have us trade democratic self-government for an oligarchy."[8] Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I am sorry you felt the need to revert poor sources into a BLP at John Barrowman. I specifically asked at article talk that you refrain from doing so. I have blocked your account for one week as a result. The block length is partly predicated on your recent block earlier this month. I won't issue a template as it is clear you have been blocked many times before and know very well how to appeal if you so desire. I implore you on your return not to edit-war poor sources on BLPs as it will lead to a block every time. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

There has been absolutely no BLP violation. Admin User:John has acted WP:INVOLVED and unilaterally blocked me in a dispute about the use of The Daily Mail on Wikipedia. John's concerns about the sources underwent two previous discussions in February 2014 and were vetted by the community.[9][10] John failed to find consensus for his claim that this was a BLP violation and he dropped the matter at that time. The community has also repeatedly disputed John's unique reading of the BLP policy on this matter.[11] At the time of the initial dispute, John made threats to block me and was informed by the community that he was way too involved in this dispute and that he should stop threatening to block me over what the community has decided is not a BLP violation.[12][13][14][15] At that time, John recognized the community consensus supporting this material and disappeared from the article. Unfortunately, he has today tendentiously returned to removing the material against consensus.[16] John cannot act unilaterally against community consensus in a dispute where he is involved. John has also falsely claimed on the article talk page that he blocked me for returning this material to the article,[17] however, this material has been stable in the article by the consensus of the community for a long time. John attempted to violate this consensus once again and tried to remove it today, and then gave a false reason for blocking me. There is absolutely no rational reason for this block as no BLP violation has occurred as the two linked discussions about this dispute show.[18][19] Therefore, I ask to be unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not especially keen on using the Daily Mail as a source, however, as far as I'm concerned this edit is entirely reasonable. The Daily Mail is a borderline usable source, and a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive194#John Barrowman and the Daily Mail indicates that it can be used in some circumstances. While disagreeing with the outcome of that discussion is understandable, in my opinion, blocking you was a mistake. In this context, I've unblocked your account. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I won't decline your unblock request because I am involved in a content dispute with you regarding policy. I will say that if this is the sort of admin behavior you are railing against then I think you are off base. Tabloids have no place in a BLP article and when a whole page full of people tell you that at a noticeboard you should not put it back in. If this is the sort of thing you are complaining about then I don't think there is a problem, the admins are doing their job. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I just want to interrupt this discussion for a moment to address WP:INVOLVED. I don't agree that a dispute with another editor about policy makes an administrator involved. I realize that the language of WP:INVOLVED doesn't make that distinction, but such an interpretation would lead to an absurd result. For example, just because I reverted Viriditas when he changed WP:EW would mean that I could never take administrative action against him? That simply can't be right as administrators disagree with other editors about policy all the time. You may now tune back in to your regular BLP channels.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

True, I am holding myself to a standard beyond what the policy calls for because I suspect that whoever handles this unblock request will be met with accusations of an admin conspiracy. I will deny fuel for that fire by not acting when I have just being arguing with this user. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read this discussion.[20] It's not a "tabloid" piece, it's a direct, personal interview with the BLP by Jenny Johnston, a notable interviewer. The community has repeatedly found such interviews to be reliable and acceptable, and it's gone through two separate discussions where John was the only one objecting to its use. Therefore, John acted against consensus, and acted as an involved admin to block me. There has been no BLP violation at all. There is community consensus for the use of this source in the article, and when John tried to remove it earlier in the year in February, the community admonished him for making threats to block then and the sources stayed in the article. John has now tendentiously returned to remove the source against consensus and has issued a block as an involved admin. A "whole page full of people" on the article talk page and the noticeboard told John that this particular source is acceptable for the article. They did not say it "should not be put back in", they said it can remain and it is used appropriately. John is the only person who believes otherwise and he has acted unilaterally against consensus on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog: "It's a tabloid (I mean it is!) and as such I'm fairly sure it falls outside of what we think of as reliable sources, especially for BLPs". Collect: "It is not the best source for any contentious claims". Nomoskedasticity: "The Daily Mail is trash, and anyone who says otherwise shouldn't be working on BLPs".

