User talk:Viriditas/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New account

Hi Viriditas. Your edits as Thomas veil have now been reattributed to this account. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 11:50, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

JWC redirect

I think what you've done is fine for now; let's see if the anonymous user comes back. Jayjg 02:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I've redirected to Conspiracy_theory#Anti-Semitic_belief_systems which seems more appropriate. Jayjg 02:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 02:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Starseeds

Quisling! JamesMLane 00:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See [1]. --Viriditas 02:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the starseeds never tried to conquer Earth. See, the Kzinti were kicking our tails, so the Puppeteers, fearing an overly powerful Kzin Empire, shot a starseed lure into our sun, so that a starseed would show up, with an Outsiders ship following, and then, as the Puppeteers had foreseen, the Outsiders sold us the technology that enabled us to defeat the Kzinti. Maybe all that should be explained in the starseeds article. Meanwhile, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you won't get anywhere by brown-nosing the starseeds. They couldn't care less. JamesMLane 02:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I agree, that stuff should be added to the page. BTW, do you have any idea if catnip has any effect on the Kzinti? Heh. I wonder if the writers for Red Dwarf borrowed Niven's idea when they came up with the Felis sapiens character of The Cat. I also question why Star Trek neglected to use the Kzinti in the television series. --Viriditas 05:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cancer Coast / Cancer Clusters

Regarding your comments on VFD about what to do about the Cancer Coast article, I can see either moving the content into a new list article or merging with the cancer cluster article, although I suppose just linking to cancer coast from either would also work. As long as something is done to make the Cancer Coast information accessible, with a clear path from Cancer itself, I think Wikipedia readers will be very well served. This is just my personal opinion, and others may have their own views; that said, I cannot see how you can go terribly wrong in this situation. - RedWordSmith 17:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think any link to cancer coast on the cancer article page will be removed quickly. That is to say, some people are very hostile to negative datasets, and I can't see it remaining linked on that page for very long. I will attempt to merge the info on the cancer cluster page in the next day or so, and perhaps find some good places to link. I will notify you on your talk page when I do it. Thanks. --Viriditas 11:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The Cancer cluster article looks very good now. - RedWordSmith 06:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfC

I have opened a RfC concerning Alberuni. If you feel you can comment on this, please view Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni Jayjg 14:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jirate

Hi Veriditas - you say you have "linked" Jirate to Stormfront. How? Is there any substance to this allegation? - pir 13:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm pretty impressed with your ability to dig up information. However, I think the most likely explanation is that he just found the website through simple google search (I didn't read the website, but the neo-Nazi link isn't necessarily obvious at once). In the UK, people with proper neo-Nazi sympathies are very rare, the only group which has any size now is the BNP with maybe 5 thousand supporters, and they have laid off the anti-Semitic rhetoric lately (they actually had a couple of Jewish candidates in recent elections). Personally I think it's best to reserve such serious accusations for more serious cases, because they do a lot of damage to the debate at Wikipedia when they are erronious, and an inflation of such accusations banalises anti-Semitism. But that's just my opinion. - pir 22:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. --Viriditas 22:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that Igor guy as well. I was pretty stunned. I don't know, but I think there aren't many people like that around. Their presence is (I believe) far more prominent on the Internet than in real-life. I guess the reason is that they are very marginalised - everybody hates them, they are just thoroughly discredited as a political, or rather, ideological, force - so the Internet is their only outlet. I think there's actually more of them in the US. The first time I came across a proper neo-Nazi was on a mailinglist on US politics, which was a .... weird experience, a bit anachonistic, like receiving an e-mail that took 60 years to be delivered. The mailinglist moderator was an anarchist who refused to censor any political views, but in the end the guy got kicked off because of his abusive behaviour. - pir 23:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello Viriditas - thanks for your message and sorry for geetting back to you so late (I decided to do a bit more work in the "real world" and a bit less at Wikipedia). I archived all my talk just now, so the Jirate stuff is not visible on my talk page anymore. Also, I applaud your decision back, and apologise for, your comment about him - not everybody everybody is big enough for such moves and it adds to your integrity. regards - pir 16:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila massacre

