User talk:Viriditas/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Star Trek survey

Hello. Please see my Wikipedia:Non-canon Star Trek survey. Thanks. — JIP | Talk 13:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Mars Direct

I merged Mars Direct with the Case for Mars alone because neither page had any discussion on it and I didn't expect to generate much response. I had wanted to expand the Case page beyond a stub but realized it would be largely redundant given Mars Direct. I could have started with "for the first six chapters see main article..." but that seemed silly as neither page will ever be that large. I was planning on adding a second section to Case for topics in the book not directly related to Mars Direct. Two other things to consider before undoing the merge:

• The book makes clear that it is a summation of previous research and thinking and not an original idea, which I can state in the entry. I'm sure there are many books covered in Wiki that are the product of shorter published papers and theses and it seems natural the more robust and well-known work should be included even if it arrived later.
• The Case page now, with pic and review links, is better than the previous Mars Direct page.

Let me know what you think. Marskell 09:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see the expanded The Case for Mars page. Marskell 11:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll take no response as a positive response. Marskell 09:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't know a video existed which separates the entities more than a previous research paper does. Plz if and when you change don't include The Case for Mars in Mars Direct as this simply inverts the problem. Marskell 10:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

User:I-2-d2

Aloha, and welcome back. FWIW, I just saw the edits by 172.145.75.28 and your revert of the anon's edits. I don't know who the anon is, but it has been speculated that User:Coqsportif is a sockpuppet on WP:AN/I, and it is likely that User:I-2-d2 is one of them. --Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Aloha, and thanks. I've been reverting the edits by a clump of anons who have been marking both the image and user pages as CSDs and vandalising them in other ways. If there's evidence for sock puppetry by all means add the template with the evidence linked, nothing wrong with that (that is to say, I'm not really fond of the idea behind the sock puppet template apart from for epidemics like sollog, but there appears to be broad community support for it so who am I to object). --fvw* 03:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

We're probably on the same page. The sock template would certainly be more useful if there were a verified check user IP behind it (plus an arbcom decision) but given the response time required for such a request at present, and the proliferation of puppets of mass disruption (!) I'm afraid that Wikipedia is literally drowning in trolls and a solution is desperately needed. If you have any ideas, please share them. --Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, since you're a wikiexpert, can you take a look at the new Template:Attack I created, and offer any criticism, changes, or suggestions? That is to say, will this template be helpful? I think it might work well for newbies. --Viriditas | Talk 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, I get to be a wiki-expert, yay me. I'm afraid someone beat you to the idea though, see Template:No personal attacks. For what it's worth, I like your wording better, though it should be kept in mind that the blocking policy doesn't cover personal attacks.

As for how to rescue wikipedia, I'm afraid me and the community are on different pages (if not in different books) on that subject, which is one of the reasons I don't hang out here quite as often anymore. I'm tempted into a little RC patrol every now and then when I'm trying to avoid the things I should be doing though. --fvw* 03:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a subpage explaining your position and how it differs from the community? If not, I would be interested in hearing it. In any case, I've changed "blocked" to "banned" on the attack template. Thanks for your input. --Viriditas | Talk 06:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, as it's mainly people-need-to-change-their-mind-about-this stuff, not some simple procedural changes. In a nutshell, the problems wikipedia is currently facing are caused by it taking much too long for negative behaviour to get an appropriate response. This is manifesting itself amongst admins as well as the single-issue troublemakers. I think we (and when I say we, I mean them, but we sounds so much nicer) need to keep in mind that our end goal is making an encyclopaedia, and that there are some people (who may be well-intentioned) who do a lot more harm than good and that chances are, we cannot reform them into editors who are going to edit harmoniously. A lot of troublemakers who are currently not banned outright because they're also doing some useful work are a net drain on wikipedia as they make editing unpleasant for all the good editors and thereby driving away a number of editors and potential editors that could far exceed their output. If we quickly tell those who are causing trouble (as opposed to newbies of course) "I'm sure you're a wonderful person but it is felt that you're probably doing the cause of wikipedia more harm than good so we've decided not to take any further contributions from you", I think a lot of people's wikistress will go down a lot and wikipedia will revert to the kinder, gentler place it once was (yes, I'm one of the everything-used-to-be-better believers).

Once that is happening we should also start putting consequences to transgressions made by the editors who are in the balance doing good, like violations of NPA, revert warring, self-unblocking (what's with the recent spate of that by the way?), block-warring and severe wikiquette violations. Even the best of editors have moments of weakness, but as there are no repercussions apart from for chronic and severe violators, people are getting used to it and starting to accept it as normal. There's no need for huge penalties, but a slap on the wrist to remind people it is not acceptable.

Anyway, thanks for the invitation to rant, always nice to hear that someone actually wants to read this stuff. --fvw* 02:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Trolls

I'm always glad to raise a smile. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking a swing at Kam School? Comments please

Aloha! I could use some advice from you about a sentence JereKrischel inserted into the Punahou School (discussion) article, to the effect that Kam School is now the only place in Hawaii with an official racial discrimination policy. Both of us are new, I'm sure I've been trampling on toes myself with my starting efforts, so I don't feel it's my place to be high-handed about anything.

--IslandGyrl 22:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Mahalo! Thanks for the quick response. --IslandGyrl 23:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Hawaiian Monarchs

Hello, are you familiar with the Kingdom of Hawaii's monarchy? There's been a huge fuss lately over whether articles on Hawaii's monarchs are in the right location and there are some people who'd like to change the format used in naming the articles (e.g. one user wants to move the article Kamehameha I to Kamehameha I, King of Hawaii. We're having a (slow) discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style#Names of monarchs, and as a member of WikiProject:Hawaii, your views on the conflict would be most appreciated. Thank you! 青い(Aoi) 08:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will follow your advice on the issue. 青い(Aoi) 17:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My Response

I understand the policies, but I don't understand why no one asks Calton to lay off from his personal attacks. Look at his edit summaries, and his messages - I left a friendly note on his talk page initially, and *HE* started the personal attacks. What's up with that? Ray Lopez 11:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page... I was going to collect the anon ip's comments at the bottom under a new topic, attributed to the ip, but that would have probably been too mean... :) - ulayiti (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

While I don't think Acid (talk · contribs) is necessarily wrong in moving Milky Way to Milky Way Galaxy, I do think that his obsessive move warring (see contribs) without discussion is disruptive. He's been warned about page moves three times in the last five days on his talk page but TTBOMK the user has failed to respond to repeated queries. Can the user be blocked for disruption, or is there a better way of dealing with this? --Viriditas | Talk 11:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's had enough warnings now yes. There's no reason to block him now however, he may just not have logged in to wikipedia recently. If he returns and resumes the page moves a block would seem appropriate in my view, but let's hope that it's ended here. --fvw* 22:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits

Have you even read any Chinese issues of The Epoch Times? That article was going fine until TJive comes and reverted anything he does not agree with. He's the one that should be reverted.

Terri Schiavo

GordonWatts has started an edit war, violated 3RR, and gotten an admin to lock the article. He wants to insert language using weasel words to imply that Terri's transfer to a hospice was illegal or improper or something. I have proposed a compromise that we insert language from the Schindler's motion to the courts challenging Michael's guardianship. (which then says the courts dismissed the motion) Gordon won't accept it. He may also be interested in prolonging the dispute, since his version of language is currently in the locked version of the article. Your input would be appreciated. [1] FuelWagon 20:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The admin who locked the Terri Schiavo page has put in an article RFC. I've tried to write down a brief description of the content issues here. FuelWagon 13:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

thx re edits fix

I was going to fix Wagon's page, but was busy elsewhere - my cache clears each time, and I see the current version, but thx for the fix.

Now, on a different note, we need your help Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo and Talk:Terri_Schiavo for TIME-SENSITIVE votes -- hurry, please! Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

thx for adding me to wikipedians in CALI

I am wondering how could you categorize me to wikipedians in California? You have seen my edits in the area before or you just added a quick tag right after I updated my profile. Geographer 01:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Han Chauvinism

Back in June you put a POV check on Han chauvinism but there is no explanation why you did it. Could you elaborate on reason so as to give people a pointer on fixing it? Otherwise the notice should be removed.

Bathrobe 05:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can see where you're coming from now. I think tagging it for lack of references or sources, as you have now done is a better solution. Thanks!

Bathrobe 15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Viriditas, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Occupied territories

Why did you restore that dreck about "Most nations exist on territory that once was considered occupied?" It is just stupid, something like including "most humans breath air" in the homo sapiens entry. Please explain yourself. Marsden 16:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Talk: page there. Also, please don't duplicate content in various articles; the disambiguation link at the top leads to the article discussing the West Bank and Gaza. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo memorial sect.