I think you only see what you want to see. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misrepresenting the discussion, as it does not support the removal of this source nor does the discussion in question support the idea that a BLP violation occurred. In that discussion, both User:Starship.paint, User:Adam Cuerden and User:Collect support the use of this particular source through reasoned argument. FreeRangeFrog doesn't evaluate the source at all, but dismisses the publication out of hand with a ""all X sources are unreliable" argument. And you cherry picked Collect's quote, where he said, "it meets WP:RS", and since the particular claims are not contentious, the quote you cited doesn't even apply. Chillum, could I ask you to stop misrepresenting this issue on my talk page please? Yes, you are involved in a policy dispute in another area, so please keep it there. There's no need for you to carry on here like this. I really don't need you to cherry pick and misrepresent the discussion simply because you are involved in a dispute with me. Please do that elsewhere, not here. The reasoned consensus of that discussion (and the second discussion on the talk page) based on argumentation is that this particular source is acceptable because it is 1) a personal interview and not a tabloid report, conducted by a notable interviewer (starship.paint) and 2) neither contentious nor controversial (Collect, Adam Cuerden). It meets our standard for RS. John's claim that "all X sources are unreliable" has been overwhelmingly rejected by the community and is his own personal interpretation of the policies and guidelines. In this particular case, the community has found that an interview by Jenny Johnston is a reliable source. John has been frustrated by this consensus and has acted as an involved admin to prevent it. It's a very clear case of an involved admin acting unilaterally against community consensus to "win" a content dispute. This is the reason I have asked for my block to be overturned. John's been at this since February, and he's hoping that nobody will notice or pay attention to that fact that he's used his tools as an involved admin to win a dispute against community consensus. There has never been a BLP issue here and you will not find me involved in BLP issues anywhere on Wikipedia because I always follow consensus when it comes to living people. John's claim is simply outrageous. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I will leave this to you and the block reviewer then. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, Ritchie333 (who often agrees with John's take on WP:BLP sourcing) noted in this discussion at the John Barrowman talk page that it would be unwise for John to block Viriditas because John is WP:INVOLVED. I agree with Ritchie333's assessment on that. Similarly, because of my past disputes with John about sourcing on WP:BLPs, I don't think that he was the right person to close a WP:ANI thread on me and remove a section from my user page. This is despite the fact that John and I have been civil to each other these days. I think this block of Viriditas should perhaps go to WP:ANI so that the wider Wikipedia community can weigh in on it. And, Viriditas, I did not know that you had pinged me via WP:Echo to that John Barrowman discussion. At least I think I didn't know; I don't remember ignoring that ping. Perhaps I would have weighed in on that discussion. That stated, and due to our discussion on my talk page about John in January of this year (and I think that you know that I feel this way), I think that it's best that we don't use Daily Mail on WP:BLPs...unless it's for clearly uncontentious information or is used because it's an exclusive interview (meaning that the celebrity or other well-known person in question gave an interview to that publication). Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. If you peruse my article creations or major contribution list (a few of which are listed on my user page), you'll see that I insist upon and demand only the highest quality sources. I avoid using Daily Mail whenever possible. However, in this particular case, we have a notable, celebrity interviewer talking with the subject about noncontroversial topics. In that case, the community has decided that such a source is acceptable to use. John disagrees, and has spent a great deal of time unilaterally removing such interviews from the encyclopedia against consensus. So to reiterate, I agree, we should not use Daily Mail on BLPs unless it is for clearly noncontroversial material or in an exclusive interview, which is exactly how it is being used in this case. So you and I are in agreement, and I suspect from the linked discussions up above, so is the community. However, John will not follow consensus and has acted as an involved admin to win a content dispute. John seems to see things as black and white, and misses out on the shades of gray. The community does not subscribe to the notion that "all X sources are unreliable" and never has. If it did, then the Daily Mail would be blacklisted. It's not, because John is simply wrong. John can't create a pseudo-blacklist. He has to go through the necessary process, and the community has repeatedly told him it's not going to happen. This is his way of creating an ad hoc blacklist without community consensus, and he has to block editors like myself to do it. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I can not stand poorly-sourced BLPs. But even if this was a poor source (and I haven't looked close enough to make a hard and fast determination on that, though on its face, an intervew with the subject seems acceptable, even from an iffy source), this block is very questionable, in my opinion. Categorically, an administrator should not block an editor with whom they are engaged in a content dispute, unless that editor begins vandalizing the project or something similar. LHM^{ask me a question} 11:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Poor source for a BLP article. That is unquestionable. Sorry...but it is. Also....John only seems "involved" as they were editing the article but...what the policy states is: "minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." So, if you look, John was not acting as an involved admin. Having said that...WTF dude (John)? A single edit and you blocked? You may have asked that those sources not be returned...but you NEVER made it clear that you were asking as an administrative action. Dude...clarify and separate your actions as an admin and as an editor. That amounts to a "speed trap" in my opinion. Bad block.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