Please note, usual nonsense of major POV edits with no explanations on the Sabra and Shatila Massacre article. Jayjg 19:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also note 1982 Lebanon War for similar behaviour by a different user. Jayjg 20:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regularly updated list

I'm just going to keep a regularly updated list at User:Jayjg Jayjg 03:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New project

It's a interesting idea, though a large undertaking. I worry that it would simply devolve into another set of Neutral POV vs. anti-Israel POV impasses though, much as the articles have. Jayjg 14:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC against Proteus

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. Regards, Jayjg 21:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Matriarchy

I have added some references to the Matriarchy page per your request. FWIW, the comparison between Spain and the Netherlands means only what it says: that there is no necessary relationship between the worship of a goddess and the legal and political status of women. (Economic factors seem decisive in this case, as usual.)

My understanding is, current scholarship is fairly sceptical of whether a "Minoan Great Goddess" actually existed. Most of the snake-goddess figurines, most notably the Boston Snake Goddess, have been fingered as forgeries. (See K. Lapatin's Mysteries of the Snake Goddess: Art, Desire, and the Forging of History ISBN 0306813289) The Linear B material is mostly laundry lists and other non-literary stuff; we can't yet read Linear A, so any statement about their beliefs is still going to be conjecture. Smerdis of Tlön 14:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist categories

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion has two lists of categories related to terrorists up for deletion. Jayjg 20:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maria Czaplicka

A pic of her would be nice indeed. Unfortunately I couldn't find any on the web. I'm sure I saw her picture in some anthology of texts some time ago, but I don't have it at home. Perhaps they have something in Oxford.

As to the article itself - I simply got pissed off that yet another of my fellow countrymen is described under some foreign name :) It is based on what I remember from one of the lectures long time ago and two articles I could find on the web. I don't remember if that book was indeed her thesis, but it is highly probable. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 06:23, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Slogan

So far as I know, that's the way we're supposed to label slogans. Rick K 06:29, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the capitalization was wrong, anyway. :) Rick K 06:36, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue about moving it to a lower case version. Rick K 23:36, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

NPOVing Yasser Arafat

The POV warriors are busy trying to insert bias into and delete fact from Yasser Arafat; would you mind keeping an eye on the article so they don't destroy it? Jayjg 09:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Aside from that, their latest target for POVing is Ariel Sharon. Jayjg 03:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

US president,george w bush

It's gone. You can always put a speedy delete header on these things. Rick K 23:34, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold

Any particular reason you reverted my revert at Dore Gold? Thanks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, common sense would be a start. Another reason would be the fact that continual reverts without participation in the Talk: page are often perceived as vandalism; quite rightly in my mind. Jayjg 03:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Common sense? Haha. Your edits are POV deletions of information designed to promote a pro-Israel POV by removing references to Israeli terrorism. You are a POV warrior; THAT is common sense. 03:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL! Good one!! Jayjg 03:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where's the funny part? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All of it! You really made my day, thanks. :-) Jayjg 04:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem, sir, just keeping it real. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not terribly well informed on the conflict, nor do I have strong opinions either way, but I think it would be much better for Wikipedia to avoid dueling articles. The whole reason this project works is eyeballs. If articles segregate themselves as these have, the amount of oversight drops and the project suffers. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold protection

While you are correct, there is nothing you can do about it. If the person who protected it responds at all, it will be to quote Wikipedia:The Wrong Version to you. Jayjg 16:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr arbitration

I've asked for Arbitration on HistoryBuffEr. You'll find the relevant section on WP:RFAR. Jayjg 19:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you please e-mail me?