Please discuss before reverting. A lot of work has gone to allowing room for change on the page without being unilateral. Regarding the particular section, Wikipedia is not a memorial and it shouldn't look like a scrapbook. We don't need three pics—particularly not two of the same object. The words on the headstone are redundant given that they're clearly legible in the pic; if you want to re-insert them at least use normal font. Marskell 12:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If you don't explain in talk, a revert is harmful. - Taxman ^Talk 12:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

So next time I need to change a single letter typo I should revert the entire thing even if cancelling larger changes. C'mon. Marskell 12:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I'll admit I left the brusque note above because I felt "there is no such word as 'momentos'" an unfair response to my comment on the revert. However, there is an upside: I was reminded about the Mars Direct discussion and un-did my merge. Marskell 09:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Lomilomi

I worked the article over a bit. I toned down the political aspect, and added what I knew (just as a Hawai'i resident) about lomilomi being more than just massage, practiced in home settings, etc. Please take a look and see if there's any clumsy language or inaccuraces. Zora 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It's egotistical of me, but I really must add that I helped produce that Charles Nordhoff Gutenberg text to which you linked. Zora 05:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Titicut Follies

I attempted to fix the POV issue that you pointed out with Titicut Follies. Please take a look and make further changes if you think its still not satisfactory. Thanks! --Brian Z 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the vandalism

I've been reverting lots and lots of linkspam, not to mention Muslim piety, and someone is obviously mad at me. Mad enough to create an account just to vandalize my userpage <g>. A great day, though not as exciting as the day on which I was called an "Islamo-fascist bitch" (by one anti-Muslim editor) and a "Zionist enforcer" (by a pro-Muslim editor). Cheers! Zora 03:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian birdies

Aloha matey! I'm super busy right now trying to whip the albatross article into shape, but I should be able to find time to help you with the hawaiian bird articles. I've added a taxobox and even found a government PD image for the Great Frigatebird. I'll need to do some reading before I can meaningfully exand the article, but I'll get round to it, promise! Sabine's Sunbird 03:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

AH was a vegetarian

Truth be told, WP often does resemble a battleground. The only reason AH's vegetarianism is ever disputed relates straight to his dreadful (and deserved) reputation as a genocidal sociopath. The historical evidence for his dietary habits after he became chancellor is overwhelming. Stories about his meat-eating trace back to conflations with pre-1932 accounts or political smears. I'm considering nominating the entire article for AfD, not out of frustration, but through the dawning realization that the true vegetarianism of most people on that list is for the most part no more "100% verifiable" than AH's. Wyss 11:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the text written by Nobs on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--Cberlet 13:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

List of vegetarians

I'm worried that my last edit summary sounded confrontational and I didn't mean it to be, so I apologize in advance if you do read it that way. That said, I'm not sure you understood my edit (which includes a note on the dispute). I'm also concerned that this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, that lots of people are listed as vegetarians on this list, or excluded from it, according to a possible PoV bias and sloppy cites. Wyss 00:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The merge tag

You left the following message on User:Jossifresco's talk page:

Aloha. I just wanted to leave you a note that User:Wyss has removed your merge header. Please add it back in when you get a chance. --Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, User:Shanes removed it. We all make mistakes. Let's try to cooperate on stabilizing the article, ok? Wyss 04:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler

Viriditas, it was my suggestion to User:Wyss that he create a Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler article. I did so because I honestly think it is just the sort of article Wikipedia should have. Hitler's vegetarianism is an unbelievably common squabbling point for veggies and our opponents, and its the type of question for which people like to turn to Wikipedia because no other encyclopedia is comprehensive enough to cover it. And I don't think a lengthy treatment of it is really suitable for List of vegetarians, or for that matter, the main Adolf Hitler article. As for the link to Institute for Historical Review, I think we should assume good faith and accept that Wyss found them while searching for info on Hitler's vegetarianism, and then removed the link as soon as he was told that they are, essentially, Nazi nostalgists. Babajobu 08:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I was horrified and more than a little embarassed when you (Viriditas) told me who they really were. Wyss 18:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Greenhouse image

Since when does an article need to have a "direct" connection (whatever that is) between the title and an image? But since you question the relevance: The article very clearly mentions and describes the Greenhouse Hitler had built to keep him with vegetables and fruits during the war. This is that greenhouse. So it's an image ilustrating a passage in the article. And an excellent image at that. Shanes 10:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, on Shanes' talk page you say the photo was taken for propaganda purposes but it was not. It's a still from personal 16mm colour home movie footage taken by Eva Braun (who had a lifelong interest in photography) and didn't turn up until after the war (indeed, it would have been bad propaganda for them to publish pics of AH's private greenhouse when most Germans had to put up with severe food rationing). I would like you to please ponder this in relation to less-than-civil stuff you've said previously about relative knowledge of the topic and so on. Wyss 22:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Snail eating caterpillar

Aha, I remember that edit. It was a while back, and I figured it would be useful for readers if an easier to remember name redirected to the somewhat obtuse scientific name.

After doing some research, here's my conclusion: the article has got it wrong. The hyposmocoma molluscivora does not have the common name "Snail Eating Caterpillar", rather, it is a term often used by publications to describe the caterpillar. Googling, however, for "Snail Eating Caterpillar" gives more hits, so I'm not really sure what to do. You can move the page to the redirect (and fix the double redirects), or unbold + decapitilize the "Snail Eating Caterpillar" on the article.

This is one of those kinds of things where the very content of Wikipedia's article can influence reality, so use your judgement. ;-) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

AH "veg"

In quotes so as not to annoy you... thanks for the additional sources (including the stuff on Theo Morell)! Wyss 06:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

hey

Thanks for helping me :) I'm very new to this. Ladysway1985 17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cultural references to Jack Kerouac

I was half waiting for others to chime in; if we're the only two really paying that much attention to Jack, then I'll go ahead and do it tomorrow afternoon EDT.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Heads up: your friend was right

I told the idle guy that "You are vindicated on the vegan article page: I repaired the damage my friends, SlimVirgin and Viriditas did --but you ALL were wrong to not cite your sources: I fixed that as well --yes, as a struggling vegan myself, I too find it hard to deal with gelatin caps, but I listed the alternatives -and cited my sources.--GordonWatts 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"

--GordonWatts 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Bob Jones University

Reporting of an opinion must be explicitly stated as such, and not depending on the reader infering the implicit asumption that it is an opinion. Please discuss on further before making another revert. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 22:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, statements of opinion must be clearly stated as opinions. The article does not explicitly state that the rules section contains opinions, so it is prudent to clarify when opinions are mentioned. I see little reason to make an objection to this, can you please supply a reason why this should not be clarified before you make another revert. The Abercrombie & Fitch rule is the only rule providing the university's reasoning behind it, if we are simply presenting the rules, then we should remove the mention of their opinions about Abercrombie & Fitch, and state them elsewhere in the article.

Can I also remind you of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas

Howdy...we've been working on some changes to infoboxes and formating in the protected areas project you may be interested in. Check the links to 'general" and "status sections as we'd appreciate your thoughts.--MONGO 05:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Shran

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.. It's a general alert to the community to try to guide this prolific editor away from the dark side. Add whatever you like. -Willmcw 07:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the watchlist

Hey Viriditas, thanks for letting me know about the hawaii watchlist. I'll definitely pay attention to it for vandalism. Aloha! --JereKrischel 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Chill on the diary thing, dude!

Check my contribs to see my response about the Anne Frank 4RR thing. Uncle Ed 02:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I demand the explanation

You've sent me a message quoting my statement "I've already explained all these things in detail, but I can't spend my time in dumbing down the nitty gritty details for you." I demand what exactly was the personal attack here? Is "dumbing down" an offensive attack? I think this issue is starting to grow out of control. Why for instance are you interested in retaining the copyvio images? Is it because of the fact that you support his "vandalism" which has already been reported? And you are making personal threats on blocking based on a nonexistant personal attack? Because I think there's something shady going on here.

I demand an apology for your haste in calling me so. How are the other statements considered personal attacks? I think it's best you know the entire story before dashing a reply in anger. I'm not afraid because I don't pirate images of other sites and have never used any profanity anywhere, so you're being rude for the sake of protecting your common interests. Idleguy 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are also rude to me IMO. So why don't you apologize first? Citing a comparison with dolphins is rude? Are you out only to create mischief? Or the fact that SlimVirgin initially said that those images were deprecated which I pointed out as false (aka lie)? I state facts blandly but never abuse. If facts are hurting you maybe you shouldn't read them and find yourself on the wrong end of reality. Both of your are obsessed with these subjects and are trying to suppress the facts.

you can assume good faith for a few articles/images, but not for a plethora of photos he's uploaded? Are you suggesting that copyvio images should stay? Idleguy 06:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Boone

Viriditas, thanks for reverting the "Scottish-American" edits by 155.84.57.253. However in the Daniel Boone article you also reverted my changes, which I have an explanation for on Talk:Daniel Boone. Since you've been around WP longer than I have, could you take another look at the Folklore section of this article, because I don't think an encyclopedia article should have commentary of this sort. Let me know what you think -- MarkBrooks 14:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries, thanks ... MarkBrooks 06:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks as though CantStandYa has been going through and un-reverting the Scottish-American reverts. I don't really want to get caught up in that war, so I'm going to do my edits to the Daniel Boone article again but leave the categories as is -- MarkBrooks 02:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Tilting at Windmills