    Perhaps I haven't delved as deeply into the source. What leads you to say that it is "unquestionable" that it is a poor source? It seems to simply be an interview of the guy. Have you found some other issue--maybe that he's claimed the Mirror twisted up the interview or something? As for the block itself, in that we are in agreement. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Might be the similar situation on another BLP where we discovered that the subject was not entirely honest about their birth date. This situation got the attention of Jimbo Wales and ...of course there is the BLP policy that clearly states that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." But...as I said if it is an interview with the subject it is not contentious and since this was not a clear violation the admin should have asked for an uninvolved admin to look into this. I am pretty sure I got that right but please correct me where I am wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

      You're not wrong about that: I think this block was out-of-line, without question. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Woah, far be it for me to defend Viriditas on anything, but they were blocked for this edit.[21] Seriously? I don't see any obvious problem with the sourcing. Can anyone explain what exactly the issue is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually quite confused myself. Is @Viriditas: subject to a 0RR or other editing sanction where they can't revert someone? Otherwise, this block doesn't really seem justified. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that there is gathering consensus here that this block should be undone. I'm not sure what's taking so long for it to happen. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why don't you wait for an uninvolved admin to come by and handle that? If you want to seek a consensus about this block then a more public area is appropriate. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  The unblock has correctly been granted, and while I appreciate your advising me where consensus to unblock needs to be sought, this page seems to have worked fine for that purpose. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller, John, who has been very much involved with disputes with Viriditas on the John Barrowman article and other WP:BLPs (not only by editing, but by debates on the talk pages) is very much WP:INVOLVED when it comes to this block on Viriditas. I don't see how that is questionable in the least. That policy is clear. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My signature

In response to your concerns that my color changing sig would give the false impression of more people I have modified it. It now chooses a color based on the pageid of the page I am on. For example this page is 43925682 which gives me a red signature. This will always be the same color on a given page but not the same color on different pages.

I hope this resolves your concerns with my signature. I apologize if I was overly dismissive of the matter before, there was just so many little points to respond to. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 22:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that resolves the problem and is also very cool. Nice work. I'm a bit jealous of your new sig now. :) Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hell

The 4th Wiseman or the TRUE_origins of_Santa Claus

Was that really necessary? I'm not saying your position is wrong but culture (and religion is definitely cultural) is a sensitive topic. As a 6 year old I remember watching Cosmo or some PBS variety with the family and the subject of carbon dating was discussed. Now I couldn't do the math of course, but I knew that people far smarter than me have proved beyond any doubt that the earth is much older than the 5,000 ish years old I was being told in Sunday school. When I asked for an explanation, my folks said its like Santa, we pretend because we've always pretnded. Which led to the subject of "tradition" followed by a forced viewing of Fiddler on the Roof. Basically that taught me to keep my big trap shut. Suffice it to say, people that are horribly wrong, and can't defend their position don't like having it jammed down their throats. That being said I suspect neotarf is using "hell" for some civility crusade instead of being morally outraged. Pay her no mind. She just likes to argue it seems.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Santa is a beneficial meme that results in little to no harm. Hell, on the other hand, is what is a called a dangerous meme, and it leads to violence and death. I can't imagine why we should defend harmful beliefs like this. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally a few days ago I was getting off the subway and some fire and brimstone group was annoying the passerbys with the benefits of Jesus via a bullhorn. I walked up and said "Hi, I'm a Jew, and for my whole life people like you have been blaming my people for killing Jesus. Well, I'm not going to deny it. We did kill him, and if he comes back, we'll kill him again." Horribly rude of me, but he was being a public nuisance. But afterwards I felt guilty. Toying with your mental inferiors isn't mucn of a challenge, even if it is satisfying.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey there! You were the first to welcome me on here and give me advice and barnstars. I'm back after a two year break. Cheers! Selene Scott (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Selene. Welcome back. Let me know if I can be of any help. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, I'll probably be hitting you up frequently, I seem to have forgotten how to do a lot of things!!"Selene Scott (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)"