Could you please e-mail me at viritalk - at - hotmail.com? Jayjg 23:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (replace the - at - with an @ ). Thanks. Jayjg 23:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vanunu

You're correct re: scientist vs. technician. I failed to see that. Thanks Jewbacca 14:43, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Munich Massacre

Regarding Talk:Munich Massacre, any comments you have about a user belong on that user's talk page. The talk page for Munich Massacre should be used exclusively for discussion about the article itself, not the participants. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:57, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise version of Munich Massacre that incorporates the best parts of both versions. Improvements are welcome, but I would like to humbly ask that you not do a blanket revert, as you would be reverting good edits as well as bad. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:21, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

(By the way, thanks for your comment on my talk page. I understand. As much as I treasure anonymnity, it does bring out the worst in some people. . .)

Vanunu 2

Removing bias is not "censorship". You posted an editorial, not a news headline. The description you offered deviated from objectivity in a number of key areas. One, you claimed he was a scientist to bolster his credibility, when in fact he was a subordinate technician. Two, you claimed that he gave an interview (no evidence of which was given) where he made a wild claim about Israel and JFK, (an insane claim since JFK was the biggest supporter of Israel ever, at that time). Thirdly, you tried to connect his arrest to your claim, and by doing so you invented a news story that did not otherwise exist. Lastly, you seem to be incapable of recognizing your bias, which I find highly disturbing for someone who runs a project devoted to eliminating bias. Physician, heal thyself. --Viriditas 21:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tell me where I stated he was a "scientist". And are you telling me he didn't give an interview? - Xed 08:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keeping "In the news" NPOV and credible

Following various attempts to add partisan and fringe stories to Template:In the news, I've proposed a new criterion to keep such stuff out. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 17:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

User:HistoryBuffEr is vandalizing Yasser Arafat, see Talk:Yasser_Arafat#HistoryBuffEr_warnings. You might want to put an eye. MathKnight 21:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page Renaming Poll

Thanks for the comments Viriditas. I agree, a poll is a good idea, informal or not, please do whatever you think is necessary. Neutralisation 01:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we should strive for consensus first, but will support a poll if that breaks down. I would like to be as consensus-driven as possible for now, because we may well need to use polls later for the content. Cool Hand Luke 06:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat article

HistoryBuffEr is POVing it again. Ambi's version is the last NPOV one, you might want to revert it to that. Jayjg 05:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. If you revert to Ambi's version, he will have to violate the rule to return his POV. Jayjg 05:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara

Looks like HistoryBuffEr's getting pretty high on the revert total on Hasbara as well. Jayjg 05:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some other know. Thank you. IZAK 03:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni and HistoryBuffEr are busy again

HistoryBuffEr is busy inserting his new POV articles into Yasser Arafat and Sabra and Shatila Massacre, while Alberuni is busy POVing NGO Monitor and censoring Israel Shahak. Jayjg 03:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's busy POVing again, he's started on Yasser Arafat; you might want to keep an eye out. Jayjg 04:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits are not reverts. Thank you for your concern. --Alberuni 05:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Luciferean Satanism

Good greetings, Viriditas. The reason I included Luciferean Satanism as a subset of Abrahamic mythology is that it doesn't really quite fit anywhere else. While I agree full heartedly that it is most accurately described as a subset of Christian and Gnostic mythology (with very strong ties or similarities to Zoroastrianism and Manicheism), it isn't quite either of those. Christianity in particular implies the worship of Christ, which would tend to exclude Luciferean Satanism. The only thing I think can be said for sure is that Luciferean Satanism belongs somewhere within the framework of Abrahamic mythology, so I put it there for lack of a better place, since it isn't completely a subset of any of the "big three" (though its concept of Satan is clearly biased toward the Christian version). --Corvun 06:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