I'm not clear why you reverted my correction on the redirect page for Tilting at Windmills. A user entering the title of that novel should be redirected to the page for that novel, not to the page of a novel by a completely different title. The phrase itself only appears once in the body of the Don Quixote article. For now, I've replaced the TaW redirect page with a dab page that links to both articles, but I think we should consider making TaW permanently redirect to The Eternal Quest and either putting a dab on that page or just relying on the link to DQ in that page's opening graf. | Keithlaw 13:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: "Tilting at windmills primary refers to Don Quixote, as any google test will prove." A Google test may show that the phrase "Tilting at windmills" is associated with DQ, but it will not say that it refers to Don Quixote. Nomenclature on Wikipedia should be based not on associations but on real-world nomenclature - and "tilting at windmills" is not a name for the Cervantes book. In addition, among the first ten results for a Google search on "tilting windmills book," the Branston book appears twice, whereas the book Don Quixote appears just once (for its Wikipedia entry), with one hit each for the Hibbs and Macgowan books. | Keithlaw 16:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyrights

I am aware of copyrights but was under the impression that bios (not whole books, but general facts) and bibliographies were well under fair use. I generally go to the writer's website and get what they make as public information. Do I merely need to rephrase sentences? I also thought that fair use involved non-financial gain. Wiki is non-profit, so I would think we're protected? Surely the writers you cited would not mind a listing? If nothing else it would lend prestige. I have decided to try making entries on more contemporary writers and magazines. Surely a signed release is not needed, is it? If so, I will not even bother, for it's a shame. I did my first yesterday and cited the website. I have seen many fansites for celebrities used as info for their wiki entries, which were verbatim, and most likely done by their PR people. Is not that a violation? I can go back and rephrase some of my prior edits, if that's what it takes. I'd not want to engender lawsuits for Wiki. But, I have a number of ideas for writers and websites and even some scientists to do pages for. I realize quoting from a particular theory or book might not be allowed- I believe it's the essence clause, or some such, but if the person's website, which is likely to have the most thorough and accurate bio info, is verboten, then how to claim it for the public good? As I usually Google info on entries and add here and there from the top sites or an interview, need every website be quoted? I state this because I usually check the histories and have seen such is almost always lacking in articles that are old. I am not trying to exculpate any error I made, however, if so, I am one of thousands who has made this error, and I've seen far more blatant examples than mine, which are mainly bios, and not direct quotations. Please look at the one entry I made storySouth and tell me if this is cited well enough. I think it is. If not, then I will just stick to editing, but I think there are some fairly well-known artists under-represented; especially women and minorities. It would be a shame if I cannot include them. If not a problem, I will use it for a template for any future artist/scientist/mag/blog entries I plan on doing. I did not realize this was a problem. I saw you posted yesterday, but have seen that often on other user pages, and thought you simply were angry at some edits. I have seen too many edit wars and have not the stomach for them. However, if legal issues are involved I will correct any inadvertant errors over the next few weeks before I attempt my next new entry. Basically, I need to know a) can bio info be used if rephrased? Surely, "A was born in 1925" is not copyrightable? b) the extent of citations since many artists or entries have voluminous fan pages. I wd tend to think this is public info if so vastly reproduced. c) If so, I would ask you to see many other entries for pop stars, film stars, and the like, because they seem to have much blatant copyrighted material--song quotes, etc. as well as promotional stuff. Far more so than mere bio info. Red Darwin 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Viriditas,

Thanks for the message. I am having fun poking around. I hope my contributions are useful. So far I am limiting myself to minor edits. When I get more confidence I might tackle editing an article. We'll see how it goes. Baby steps.

Schmiteye 03:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist

Hi, Viriditas, thanks for your message. Obviously a good article on the Eucharist would explain what a host is, although I'm not saying I think the Wikipedia article on the Eucharist is particularly good at the moment! The thought of creating a separate article for the host wouldn't have occurred to me except for recent attempts to put "bread" into the Terri Schiavo article. However, a good Catholic encyclopedia – or even a middle-quality one! – would almost certainly have a long article on the Eucharist and a short one on the host. The article on the host would cover such things as size, shape, the requirement that only wheat and water (or wheat, water, and yeast for the Eastern rites) be used. A Catholic article on the Eucharist would cover such things as the Institution, the history, the graces that come from it, etc.

As far as I know, Protestants don't call it "host". I'm not even sure that Eastern Orthodox people do. Interestingly, the word "host" doesn't appear at all in the article on the Eucharist (at the moment).

On the one hand, I don't think there was really a need to start changing the article to clarify that the host refers to the Eucharist in the form of bread. I think that since it was already linking to Viaticum and Holy Communion, it would have been obvious to those who were not familiar with Catholic sacraments. On the other hand, if we are providing extra clarification, I don't think it should be through putting the word "bread" into the article. The normal word used in that context is "host". I think it would be better to have a short article explaining what a host is, rather than directing to the big article on the Eucharist, and leaving the reader to wade through it. (The word "host" definitely should be in that article, and I intend to put it in.)

So, I don't think that "host" is fully covered in the Eucharist article. And since the Eucharist article covers various Christian churches, I think that inserting a lot of Catholic information about size, shape, matter, form, etc. would upset the balance. On the other hand, I think that there should be a short article about hosts.

Anyway, my idea is to expand the "host" article, linking it to Eucharist, and to clarify the Roman Catholic section of the Eucharist article, linking it to "host". You're not the only one to think that a redirect is appropriate, however – within minutes of the creation of the "host" article, someone did redirect it to Eucharist. And if I am overruled on this, I'll take it gracefully – as long as the the Terri Schiavo article doesn't say that the priest tried to give her bread!

By the way, I seem to remember that you were friendly with Professor Ninja. You may not have noticed that he's back. His mother died in July. Hope all is well with you! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, Viriditas. Thanks for pointing me towards the article on Coeliac disease. I'm very interested in it, and have added it to my watchlist, with a view to editing it later. I have read quite a lot (including Vatican documents) on the subject of Coeliacs and the Eucharist, and, while I'm not a coeliac, I am currently receiving Communion from the chalice, as I have a (temporary) intolerance to gluten. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Chat

How you doing,Viriditas? Seeing the number of users involved in the dispute I've asked User: Michael Snow to look into the case and the issues involved. Michael is a very respected member of the community and can deal with the issues involved better then I can. Tony the Marine 22:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi There

How you doing? I noticed the following posting on my talk page, Your edits and edit summaries are nearly identical to Red Darwin (talk • contribs), and the time stamps of both users appear to reflect a period of logging on and logging off. You're either posting under multiple accounts or you are not. The fact that you have directly responded to a question posed to User:Red Darwin (the copyright issue) and reiterated points that he made on my talk page [1] regarding copyrights and biographical articles is either an amazing coincidence or highly suspicious. --Viriditas | Talk 11:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

Now I know that we do not know each other, but I'm highly respected in the comunity and this seems to me like an uncalled for accusation. Pardon me if I'm wrong. User Dali asked me to help him investigate an impostor that has affected him and has posted in my talk page his feelings about the situation. I believe that the imposter is not only after him, but is also impersonating many other users. I have no control over the posts made in my talk page and then on somebody elses talk page. My conclusion is that there is a joker impersonating many user's who either have an "I" or "L" in thier user name and that it is a random act. I hope that things between you and Dali can be settled in a freindly way. Tony the Marine 16:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Occam's Razor isn't good enough. Iago Dali used that to "prove" that you were the one impersonating him (though his logic is quite fuzzy). Find some more proof to support your claim. I'm not siding with anybody here, I just don't want innocent users to be unjustly punished. Don Diego^(Talk) 05:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Some proof is offered here: [2]. --Viriditas | Talk 09:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So. I see. Freudian slip, eh? Happens all the time. I guess that and the uncanny imitations and styles are enough to prove that they're the same user. You should have said this sooner. I'd have believed you sooner. :) Anyway, what's next? CheckUser? You've been around much longer, you should know what to do next. ;) Cheers (and good work) - Don Diego^(Talk) 13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Camp Kidney Stinks

I found Camp Kidney Stinks under Dead-end Pages. This information could be put into Camp Lazlo or deleted altogether. Since I'm the newest guy on the block, I didn't quite know how to handle this situation. Schmiteye 05:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

Viriditas, thanks for the rapid response. I will look into categorization for TV episodes. I have used it a couple of times for other things. Aloha! Schmiteye 19:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Oops. I was talking to my son while I was typing. Schmiteye 19:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Healthy eating

Thank you for offering to sort out this article. My aim was not to cut down this contribution—because it seems just as valid as any other opinion—but rather to alert readers to the fact that it is just one POV among many. Alas, I don't have the knowledge to write a rebuttal, and although my partner does, she is a dedicated non-Wikipedian! Hence the inivitation for others with different points of view to contribute their thoughts. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you. The section is not NPOV, because only one POV is represented. Now, that POV could simply be ripped out, but I think that would be a bit wasteful (because some readers undoubtably agree with the POV), so I would prefer to see it balanced by opposing POVs if possible. (But feel free to rip it out anyway!) As far as I understand it RfCs are for resolving disputes between users, which is not the case here. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Belated reply

Sorry, I didn't see your message about the kerfuffle at User talk:Marine 69-71. Yes, I've seen their little orgy of heel drumming and squealing outrage. I welcome it; every minute they spend doing that is a minute that they're not making a mess of some article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Good. Updates: I e-mailed User:Red Darwin on 29 October, and he replied saying that he'd be gone for two weeks and had to rush. He'd be on a trip and wouldn't have time nor the means to use internet. I replied on 30 October saying that if User:Iago Dali popped in while he was gone, we'd have some kind of proof that he wasn't Dali. I forwarded the message to Iago Dali later in the day, adding that if he didn't log in, we'd have ample evidence that the two were the same. None of them has read the email nor replied. No contributions either.