Telegram for MONGO

OMG! This will be the end of Wikipedia! If conservatives start working on the Barack Obama article we might have to shut the website down! We can't let our slobbering love affair disgrace of a featured article about Obama and other liberal politicians get tainted with any criticism by those mean nasty conservatives! Just who do these conservatives think they are....Wikipedia is for liberals only after all! Besides there has never been any proof that paid left wing or liberal editors have edited articles about conservatives...I mean never ever!

@MONGO: That's hilarious. Watch Fox News much? I dare you to name a single liberal policy or action Obama has taken. You can't because he's one of the most conservative presidents we've ever had. I realize that sounds stark raving mad to anyone glued to Fox News, but if you turn the boob tube off for just a moment, you'll discover it's true. And don't even try pointing to Obamacare, which was was invented by conservatives and supported by Republicans until Obama supported it. Perpetual war and drone attacks? Massive surveillance? No convictions of any major players in the financial crisis? The Federal Reserve being regulated by Goldman? A war on journalists and whistleblowers? Crackdown on Occupy protests? Guantanamo still open? DEA still bans cannabis? Show me the liberalism, please.

revert absolute moron...do not ever post this left wing shit on my talkpage again or I will make you misson

Telegram for Mongo

Wow. This is not "left wing shit". This is a matter of historical record based on his own positions and policies. You can't simply dismiss reality as a liberal conspiracy. Please turn off Fox News and read a few sources. You can start with American historian Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to Ronald Reagan, who notes that Obama

• stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary
• continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary
• put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals
• caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever
• supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans

Esquire backs it up with solid data and statistics below. Good luck arguing against it. Let's be clear: all the screaming and crying about Obama being a "socialist" or a "liberal" isn't supported by evidence. It's complete nonsense, intended to rally up the teatards and teahadists, and to play to the crowd. When you look at Obama's legislative actions, his policies and his proposals, you are forced to conclude that far from being a liberal, Obama is actually a Republican. Conservatives know this to be true. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Selected sources

1. Barack Obama's Conservative Utopia in 7 Charts Esquire (2014).
2. Cheer Up, Republicans. You’re going to have a moderate Republican president for the next four years: Barack Obama. Slate (2012).
3. Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon? The Fiscal Times (2011).
4. Is Obama Actually a Moderate Republican? Forbes (2011).
5. Obama revealed: A moderate Republican. The Washington Post (2011).

October 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• www.smgov.net/departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-Preservation/ Historic Preservation in Santa Monica]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• www.smgov.net/departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-Preservation/ Historic Preservation in Santa Monica]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson

That's twice now you have personally attacked me ([22] and [23]) on the Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page. I have tried to inform you that these comments were personal attacks and move on, but you have insisted on posting these attacks. I will give you a chance to respond here on why, and if the attacks are not removed I plan to go to WP:ANI. --Obsidi (talk ) 00:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Observing that you have spent more than half of your edits obsessing on the Tyson page is not necessarily a personal attack. Feel free to take me to ANI so I can point out WP:NOTHERE. Please find something else to do with your time. If you had asked me before removing it, I probably would have removed it out of respect. Now, I'm not too sure. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing them. --Obsidi (talk ) 00:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Viriditas. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Weight issues with religious views sourced only to a Youtube video.The discussion is about the topic Neil deGrasse Tyson. Thank you. --Obsidi (talk ) 05:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Viriditas, thank you for the courtesy of your "final notice" on my talk page. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

Per request from an arb, I removed your statement from the case request. The case will be opened later today. If you wish to discuss the removal of your comment, which is believed to have only a tangential relationship to the actual case, please raise it on the talk page of the case page when opened. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: where is this arb request? Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

On the Clerk email distribution list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Is that a closed list that editors like myself cannot review nor access? If so, then please name the arb, and I will simply confirm what you say is true. I take serious issue with the claim that my concerns "have only a tangential relationship to the actual case" when we find my concerns reflected in the case statements by other editors, such as Tgeairn, who note that "the majority of recent editing and disputes" included edit warring as well as tag teaming. Editor AnonNep also notes the edit warring in the case request. Since my concern is also with edit warring, I am curious how this has a "tangential relationship to the actual case" when it seems to lie at its very heart. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not an open mailing list. It is a list to facilitate communication between the Arbs and the clerks, mainly to do boring housekeeping like remind clerks to close requests or to assign clerks to cases.