The creation of sockpuppets to insert HistoryBuffEr's version of Yasser Arafat is an interesting development, don't you think? Meanwhile, Alberuni is busy POVing on several fronts (including Sabra and Shatila massacre), you might want to look at his contribution list to get the full picture. Jayjg 00:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Equally interesting is the number of anonymous IPs who seem to have joined the other side of this, and several other, revert wars—while completely ignoring the rest of the 'pedia. But neither of you know anything about that, of course. —No-One Jones ^(m) 08:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak for Viriditas, but I for one strongly resent your implication here. I've never edited using a sockpuppet, and (against my better instincts) I've even revealed my IP right here on Wikipedia, after similarly baseless accusations from Xed, which is the only IP (that I know of) that I've edited under, and that only when accidentally logged out by Wikipedia. You have descended to the level of Xed. Jayjg 14:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just who are all these anonymous sockpuppets that seem to follow Jayjg et al around, and always agree with the pro-Israel version? It's a mystery. - Xed 15:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Point proved. Jayjg 20:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mmmhm, most interesting. I'm sure it's just some entirely random group of pro-Israel POV warriors! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you go vandalize Dore Gold again, or revert it 5 times in one day without discussion? That's what you're best at. Jayjg 20:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am very sorry for the implication. I knew Jayjg's IP address and should have thought to check it before making the insinuation above; now that I have checked it, I see it does not come from the same ISP, or even the same continent, as the anon I had in mind (200.39.200.132) when I wrote the above. My sincerest apologies. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Mirv, I appreciate that. Jayjg 20:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of it, but there is a piece of commercial software that allows you to control other machines (which have been set up) called "remote desktop" and "PcAnywhere", over the internet. Therefore, a user could dial in to the remote computer (which could be around the world), and then log in as a sock puppet, producing an apparantly totally different IP address. So, having an IP in a different geographic location is absolutely no indicator of innocence of sock-puppeting. CheeseDreams 00:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Only if the other computer had remote control software running, and allowed other people to login. Perhaps one could advertise in foreign countries asking if people there would install the software to allow their computers to be taken over. Of course, a person could also simply fly to a foreign country in order to use a computer there, and then fly back home in order to fool Wikipedia. Your scenario is far-fetched, but thanks for assuming good faith. Jayjg 23:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

Thank you for your comment Viriditas. You're the one who's such a hard worker, you should get a salary for this : ) MPerel 08:47, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Issue from Talk:Jihad

Look, I hope you don't think I was merely attacking Pename with my list of questions. Even before he came along I was asking for clarification of the article (check the edit history), and for further proof of my methodology please see Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict#Clarifications. I hope this clears up any misconception that this was a directed attack and I was only raising objections to spite the user. I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Also, in case I've come across as a defender of Islam, I can also assure you that again nothing could be further from the truth. I am a Christian, purely and simply, and will never believe anything else.

I was trying to read this article to gain some understanding of Jihad and it's causes. A sustained POV attack did not help me any. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was not attacking him. I was asking questions! sheesh. Since when was that classed as "biting newbies"? I suggest you review your own comments towards myself more carefully. After all, you're the one who told me I was being unfairly critical of the article by asking all the questions on the talk page. I'm extremely annoyed that you have implied as such, and would kindly ask you to start reading Wikipedia yourself by reading assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I filed an RFC following due process. What did you want me to do? Engage in a revert war?! I told him he was acting POV. Though it's true I said he had an act to grind... which I'll certainly say was probably attacking him. Shouldn't have done that. The only reason I got involved with editing this story is because I'd started to ask some questions on the story to ask for clarification (in fact before he started writing from a non-neutral point of view), and was actually getting some decent answers. Then he started attacking me for asking those questions, he refused to take the page to talk and discuss changes, and then you appeared on the scene and basically accused me of having a go at him for asking the questions! That's what I'm pissed at. I realise I could have handled things somewhat better, but my patience was sorely tried. I was trying to get some consensus on the article and he refused to discuss his changes. Your comment that I was asking nothing by objections (where the definition is now "The fallacy of nothing but objections, also known as barrage of objections, is a logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed") is extremely offensive to me as that was never my intention!!! In fact, I even noted in quite a few places (if you care to actually read the talk page) that some of the material was OK. Perhaps you would care to tell me where my objections were "frivolous" and created to "divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed"? Because that in itself is getting pretty close to a personal attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I take on board many of your points. However, I wish to address you on your points: "However, you compounded those requests with further objections by posting leading questions like "Isn't this just your POV and your interpretation of events" and "are you misrepresenting a people group here"" The first question might seem leading, but take a look at what he wrote and you'll see why I asked this (albeit in a leading way). I fail to see how my question about whether he was misrepresenting a people group could be seen as terribly offensive, because he was making sweeping statements. Whether he was a newbie on this point or not really has nothing to do with anything on this point: he was deliberately making sweeping statements, and causing major problems in the article. You may see this differently, but my question was not an attack, though I suppose it could have been seen as one by one who is extremely (and rightly) hype-defensive.