I guess our little problem is solved now. Iago Dali, for all his hysterical accusations that you are impersonating him, is very very probably a sock of Red Darwin. QED. (50 points) ;) Don Diego^(Talk) 10:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Just had a very heated debate with Dali via email. Dali's and Darwin's writing styles are totally different as well as personalities. Not sockpuppets. Final. Don Diego^(Talk) 21:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote

Viriditas, this may interest you: Wikipedia:Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:KeiraElle.jpg

In case you wanted to unstrike your vote on IfD, I deleted the higher-res versions in the image's history, so only the low-res version is left. Cheers. Postdlf 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Voice actor

Aloha Viriditas,

I have noticed that the Template: Voice actor has a broken link. Turns out the associated article Voice Chasers was VfD'd because the site ([3]) was deemed a "Non-notable" website.

Since I am new here, I decided to err on the side of caution. Seems the easiest fix is to change the template to include an external link to VoiceChasers. Since that change will "cascade" and affect other articles I thought I would ask first.

Also, I noted that this template isn't in this list: Wikipedia:Template messages/All but is used in many articles I have reviewed.

Thanks! Schmiteye 00:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I made the change to the template. It works. I understand your comment about having two external links in the same reference though. Doink! Thanks for the advice. Schmiteye 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Kalihi

Viriditas, I rewrote the section you removed. The anon's original edit was clumsily expressed, but there was a smidgen of truth to it. I taught at Farrington adult ed briefly, and my ex-husband lives up the valley, so I know something of the area.

Unfortunately, I can't really source anything I wrote. It's just what everybody knows ... Zora 11:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting my RfA, I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Legal status of Hawaii

Aloha! I very much appreciate your feedback on Legal status of Hawaii. I hope it helps folks see the forest (the "big dispute" over Hawaiian history) and not just the trees (the "little disputes" in various individual articles). I've been learning a lot working on Wikipedia, and that includes learning from the social role the more experienced editors play when conflicts become acute. Lately I have been trying to repay the community in the form of volunteer service on "Newpages patrol." Mahalo and best wishes! -- IslandGyrl 17:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Western Sahara Infobox/Vote

No worries. I thought we must be misunderstanding each other somehow, so if it's all cleared up, I'm happy. If you want to add a new option, I sure that would be ok - Option 4 wasn't there when the vote started. However, I don't really understand which information you want to add. As I understood the original option, it should include something about status, area, population, etc, but not the heads of states, national anthems and so on. I would support including both internet TLDs and the calling code, but that's about it. JPD (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for headsup on changes page

Viriditas, thanks for note re the changes page. I've bookmarked it. I hope we can work through the fuss re IslandGyrl's template. I think it's advertising for a minority political position and oppose it. Next step Republican, Dem, Green and Libertarian templates? Zora 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Jane Hunter

Jane recently resurfaced, but I do not have her current contact info. Try http://www.jewsonfirst.org/ or e-mail catcherSPAMBLOCK@JewsOnFirstSPAMBLOCK.org. --Cberlet 14:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Salvia

I deleted the reference to Salvia divinorum, as there was no reference to explain why an herb never found outside Mexico would be the soma of Eurasia. Did you intend to revert my edit? -SM 01:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

List of tropical cyclone names

I'm not try to vandalize the page. The 2005 Season is practially over, since names like Katrina and Rita will be retired, I'm putting the new names in for the 2011 list. I also fixed the name Henry because it was spelled wrong. I didn't know that was Your page (You prolly were watching it so that why You changed it back right away. 69.112.54.11

That name list goes up to 2009. We know that names of major hurricanes are retired, and because lists are used again, I put the 2011 list. One of the names, Henry, was spelled wrong (with an I) and I fixed that. I didn't know that You owned the page and that You're not allowed to edit it. 69.112.54.11

Please IM Me at [personal information removed]. I don't know who the heck I'm talking to. Are You the webmaster? 69.112.54.11

I've left you some information on your talk page. For your own security, please do not post your private, personal information, here. --Viriditas 10:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too worked about the vandal, Viriditas; he's obviously a troll. I can't imagine anyone is dense enough to think they can make up new hurricane names on their own for those that they feel will be retired. I made a post on the talk page for Lists of tropical cyclone names. Peyna 13:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Viridita, you might want to post a report about this matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -Willmcw 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Alfréd Haar article

Would you mind looking at the Alfréd Haar article? I suspect a vandal deleted the categories. No comments about why they were removed. I'm new enough that I just can't see a good reason for this to happen. The user is anon and only the one contribution. Thanks! Schmiteye 21:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave it some thought and decided it was vandalism after all. Still, could you review it? Thanks. Schmiteye 22:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Vegan

Hi

I am taking that environmental criticism out again until the contributor will engage in the debate which has spilled over his and the subject talk, and formulate a better one. If thers is a good environmental critique to be made, I am not adverse to it. I do think that it would be very difficult to make and the one that has been written is neither strong nor directly relevant to defining the topic. It might require a separate topic of its own.

I want to be clear much of my intention in reworking the topic along the line of the discussion is to keep it within Wiki guideline length.

Indeed, I would like to see it shorter yet. A lot of work has been put in to cut out the duplication, poor punctuation and flab.

There may be an environmental critique of vegetarian and vegan diets but using soya intended for livestock feed as an example is not it. Neither is suggesting that livestock can be a replacement for rice growing when the argument excludes consideration of what that livestock is going to eat, the suitability of livestock onto specific fragile ecocultures and the pollution it causes itself which far outwiegh plant based pollution.

The Wiki is after all an encyclopedia attempting to define a topic, in this case what is [veganism], and not a discussion forum.

Idleguy, the gun loving warrior, has a beef about this and is things are likely to get silly unless folks are willing to let things bed down a bit first.

Thanks. anon 13:49, 22 November 2005 (GMT)

Vegan II

Hi

please read the discussion page and respond in full before making sweeping reversions.

This is twice now that I have tried to engage you directly. I think you will find that the reasoning behind the editing is fair and sound.

Thanks

195.82.106.176 11:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

EddieSegoura

Given what is happening in the Rfa's Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EddieSegoura and now Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EddieSegoura_2. Given that the word Exicornt appears made up. Given the use of sock puppets. Given the use of minor edit designation for major edits. I can't judge if most of his edits are correct/verifiable or not but the grammar is awful, almost intensional. Adding all these things together from a user who has only been around for less than a month shouldn't this users edits all be reverted as non verifiable? David D. (Talk) 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas,

I got the same question from Daycd and gave basically the same answer before I noticed yours. I have no idea if he's for real or not, either, but here's some more food for thought: www.eddiesegoura.com. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, I've been following (and indeed getting involved!) in the matter with Eddie. I noticed you posted something on Kim's talk, but I note this from Daycd's talk: "EddieSegoura (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log) edits mainly via AOL. As such, it is impossible to identify whether any other account is a sock of his, given AOL's randomizing proxies. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)" Right now to me, only 69.112.54.11 and Eddie's own user account seem to be him. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 09:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't do anything right now, so I'll be waiting to hear the results from you. About his website, I obviously have no idea, so I hope that it was a rhetorical question. Apparently it was updated for 9/11 though. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 09:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support

Aloha, Viriditas. I just want to say thanks very much for your support for my RfA, and for your kind words. It was flattering to get so much support from people who don't always agree with me on article content. Anyway, I promise not to abuse my new "powers" in anyway, but I'm sure you knew that already. And if I can ever help you in any way, please let me know. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 19:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Mr. Transit

No, I haven't. I just decided to lift the bit about him being a sock from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt, as he removed it a couple times. I left the bit that said he only had two edits (there's a couple more now, though), and the closing admin should figure it out.--Sean|Black 00:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• You made a second attempt to put that tag on my page. I'm sorry, but I felt i had to put it on you so you know how it feel to have to remove it everytime. Mr. Transit 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Mr Transit obviously doesn't know about WP:POINT. anyhow, I've filed a 3RR notice on IRC about Third Rail. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 06:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Enough, already!

Viriditas, If You're going to continue looking at Me as a "sockpuppet" then I have no reason to talk to You anymore. I also stated I will stop posting in that AfD discussion (thanks to You). I've suffered enough negetivity from You and I don't need You to make things worse for Me. EddieSegoura 04:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm not a mean person. I'm just upset that You continue look at Me as someone that likes to drive people crazy and make people suffer. If You truly feel that way, I have no reason to speak to You.