The case cannot be opened until 24 hours after the voting concluded that it should be opened. That will be roughly 4 hours from now. Once the case is open I suggest you post a question on the talk page of the case page and I will make sure the arb sees it so they can respond to you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: is there a reason you can't tell me the name of the arb so I can settle this matter? I am unclear on the need for closed, back door communication. Surely, this isn't a FISA court or a matter of national security? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a matter of courtesy. I am reasonably certain they would let me share if asked, but I don't share confidential information without asking. I'll start working on the case in 15 minutes or so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: you are a clerk. If an arb asked you to do something, it is reasonable to expect you to name that arb. This kind of thing is public information, and your preference for acting on an authority without naming that authority is troubling. I really don't think you should be clerking if you can't see this problem. There is no good reason to refrain from naming the arb. Unless of course they didn't actually ask you like you originally claimed. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Our clerks have the authority to remove any questionable material they see fit. That's actually their job and frankly the committee would prefer it if clerks felt more confident doing such things without being prodded. But for the record I am the one who noted your remarks and asked for a clerk to remove them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Beeblebrox: it isn't clear which head I should be addressing, so I'll address both of them: what was questionable about the material that led you to ask for its removal? I addressed the problematic edit warring that several other editors also highlighted. How is this questionable? Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC) --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC) (One can debate whether you offered a statement, I am notifying you using the standard template )--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: why would you notify me if my statement was removed before the case was opened? Is Kafka in the house? Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I notified you because I promised to, and I thought it would be polite. It took a couple hours to open the case, and one step was using a standardized wording to notify all non-party contributors. I was tired, and too lazy to craft a custom statement, so used that one, and added a note. I was trying to be helpful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Request to stay off User:Dirtlawyer1 talk page

Hi Veriditas,

The ANI post you have been notified of relates to a users talk page they have requested you dont edit. Although this is not usually enforceable unless as part of an interaction ban it may be helpful to try to refrain from posting on this users talk page to try and keep things civil and reduce the chance of any action such as interaction bas bein nessecary. If there are issues with the articles you are both involved in then it would be best to discuss this on the talk page of the article where other editors can weigh in to help build consesnus on the edits in question.

I am aware that as an experienced editor you are aware of the dispute resolution options available and the information I have posted above but felt this was a more appropriate method of communicating than templating a regular. Amortias (T)(C) 12:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Amortias. The primary issue is that the user makes personal attacks all over the place, and then when is asked to stop on their talk page, continues making them. As if that wasn't enough, the user then psychologically projects their own shortcomings on to other editors. It's difficult dealing with editors for whom things like honesty and forthright criticism of ideas is unheard of and forbidden. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok as a compromise I'm fairly active on here, if you see something thats an issue would you be willing to have me act as a go between? I can discuss the issues you raise with me while your still staying off the users talk page. If your happy with that I can post the idea at the ANI page and see if the other editors happy with it? As theres no officail IBAN in place there souldnt be an issue with someone acting as a go betwen.Amortias (T)(C) 21:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds great. Thanks for your offer of help, it's greatly appreciated. You remind me of what Wikipedia used to be like, when editors went out of their way to help others. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Arzel issue

Hi. Sorry to say I am not sure what he was talking about or up to? He came to my page and accused me of stalking him. Apparently I edited a page he also edited and did not like my edit. He came back after I wrote to him on his talk page. He eventually stopped but seemed to go off on a tangent for some unknown reason? Sorry to say I am not sure what set him off or why he chose me for his behavior? Resaltador (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Resaltador: OK, I see why he made that claim. It's because he noticed that after you reverted him on Rand Paul, a month before you also reverted him on War on Women. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Amortias (T)(C) 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Viriditas, thanks for reaching out to me, again! Btw, I like the quote on the top of your page. Unfortunately, I am afraid most people in the world don't appreciate those words...