Now I would like to ask you to answer some of my questions: where were my irrelevant and/or frivilous questions in the section you commented on (I notice that you created the article after you wrote it — pardon me for having my nose put a little out of joint, but you don't accuse someone of something they don't understand by linking to a non-existent article, then create the article after you point it out).

Lastly, while we're about it, why don't you review some of the sources provided by Pename? Why don't you review the following section on the talk page.

Anyway, I gotta go eat. Talk later. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Viriditas, I just thought I would pipe in to support Ta bu shi da yu.

Let me say the following by way of disclaimer, let me say up front that I am a Muslim and sympathise with Islam. And also not I am not sympathetic to Islamists (which might make me the answer to the "who are liberal Muslims question").

But I am also a strong believer in the importance of strict NPOV policies for an encyclopedia to really live up to its name. See, for example, what I am trying to do at Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy.

Which is why I spend time on Wikipedia. And why I think it is a bit unfair to pick on someone like Ta bu shi da yu when they challenge when they try to get someone to tone down a point of view that is coming through in their work on Wikipedia.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Just one last thing: the "sigh" on his talk page was because he already asked me the same question via email, and I replied and told him how to do this. Just saw your comment on this, thought I might (again) clarify. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen

In reply to your question: He has harassed me on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LGagnon (where he has tried to sway the vote away from me through libel) and on Talk:Stephen King (where he further libelled me). I did not know him before he started doing so on those 2 pages. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:45, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

My opinion of him is based on his edits in the Votes for deletion pages. He seems to vote delete solely for delete's sake. Rick K 05:40, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

That's a bit silly. I explain on my user page what my philosophy is. I think it's well out of order to describe me as a troll for voting to keep articles you want rid of! But I think this is pretty much par for the course for RickK. Thanks for your comment on my talk page, V. It's good that we can disagree (fiercely) but hopefully walk away unscathed and not angry.Dr Zen 01:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You one local guy?

I just noticed the photo and invite on your user page. Are you an island Wikipedian? Zora 06:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I live Honolulu)

Thanks for quick reply. I guess you're up late too. You can look at my user page to see who I am. I live in a condo in Makiki with four cats (and an outside cat, a feral, whom I'm feeding and trying to tame). Zora 09:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apology

It was not in my mind to give you personal attacks, but merely to contradict you because I thought you were wrong. If I did anything that you perceived as a personal attack, then I am sorry. I do not want to be your adversary. Besides, it appears that you are from Hawai‘i too. I still don't agree with your position on East Maui Volcano, but as long as the name still has mention in the article, I don't think it's anything that worth arguing over. Peace? Friends? Aloha? :) - Gilgamesh 01:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oompa Loompas

Good point on the need for an external link. I went in and added one. Thanks for the compliments on my editing. As for an image, that could be hard to find. Since (obviously) Charlie hasn't passed into the public domain yet, we can't use images straight out of the book, unless we want to pull fair use. Likewise, "fanart" couldn't be used, because even though the art itself is by the artist who draws it, they themselves are breaking copyright by making the art (sounds crazy, I know). Unless Joseph Schindelman or one of the later artists has released his work into the public domain, with permission from the owners of the Charlie works' copyright, there is probably not any free images of an Oompa Loompa. - Vague | Rant 09:07, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to fix Oompa Loompas in any way you see fit. - Vague | Rant 10:07, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Al Dustur

Hi Viriditas, yes, Al Dustur is regarded as a reputable source. I believe it is Jordan's main newspaper and it's relied on by Western journalists stationed there. As for providing a reference, that will be harder because it was so long ago. If you mean can I find the date of the article, I will try, but if you mean an online reference, that may not be possible. Lots of websites refer to the article, but none in any detail. But I will look around for the best I can find, and will let you know. Slim 10:34, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Protected areas