But it seems to Me that You're making Me suffer by "sockpuppeting" Me. It seems like that's the only subject You can bring up when You write to Me (You still do it). I also said I'd put the AfD page behind me and move on. (That "AfD" page should have been closed already, in my opinion.)

Look, I don't even need to talk to you to read and edit pages, anyway. - EddieSegoura 06:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Aloha!

Hello there! Noticed you'd posted on the healthy eating article about merging. I'm currently almost finished with the article, which hopefully, should include a nice section about what healthy eating is in the header, and go on to what it has in it already. I'll be creating another article shortly after, Nutrition within schools, which will be targetted within the foods which are supplied to schools within the United States and the United Kingdom, in regards to processed foods and vending machines.

Well, regards, and thanks for your kind comments relating to the merge, which will happen soon, without glitch. As for reminiscence, i compared the very first version of the article with my own to show the big expansion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Healthy_diet&diff=29496937&oldid=10916457

Ok, i'll stop showing off now ;-) Spum 17:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Who exactly are You?

I never got to ask You this: Who are You? I see You're from Hawaii, but are You male or female? What is Your name? You don't have to say this on Wikipedia, just Email Me, because I have no idea who it is trying to talk to Me. --EddieSegoura 12:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Exicornt

Hi. Why did you revert my addition of the {{deleteagain}} tag?

Revert? I ADDED a {{deleteagain}} tag -- or at least that's what I was trying to do. --Calton | Talk 12:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh. I got an edit conflict, but since it was of what I was trying to add, I assumed it was a glitch, an edit conflict with myself (which I HAVE gotten).

In any case, I just stumbled over it, dithered over whether a redirect counted as a re-creation Speedy Delete, and finally decided to add the tag and let someone else decide. You must have slipped in while I was dithering. --Calton | Talk 13:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: Okay, I just got ANOTHER edit conflict. Hopefully this edit isn't screwed up.

The correct page for Exicornt is Crossover (rail). That is the page we all agreed to keep. -- Eddie 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no. Not again... :-) --Viriditas 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

For once You didn't dispute My archived Exicornt page. I wonder if You started cleaning up the tag mess You made? -- Eddie 01:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no tag mess, Eddie, see my comment on your talk. Well, Viriditas, this looks like it may finally be coming to an end. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well to Me it's a mess and it must be cleaned up. ::looks for the broom:: -- Eddie 09:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Update on the Cleanup: User pages Fotimus, Third Rail & No Whammies will now redirect to My Home Page. I'm happy to say they've not been reverted. Thank You. -- Eddie 12:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Spum

It looks like SlimVirgin just warned him. If he attacks you again, let us know. If we catch it first, we'll block him. Very troll-ish. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I"m sure that, being a veteran Wikipedian, you've figured out what's happening here. Spum sees this as "his article" and you are now "defiling it" by having the audacity to say that it needs cleaning up (which it does). For some reason, I was thinking that you had been at this for weeks. But. It's been. A DAY? Good god. I'm sorry man. I know how rough it is to deal with major POV warriors...been there many times. Hopefully he'll calm down a bit. If you need help, you've got it from me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I read his post on SV's page. I just don't know sometimes. Editing sometimes involves a word or two being added. Again (and I'm not sure if you've mentioned this to him or not), we canNOT take possession of articles. That's the problem here. It's what Nobs01 and others do alot of...they act like the source material they add to an article should not be altered to fit Wikipedia style. Unless he gets over that, he shouldn't be here. Just my opinion. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll read his posts. Pretty sure a block is in order. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicotine addiction/dependence

There are currently no redirects for Tobacco addiction nor Nicotine dependence. Care to create them? There's a number of page options, but I thought I would ask for your help.--Viriditas 08:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What options (of where to redirect to) are you trying to decide between? I've found Smoking cessation... what other pages have you found? --Thoric 15:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is getting silly.

It seems i've discovered a pattern in whatever happens between our encounters. Each time i post something, you post some comment back, and upon me replying you report me as having personal attacks because matter which concerns a criticism is directed towards your nickname. Then, you direct things towards me that i'm emotionally charged, i am against all wikipedia editors, and i cannot respond without being warned from you that i am either defiling something or i'm sniping at you, which on all accounts i am not - If i wished to snipe at you i would do so directly, not hide behind hyperbole and nonsense.

I hereby state that we should draft some form of truce, because i really cant be arsed with all the tactics you're employing in order to make me out into something i'm not. Despite what some KITTEN-THING thinks i am doing, i assure you that i was fully aware of the article not being mine, and i never inteded for me to have ownership of it - I AM FULLY AWARE OF HOW THE WIKIPEDIA WORKS - So please, do not send me anymore links to protocol, because i already know it.

I am neither a troll, nor a spammer or any such thing, i have principle, as any man should have. The reason why i have such objections is because the headings are those which i both have used in past essays, and academic materials alongside the course of my career, and i wished to add them into the article because they were headings, principles and theories that i have seen in 'many, many books. All i wished to do was style the article so it was even more academically-reference-able for students looking at the article, saving them the trouble of having to look through all the books i did to write material for the article.

I'm sorry to say it, but by saying the article is point of view as mentioned in a history item "This is bordering on POV" - seems just as if you were really trying to offend me. It really is annoying if you spend time referencing an article, and then all of a sudden, someone who has shown no interest in the article or contributing to it, all of a sudden criticises the accuracy of it.. It's like me criticising a plumber when i full well know that i have little idea of what protocol or difficulty such a job yields.

I appreciate you are trying to clean up the article, and for that i am appreciative. Again, i have problems with the fact that when you did it, the manor of the operation was one that did not really look very "professional", all that was posted on the talk page, was "needs cleanup", and nothing more. Now, i'd be more appreciative if simply, after that lovely little sentence you put WHY it needs a cleanup, relevant to the article - not just pointing me or others to a talk page - this is what gave me the impression that you were simply diving in, and just saying "wikipedia cleanup policy" to do what you like - i later see that that was not the case, but i would appreciate the common courtesy to specifically explain the nature of the problem, then i would of course, be able to co-operate with you - but as of when you were going to clean the article op, you did not , you left such a task to youself - something which i have also been wrongly accused of very recently.

So, from this moment on, if you agree to explain more onto why you're doing what you're doing, then i'd be please to wikilove you all night long, so long as we have an agreement between us that there's not going to be any time when i have no idea what you're doing, other than you're doing it.

Sorry for all the fuss, Spum 11:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Spum has been blocked for 24 hours

He went right back to name calling and blaming you for what happened on healthy diet, etc. I felt like he needed time to cool off. Hopefully I won't catch heat for it. User_talk:Spum#You_have_been_blocked is my explanation. Look at his user page too. It's obvious that he doesn't get it. Can you imagine if every time we told someone that they needed to follow policy and that they weren't, it was considered a personal attack? Talk about not understanding collaboration. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I shortened it to 3 since I told him it'd be 1 or 3 hours. I work 3rd shift...heading to bed now. Let SlimVirgin know if Spum returns with guns blazing. We have to somehow get through to this person that people editing your contributions with no discussion is the norm here...and not to pick on people. "Policy is vague" isn't really an excuse. Name calling defines personal attack IMO whether it's sad or not. I always figured that alot of that policy was supposed to be obvious. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep I know. That's partially why he got the block. Like I said, you 2 seemed to be making progress but then he went into that rant and the name calling, etc, etc. And now apparently he's not going to respond to any messages left on his talk page. I spend alot of time in the #wikipedia room on IRC. I think I'm going to see what my fellow admins think should be done. I'd like to just block him permanently but I'm not sure I can at this point. But you know, he basically says on his page that he refuses to work with anyone else. If that isn't against the spirit of Wikipedia, nothing is. I'll monitor him. If he acts up again, let me or SlimVirgin know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

For now we'll just monitor him. We'll escalate it if he continues on this path. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:List of religious topics

So, Ecstasy should be included on list of religious topics despite not being a religious topic or even an actual article (it's a disambiguation page, which should rarely be linked to in the main namespace)? I don't follow that reasoning, but if you feel its inclusion is of such benefit for editors to help spot vandalism via related changes, I won't intervene.—jiy (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A disambiguation page can't be a religious topic, because a disambiguation has no topic—they are contentless. They are more like an extension of the search function, and theoretically could automatically be generated by the MediaWiki software if it had human-like intelligence. There has been some ideas about granting disambiguation pages their own namespace because they are different from normal articles in many ways.