Anyway, I started the controversial edit as an experiment to personally experience the issues described in this[24] article, which I came across lately. I used to occasionally contribute to technical articles as an unregistered user, and had never had any issues with other editors. In fact I believe most of my edits will outlast the machines on which they were saved. Now it looks like the MIT tech review article has by no means exaggerated the issue with Wikipedia. After a week, I believe I already have a clear picture of the Wikipedian politics, as I shall call it, and the forces that are behind certain articles and have shaped them into what they are today--the "Wanna say bad things about the United States? Not gonna happen!" force. If even Wikipedia is like this, I can only imagine the situation to be a lot worse in a news agency or broadcasting company with this kind of atmosphere. Most memorable is the comment that "human rights violations don't need to be accounted for", which I'd rather regard as an occasional slip of the tongue than an alert of the danger of power under the influence of patriotic sentiment, because if even such a little power to revert other people's edits can make someone feel secure enough to put his own preferences above the laws, then what would happen if they had greater power.

Now I think I have experimented enough. Yes I am aware of the options for dispute resolution. Wikipedia has a complicated system but not more complicated than most of the things I work with. But I am going to stop here, because playing the "bad guy" is starting to make me feel bad, because I am afraid if I keep doing this, I will start to look at the good guys as bad guys -- these people here could just as well be my friends, coworkers, or neighbors, or strangers I meet on the street that smile and say hi, or drivers that slow down to let me merge into traffic. They have their limitations but are otherwise nice people. And I don't know how to advance my ideal in this context without putting them on the opposing end, which I'd rather not do.

So I have decided to move on and focus my time and energy on other things with which I can influence the world in a more positive way. In the mean time, I wish you the best with your campaign. Wikipedia needs more people like you! The world needs more people like you!

Roamingcuriosity (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

My talk page

If you are going to post on my talk page, please do so in a civil manner. Thanks. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

House of Assembly

I'm not going to revert on the article again, but please remove Category:Elections in Jamaica - it's not an election article. It's already in Category:Politics of Jamaica. I would also appreciate it if you readded the election template, which really should be on there. Thanks, Number 57 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Because you asked nicely, no problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And sorry about this spat – I'm passionate about historical elections and related articles, and I just wanted to integrate the article into the encyclopaedia in the normal way (which for legislature articles is usually by having these templates). Number 57 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island

Viriditas, this article is currently up at WP:FAC. I spoke to a Hawaiian historian the other day who said that she and some of her friends were offended by my coverage of Moku'ume'ume when the article was on the front page at WP:DYK in it's early stages of development back in June. I'm looking for a native Hawaiian editor who might be able to review the article to make sure I've made the right corrections that covers the sensitivity of the subject. I plan to get this article to WP:TFA as soon as the FAC is completed and have it on the mainpage for Dec 7th. But I wouldn't want to do that if it's going to be hurtful or offensive again. Can you help? Should I write on the ancient Hawaii section that Moku'ume'ume is a sensitive subject in Wikipedia voice?--v/r - TP 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Were they offended by your coverage of the wife swapping? Did you talk to them about the offensive nature of the content? Granted, the DYK was sensational, in that it did not directly discuss the reasons for the ritual. Perhaps they felt, from their POV, this was a form of desecration by the profane. You can't keep second guessing yourself, you just have to write from your heart and do the work. However, when you are specifically writing about Native Hawaiian culture and beliefs, you have to think about whether the sources you are using are presenting an accurate POV. Because the sources you were using for the DYK were not exactly contemporary or of a high quality, it's possible that they were not exactly presenting the Native Hawaiian POV in the best light. So at the end of the day, look at the sources you are using and ask yourself if they are the best you can find, and whether the material can benefit from additional native voices. I say this because for a long time, Hawaiians didn't have a voice, but now they do, so you should be able to find good sources about Hawaii by Hawaiians. If you couldn't find such sources about the wife swapping ritual, that could have been a red flag. The best thing you can do is keep doing what you are doing and learn from your mistakes. And if possible, keep the lines of communication open with your critics to see what you can learn from them. It sounds like your heart is in the right place and that's what matters most. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the objection was primarily based off the hook itself. I've tried to improve the body of the article to clarify the purpose of the ceremony. Thanks for the thoughts.--v/r - TP 21:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)