With the watchlists, I assume you're talking about the notice at the top of List of environment topics which states "This page aims to list articles related to the natural environment. This is so that those interested in the subject can monitor changes to the pages by following the Related changes link..." That is a self reference, and if its only purpose of the page is to aid editors, it does not belong in the main namespace. For instance, the other watchlists listed on your user page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Hawaii recent changes and User:Silsor/Neo-nazi watchlist, are properly not within the main article namespace. If List of religious topics is only to aid editors in spotting vandalism, it also does not belong in the main article namespace.—jiy (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"nonsense"

Your use of the word "nonsense" in your edit summary here borders on a violation of No Personal Attacks, which is interesting for a person who is placing such an emphasis on policy and process on the candidate page. FuelWagon 02:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

John Coltrane

Aloha Viriditas. I think the issue is solved now. I've just added a new section called Coltrane and religious beliefs to make things very clear and also that would add depth to the article. Please review. Cheers -- Svest 02:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Thanks for the useful info about Sufism and Bhagavad Gita. I incorporated them at the section. Please review it to see if they were correctly fit. Cheers -- Svest 03:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Excellent! It looks better than ever. There's a big coherence now. I'll try to expand what you requested. Cheers -- Svest 19:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Spum

You were well within your rights to delete the comic from his page since it most definitely violates copyright. Heck, he could easily be sued for that even if it wasn't put on Wikipedia. He's nearing the end of my tolerance. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I just gave him his final warning. Honestly, I think every other admin would've went "see ya" when they saw that comment about you on his user talk page. As SlimVirgin said, he's not going to change. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like he's at it on Healthy diet again. He just made some changes with 0 discussion. I'm watching it very closely. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not hopeful. I don't know if you saw this, but apparently he's doing an "overhaul". In other words, still acting like the article is "his". He's being nicer, but you know, being a POV pusher and not talking things out with others before making wholesale changes isn't alot better than what he was doing. Oi. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

IP locations

Doing an rDNS and/or using one of the internet-based IP location services can provide a fair amount of info, or no information at all if it is an ISP like AOL. I took that into account when I added the suspected location info to Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr..

For my internet connections, the data is just the opposite from your experience. I have a dial-up account with a major ISP that uses at least two different major POP providers plus their own network of POPs to provide dial-up internet connections. I have at least a dozen access phone #s available to me that are local phone calls in almost a dozen different cities that are spread across three different area codes in two different counties in a roughly 12 mile radius. Checking my internet connections through any IP location service is usually accurate to within about 3-4 miles of where my ISP says the connection is located. The DNS names that I get from an rDNS, however, are less informative, only naming the major metropolitan area that I'm in for the POP providers, and yielding no clues at all for my ISP's POPs. ^BlankVerse 11:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

LSD

. . . and my response here. sorry and thanks. --Heah (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jenga Guns

No, I do not have a citation--I only know of a small number of people who have made these, though the idea is of general interest. Do you think it's inappropriate? Dantheox 11:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely no cites -- this is something that a few of us came up with on our own years and years ago. I'm sure a decent number of people have seen them, but it's hardly a well-established phenomenon. There's not going to be any information on them online outside of what I just posted. --Dantheox 11:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so what about something like "Modeling Weapons with Jenga Blocks" with a reoriented focus to match? --Dantheox 11:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reworked the intro to focus on these contraptions as models for learning about weapons, mechanical principles, and physical laws. Is this sufficient to warrant keeping the article around? --Dantheox 11:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Images from Grinding (dance)

I believe the two images you refer to were deleted because they lacked source and copyright information. Deleted images cannot be recovered on Wikipedia. The only way would be to try and find the images on a mirror site, but unless you have source and copyright info to add to image, they will be deleted again. -Nv8200p talk 14:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Burritos

Burritos generally are categorized as sandwiches, some kind of bread with filling. Seems strange to exempt one particular kind of burrito from being a sandwich. Dr.frog 14:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I dunno. Here in Boston, we have a chain called "The Wrap" that sells burritos as just another variety of wrap sandwich. Certainly there is some crossover between the two things. Dr.frog 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ante

Dear Viriditas,

Please help us! Ante Gotovina.

Joy is nowhere to be found, and the page is under attack. --VKokielov 19:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ay, you aren't an admin, are you.

There's one for the books. With your permission, I'll ask someone else. Would you recommend someone who doesn't have too much to do? --VKokielov 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --VKokielov 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Burrito

I've eaten burritos all over the southwest US and in numerous places in Mexico. The aluminum foil version seems to be a uniquely Bay area version based upon my experience (except when ordering the burrito to go). As for grilled after filling, my guess is that it's about 70%-30% for all the burritos I've eaten, so that line should probably be changed to something like "usually grilled after filled", or something like that. ^BlankVerse 09:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Best Burrito? Just in my local area, the list gets divided into best chimichanga, best carnitas burrito, best good cheap and filling, the ocassional something different (a pastrami burrito), and best self-indulgent burrito (a "Loco Burrito"--chile relleno w/carnitas). ;-)

I think it's weird that someone classified burritos as a "sandwich". Still, it's not something worth edit-warring over. Someone else will probably come along and take up that fight, however. ^BlankVerse 07:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Watchlist help

I'd love to set up a watchlist for Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics just like the one for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii. We've already got Template:Numismaticnotice linked on all (or at least most) of the project articles. Can you help me understand what the next step is? I think I need to create a page listing the articles in the project -- do you do that by hand or automatically? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Mom2jandk 23:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Watermelon

Thanks, it's all legal and kosher as well. I never thought i'd find such a good image, but it turns out those fellas at the US Agricultural place area alright :-) Spum 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology

That attack was in poor character on my part and I apologize.--B21.12.52.123 13:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Canaen

Time for a block, I'm afraid. Probably 24 hours. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Vegan meatpuppets

Thank you for your intervention. My patience is being severely tested by these people. They are not interested in rational dialogue. FYI, they keep editing the RfC summary to reflect their POV of the situation. Also, an extensive personal attack against me was posted on Talk:Veganism by an anonymous IP this morning. It isn't the first; a long section about my "snitching lies" to administrators can be found farther up the page.

What should I do about this? Can I file a request for arbitration on the article, or against Canaen? Is there a better way I can handle this situation? I've tried to make sourced, rational arguments, and I feel that all I've gotten in return are insults and bad faith. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, here's another Livejournal blog that Canaen posted his request to.[4] God knows how many blogs he cross-posted this stuff to. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest filing a request for comment against Canaen. It's the first step in the process. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours. It was really for the attacks against Skinwalker more than anything else. He's been warned a couple of times. Enough. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, one of the meatpuppets is reverting the RfC summary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law, calling it libel and/or slander. I've just done my third reversion in 24 hours. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See No Evil

I'd say See No Evil is certainly worth reading. It definetely won't improve your opinion of the government (the Reagan administration and every one since), but it's an entertaining and enlightening read. It's especially relevant, too, with the War on Terror and the release of the Syriana movie happening now.

Veganism RFC

I don't think the RFC page list needs to have that information on it. This RFC area is for the content dispute; if you wish to open an RFC on a user's behavior, do it in the appropriate place.

I'm also not sure linking to that LiveJournal post helps your case. One person saying 'Look at this Wikipedia entry' and five or six other posts saying "I couldn't really see anything wrong with it ..." does not a campaign make. I note also there is no call to action to do something specific on Wikipedia contained there. No 'Go and vote for ...' or 'Help us keep this text on the article ...' —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Then Skinwalker posted a link to the one of the two LiveJournal conversations that was the most innocuous, because I didn't see anything wrong proposed there. Anyhow, this is one content dispute I'm not right now planning to wade into. I just consider what he posted there to be making a user behaviour case in the content area, and thus in the wrong place. It sounds like some cool heads are needed on all sides of the dispute. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC on User:Canaen

I think the RFC is ready to go. Can you take a last look at it before I post it? Thanks! Skinwalker 17:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I went ahead and posted it. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry. It clearly wasn't ready to go yet. Thanks for your help with the RFC, and for removing the vandalism from my page. Vegan smegma!?!? WTF? I'll refine the RFC today as time allows. Regards, Skinwalker 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser

Your best bet is to leave a note for Kelly Martin or Fred Bauder. They have checkuser abilities as does karynn on #wikipedia on IRC if you go on there. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I am sure you noticed that the guy who hit RfC and my talk page yesterday was 195.82.106.78. Same ISP as the one you posted about with 3RR today. Both start with 195.82. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I can do that. Like I said on the RfC, I am trying to give Canaen the benefit of the doubt, but it's difficult. I mean, no one admits to using sockpuppets. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

195.82.106.78 has been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. He just kept going and going despite warnings. Next time it'll be 48. I *think* it's a static IP but I am not 100% certain. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, he's claming that he's now posting from 212.18.224.118. Unless he's posting from a weird ISP, that's not possible. Totally different bank of IPs. Add it to your checkuser request. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well now he admitted to being the person I blocked earlier, so I blocked him again. :) Unfortunately, I can't keep doing that if he keeps changing IPs. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[5]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 03:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hula

Viriditas, the anon is right. Those are all good edits. The ipu is MUCH more used than the 'ili'ili, which are used only in specialty numbers. Ditto for the sticks. Rare.

I have done a fair bit of research on hula for a historical novel that's stalled out in the second revision, and I have a number of hula books. I should probably bulk up the article a little ... but I have only so much time. I'll put the article on my watchlist. Zora 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Glutamine

Fany taking a look at it, see if i'm on the right tracks in regards to the article? No guns blazing this time, promise :-) Spum 16:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice

Investigation of a conflict which involved Xed has resulted in a proposed remedy which affects you, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision#Viriditas_and_Jayjg_reminded_regarding_NPOV. Fred Bauder 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Xed 2

Regarding your notice on my talk page: I've checked the evidence page, as well as the workshop page, and find nothing referring to "masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources". Could you point me in the direction of the evidence, please? Thank you. --Viriditas 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Look up the page at the findings of fact, edit history of Divine Intervention (film) Fred Bauder 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. From what I can tell, I twice restored a citation request [6] [7], and removed false citations as well as unsupported and irrelevant content [8] [9]. Xed reverted, and I added a totally disputed tag. [10]. I fail to see any alleged "POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources". --Viriditas 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, why was any mention of occupation removed when that is the theme of the film. Were all those references Xed dug up, just crap to be deleted? How come he had to provide them anyway for such a notorious event that it Googles 80,000 hits. How come a article on a film which portrays the Palestinian point of view is being stripped of that point of view by you and Jayjg? Fred Bauder 01:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And to go further, how come a film which opens in a 100 theaters in Paris, opens in one theater in New York City and is then snubbed by the Hollywood establishment? Fred Bauder 01:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divine_Intervention_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=27273184

NPOV contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view. Fred Bauder 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing Personal Attacks

Remove 'em if you genuinely feel doing so is a good idea, but if my feelings upon being attacked have any bearing in your decision to do so, I'm more amused than annoyed, and more annoyed than upset. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Glutamine

Hey, i see you've done some bits of cleanup on the article. Still - there's a few problems that crop up with some cleanups you do, i tried to add the Dietetics category, because i presumed it would be used with Nutrition category as well (as it was a sub category) - Still, i'd prefer if you'd query wether material is relevant , particularly if you're unsure, or have general knowledge on the subject, that you'd just take the category, and comment it out instead of deleting it , particularly because that way i know what reasoning you have for doing so.

I know it's not a listed rule, although it should be, but i'm sure that if came to articles which you had contributed material to, for instance on films (which i have lesser knowledge of) and removed things i was unsure of - that'd be deteremental to the article. I'm not attacking you, i'm just saying - if in doubt, leave it there - There is a section of the article (Glutamine) which could be categorised as both Nutrition and Dietetics; particularly because the use and regime of glutamine diets is Dietetics, and the composure and effects would be Nutrition. I'm not attacking, i'm just saying that it's a strange process because you, in your freedom are allowed to remove things, yet i have to discuss why i have to put them back; If you're unsure of the factual accuracy or relevance, then 'please check the references.

The section on Nutrition, funnily enough relates to Nutrition ;-) (and the use and regime of it is known as dietetics). Spum 09:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Chowder

Alrighty. Go ahead. Sorry about that.--AaronS 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We've had bread bowls here as long as I've been alive, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were introduced later. --AaronS 04:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of "vivisection"

Would you mind teling me why you consider the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "vivisection" to be inaccurate and why you reverted the article to include factually incorrect information? --SpinyNorman 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored the citation you removed and removed your "factually incorrect information". You wrote, "the term "vivisection" is sometimes incorrectly used to describe all animal testing in which the animals suffer pain or discomfort", however the cite you posted doesn't say that.--Viriditas 04:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but the cite I posted does say how it is correctly used that that correct usage doesn't include "all animal testing in which the animals suffer pain or discomfort". I included that last bit because there are evidently people who are under that misapprehension. You can take it out if you really feel strongly about it, but it doesn't explain why you removed the cite for the OED and the correct definition. But, in point of fact, my statement was 100% correct - "the term "vivisection" is sometimes incorrectly used to describe all animal testing in which the animals suffer pain or discomfort" --SpinyNorman 04:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Britannica link presents a broad treatment of the concept which illustrates Croce's statement, while the Oxford cite presents a restricted definition. It is your claim that the word is used incorrectly, and the Britannica link shows that is not the case. --Viriditas 04:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course OED presents a restricted definition, the purpose of a dictionary is to provide a definitive meaning for a word. Britannica isn't a dictionary. And without the overall context to determine how this "broad" definition is being used, it isn't very useful as a source for the definition of a word. The OED's defintion should take precendence. It surprises me that I have to argue this point. --SpinyNorman 04:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Dictionaries do not have the purpose of "providing meanings". They exist to collect and display the meanings that words have. When a word clearly is used more broadly than your dictionary of choice would have it, it surprises me that there are contributors who will argue for the sake of their desired narrow view of a word or concept that the dictionary must be right and the world wrong, when not even the lexicographer responsible for the dictionary would agree with you. -- Grace Note

So you're saying that a dictionary isn't a reference work at all but rather a catalogue of popular conventions? Would you also argue that we should redefine the value of a pound because people lie about their weight? --SpinyNorman 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Meaning is determined by use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly right, and I'm afraid, SN, that "reference work" and "catalogue of popular conventions" are not at all exclusive, and a dictionary is both. Dictionaries simply are not prescriptive. They don't say how words should be used; they say how they are used. You didn't just cross the is/ought gap; you flew it without a glance. -- Grace Note.

ROTFL! How sad for you. I guess this is part of the reason why wikipedia is not taken seriously by so many people. --SpinyNorman 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a good xmas matey!

Sorry about all the stupid crap that's gone on, but - Marry Xmas anyway :-) Anjoy your wikibreak - hope to see ya soon! Spum 15:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, wrong person :-/. Merry xmas Viriditas, i'll take a look at Vegan nutrition. Meanwhile - fancy helping me out with one of my projects? I need someone such as yourself to write some rules and guidelines up for a wiki i've started for game cheats and hints, i'd be delighted if someone as experienced with policy such as yourself would be able to draft up some stuff :-) </shameless> I'm happy to add people to My wikiproject, such as the person who posted on my wikiproject - bet, i'd prefer they registered a nickname so i am able to chat with them more "solidly".
Cheers Viriditas, have a Good xmas and new year, take it easy and have a nice wikibreak :-) Spum 14:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a merry Chrismas, Viriditas, even if all the evidence seems to indicate you are having a crummy Wikibreak ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Canaen

I put a checkuser request up on Kelly Martin's talk page. Enough is enough. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Haizum

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haizum. freestylefrappe 22:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not edit my comments again or you will be blocked. If you disagree with my statements present your own view of Haizum's behavior. freestylefrappe 23:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that's not how it works, and your comments are a violation of WP:CIV. You either provide evidence (diffs, links) for your claims, or you don't make them. You were apparently misinformed about my role in Haizum's dispute. I asked you to correct your error, but so far you have refused. I am not required to defend myself from unsubstantiated claims. You, however, have the burden of proof. If you can't provide evidence for your allegations, then you should remove them. --Viriditas 00:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Last warning. Do not spam my talk page, once again I ask that you explain your actions in the outside views section. I've seen Haizum's talkpage. Clearly harassment. freestylefrappe 00:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. I have never harassed Haizum at any time, and your claim appears to be spurious and without merit. Simply stating a claim over and over again doesn't make it true. Either provide evidence, or remove your claim. Thank you. --Viriditas 00:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on your remark on Freestylefrappe's page

Please bear in mind that the RfAr on Freestylefrappe is only in regard to alleged abuse of administrator powers and behavior inappropriate to an administrator. -- SCZenz 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If the threatened blocking was indeed unjustified by Wikipedia:Blocking policy, adding evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence would be appropriate. Read through the instructions and try to follow the organizational format used by the majority of the entries there. -- SCZenz 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've probably given all the advice I ought to give, since I'm the principal claimant in the RfAr. If you have any questions, though, feel free to ask me—if I can't answer them, I'll send you to someone who can. -- SCZenz 01:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove accusations made of you, even if erroneous and/or irrelevant, from an RfC. Just state in an appropriate section that you disagree, and let the truth come out. If you really think the accusation is unjustified and its presence greatly bothers you, and you've already requested its removal, you can make a post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see if someone will intervene to help. I can't possibly do so, being already in conflict with Freestylefrappe. -- SCZenz 01:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome for the advice. I really think you ought to get help on the RfC problem from an unvolved admin. This is not a good time to start an edit war with Freestylefrappe. -- SCZenz 03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- SCZenz 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Cauliflower sandwich

So there I was stub-sorting food-stubs, when I come across cauliflower sandwich. I gotta say, {{afd}} was my first thought, especially after a google search didn't seem to indicate this was a big phenomenon. In fact, I get only 24 unique google hits for "cauliflower sandwich" - wikipedia. What's the scoop? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"Arnabeet Mekleh" gets far fewer google hits. My feeling is that the information should be merged to Cauliflower; I never meant to imply it didn't exist, but it seems a little esoteric for a page of its own. But I leave it up to you; I know you are a good editor. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right that a google-search isn't the end-all be-all of notability; it's just a crude measuring stick, doubly so with concepts like this that might go by multiple names. Books, in general, are better than web pages, certainly, and any book references would help a lot. (Although I would add that I personally - this is just me - tend to frown on cookbooks as references, both because they tend to get people into the bad business of putting recipes into Wikipedia and because a lot of cookbooks aren't particularly well-researched.)

The actual results if the article were to be nominated for deletion would of course depend on who showed up that day to vote :-) If the article doesn't list its own references, by default what can be found in google or google books search is likely to be what people base their notability and verifiablity decisions on. (It's also the case the "non-notability" as a standard for deletion is not actual Wikipedia policy, so there are some who would vote "keep" just because it does provably exist.)

I just saw your latest addition to my talk page, and it does feel like moving the page to "fried cauliflower" might be a good idea - it's a broader concept and could include the pita sandwich. Personally I still think a section in Cauliflower would be better.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving articles to better titles is always ok in my book. But, I think merging the article with cauliflower would be like mergin Baba ganoush with eggplant, or Neapolitan sauce with tomato. I don't see a reason to do so, although you may have good reasons. Is there an issue with stand-alone Wikipedia articles on ethnic cuisine? I'm just asking, as I haven't followed the issue closely. --Viriditas 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's just gut feeling, partially based on my perceptions of the notability of fried cauliflower, and partially on the more transformed nature of Baba ganoush and Neapolitan sauce from the original vegetable. I could easily be wrong on both counts. But to me, it seems more like this would be having a separate page on "boiled potatoes". (I know, I know, if you count french fries and home fries and tater tots, we have at least three on, basically, "fried potatoes", so what am I complaining about?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Fried cauliflower works for me. Thanks for the discussion! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nollaig shona duit

Hi, Viriditas. Nollaig shona to you as well. Thanks for always being so friendly to someone whose POV you probably don't agree with! And I wish you all the best for the coming year. AnnH ^(talk) 00:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Haizum

He looks like a troll to me. Encouraging him just makes it worse, Viriditas. Better to invite everyone to step back, tone down the rhetoric and take it easy. My view is that Wikipedia works a lot better when editors take "revert bad edits, ignore trolls" as their motto, and try to stay cool when the editing is hot. I tend to think that those who start dispute proceedings are doing it less to resolve disputes and more to get their jollies from the process, because it's so easy simply to ignore someone who's pissing you off. Anyway, happy holidays to you. -- Grace Note.

Veganism

Hey man, I was just wondering what cm as an edit summary means. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 11:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year, and a bit of good news

Hi there Viriditas, have a nice new years, hope to see you editing again after this festive period! Well, there's some good new; i managed to get on the blower to the user who was posting and he's agreed to for at least a few weeks, leave off the Vegan Nutrition page; So, in my spare time, i'm expanding and correcting the article. I posted a reasoning on the talk page of why the article is somewhat askew, but it's still got some okay fundamentals, but still for purposes of clarity, i'm going to rewrite the article.

So, see you soon matey. Spum 11:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem, Mr V. Take it easy over new years :-) Spum 11:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy new years! What's your resolution? :-) Spum 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you!

Happy New Years to you too! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Primarily"

I don't know why you were so rude to me in your edit summary. The research that I needed to do to come to my conclusion was to read the article. The article is about all kinds of things. It looks suspiciously like an attempt to tie in left-wing anti-Zionism with old-style anti-Semitism such as the "blood libel". I realise I've made a mistake though, and will remove the article from my watchlist. James James 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misinterpreted my comment. I don't see anything rude about saying, "do a little research". Wikipedia is all about research. --Viriditas 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro to the article clearly doesn't match the contents. No amount of research will fix that! Anyway, I'm acquainted with Phyllis Chesler's views. I'm not taking a standpoint on the "new anti-Semitism". I think that some on the left have gone way beyond the pale but I also think that criticism of Israel's policies is not necessarily anti-Semitic. But what I also think is that the article as it stands seems to be about all kinds of contemporary anti-Semitism, rather than being restricted to the "new anti-Semitism" as described by the likes of Chesler. Really, the article should consist only of descriptions of incidents that have been described as anti-Semitic of the new kind, not of any and all incidents, because doing the latter tends to imply that leftists were involved in the latter. If it were to be about all kinds of contemporary anti-Semitism, it should be titled "Contemporary anti-Semitism" and the intro expanded to make it clear that leftists might burn the odd flag at demos but they do not, except in rare and isolated instances, attack or molest Jews. However, I recognise that my idea of what would be neutral and yours differ, and you can outrevert me easily. It's a pity you chose that route rather than discussion but I don't mind. There are plenty of other pages to work on where I can more readily achieve the aims of Wikipedia. James James 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And if I remember correctly not even Chesler begins her discussion of new anti-Semitism with leftists. Here she begins her discussion with the "surreal" level of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world. Her thesis is that the left has adopted the virulent anti-Semitism of the Muslim world. She would not say that the new anti-Semitism was primarily of the left, but was shared between left and Muslims, as your article in fact does imply by strongly connecting the two. Perhaps you should have chosen some other "research" for me to do, because Chesler, at least, seems to support my standpoint that the label is also aimed at the left, as well as at Muslim anti-Semites. James James 01:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thanks for the new year wishes! I hope you have a fantastic year ahead. Sarah Ewart 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for drug chart

Hi Viriditas :) Happy Holidays and Happy New Year :) I was wondering if you might be up to voting for my psychoactive drug chart on Wikipedia featured picture candidates? --Thoric 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Kalahuipuaʻa

I've never been there. I googled up various images of that fishpond, and the picture seems like it MIGHT be that fishpond, but I can't be sure. Safest thing would probably be to just label it "Hawaiian fishpond" and let users identify it. Zora 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello "Viriddy"

Hey Viriditas, i little side-note here. My daughter's been watching me do some edits on the wikipedia, and she saw that i had chatted to you and that you "have no name picture", so she made you one! Be sure to leave me a note wishing her thanks (kids these days eh), her name's Stephanie (Well, english name ;-)). Spum 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay pal :-) Mr Spum 13:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Shran?

Hello, I am currently being harrassed by User:Gamaliel because you tagged me once as a sockpuppet of Shran. Please provide some conclusive evidence, and or remove your tag. I think that if you examine my record more closely you will see that no sockpuppetry has occured. This has gone on just way too long. THank you. 24.0.91.81 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw

Willmcw is now known as User:Will Beback. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry I changed You sig. Unfortunately, I did have to tally you on my future RFA list as a mistruster. --Eddie 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see You took Your name off MY RfA mistrust list. I need Your feedback, could You please Email Me? Thanks. -- Eddie 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Self category

Hi I noticed you setup the self-populating category Category:WikiProject_Hawaii by way of the project template. I'm trying to do the same thing for the WikiProject Alaska, however I can't seem to get it to work. I was hoping you could perhaps see if I had a typo or some suggestion that would help us out? Thanks. —akghetto ^talk 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• [Empty Category list]
• [The template in question]

thanks!

Hey, i didn't actually know :-/ Well, now i do! cheers mate :-) The magical Spum-dandy 14:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser #CantStandYa (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). -Will Beback 08:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that user:24.0.91.81 is the same as user:155.84.57.253. -Will Beback 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding cats

There is no automatic way to do it at the moment, though you could just paste it in each time. Martin 10:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, my friend

Hey there Viriditas! You may notice who i am, but if you don't, it's me, Spum. I recently made a new username because i'm attempting to use this one as a fresh start. Anyway, hope to hear from you soon! Take care mate :-) J.Spudeman 20:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I hear you man

I understand what you're saying. The guy/girl in question is following me around in my edits, editing pages that I edit and that he/she has never edited before, and marked an article Afd before it was even edited. That seems WP:POINT to me, and don't know what else to do than to call him/her out on it, as nobody on the Admin side seems to be willing to help. Worse yet, he/she is an admin. I'm on my own, and here you show up and are critical again. Doesn't feel good. I just want to be left alone to edit pages, and not be followed in some sort of weird retaliatory fashion. Morton devonshire 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Front

Why did you put the current event template on the Animal Liberation Front article? -Localzuk (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanage

Hey there, my good friend! I've been going through Body Mass Index, cleaning it up a bit; think you could do me a favour and tell me if it's all wikified please? Also, the sections below "Usage" are ones i have not cleaned up yet, so wait until i have done them before checking :-) J.Spudeman 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I hereby reward you this random barnstar because we're actually getting on well! J.Spudeman 17:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you contact J.Spudeman

The IP he was using was autoblocked from a previous user, so he freaked out and said he was leaving on his talk page. I emailed him. Could you email him? Find out what it tells him when he tries to edit (it should be like #45603) or something. Let me know and I can unblock him. Autoblocks only last 24 hours, so he might be unblocked already. Not sure. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

fried cauliflower

Sure. I saw "cauliflower" put it in vegetable-stub, but it can be in cuisine too. Kerowyn 00:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Greenbud caption

Hey, just double-checking that you can vouch for that greenbud caption Sweet Tooth #3, a fourth generation, 3rd backcross to Sweet Pink Grapefruit mother. =) -SM 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Thank you for your kind words, and for your support! I'll need that luck... Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please weigh in on request for semi-protection for Cannabis

The request is meeting resistance, and I am arguing special circumstances. -SM 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)