We don't have any to do lists over there, at least partly because we don't have many active members. I put together Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Status a while ago as a sort of survey of the state of things. Lots to work on there. Rmhermen 13:51, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I added infoboxes to Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes. I am not sure I made the best choices for nearest cities though. Rmhermen 22:04, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

RfC

Hello. HistoryBuffEr has filed an RfC against me. I thought I'd let you know, in case you have any interest in commenting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Image Use

Hi Aloha,

Use the image by all means. I presume you mean this distribution map? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steve_nova If you want me to rename it, I will. Just tell me what to do as I am not very familiar with this.Steve nova 23:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merging the page history for Haleakala

Wow, that process was unintuitive! But I did it. Let me know if it looks funny to you. (Thanks for your support on my RfC, btw.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:05, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking the day off from unpleasant people. It's good to work on articles, and to be reminded that most Wikipedians are pleasant, knowlegeable, and friendly. I've been working mostly on flowers – I've found that can be soothing and recuperating after a rancorous couple of days. Anyway, cheers. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:09, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Blocking of HistoryBuffEr

Greetings. HistoryBuffEr has violated the 3RR (again), and I have just blocked him. I left a detailed note on his talk page here explaining my action.

The last time I blocked him, he was very upset. I was mistaken in my time frame in that instance, thinking he had reverted four times in 24 hours when he had only reverted four times in 26 hours, and I had to back down and apologize. Still, he launched an invalid RfC against me, which was, in my opinion, an attempt to punish me. He then disendorsed many of the Arbitor candidates who endorsed my summary on the RfC, which seemed to me as a way of punishing them as well.

I am quite sure the blocking this time was appropriate – I dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's. But I suspect he will be no less upset. I'm asking you to keep an eye on the situation. If he acts in a vindictive way, I ask that you support me, if you feel this is deserved. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:56, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

User:FamilyFord car4less

User:FamilyFord car4less is blocked for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No worries :) Let me know if anything untoward happens. Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know Ambi fairly well. She's very fair, and she probably didn't see that the edit was not only an edit but it was a revert also. I am reblocking HistoryBuffEr for another 13 hours (this will be less time that the original block, but I can't be bothered working out the exact minutes that he is blocked for). I have asked Ambi not to unblock him until she talks to me, so we can sort things out. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AINA

good work on the disambiguation of AINA. however, the edit history of the AINA i created appears to be lost. can we recover it and attach it to AINA (ngo)? Kingturtle 17:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. --Viriditas 01:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Umm...I think either you are misunderstanding my contribution, or I am misunderstanding your question. The Urdu word for mirror is "aina" (pronounced aa-ee-nah) and is most probably taken from Farsi.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:29, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would call the language Persian, as that seems to be the term used to encompass both Farsi and Dari (Tajik is more politicized), and is the title of the Wikipedia article. But it's a matter of taste, to some degree. - Mustafaa 12:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FamilyFord car4less and HistoryBuffEr

HistoryBuffEr has assured me that this is not his sockpuppet. This is good enough for me. I have noted as such on the users front page. Thought you should know. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My comments stand. I agree we need access to IP addresses associated with editors to be able to check for sock puppets. However, until we have access to these, I can only assume good faith, even if he has previously used sock puppets. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you ask one of the developers to check? Slim 01:53, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'll do that. But until then, I can only be fair to HistoryBuffEr. After all, what's to stop someone who dislikes him from creating an account and doing similar edits? If we accussed him of sockpuppetry (I can't beleive I just used that word!) then he'd be at an unfair advantage, wouldn't he? Let's be fair, even though he may have used sock puppet accounts in the past. That's all I'm asking for: fairness here. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be. I don't know. I wouldn't like to guess. I'll assume good faith until we find out differently, but if you have definite evidence of sock puppet accounts please don't let me stop you from adding them to the evidence page. I hope you are more than very sure though! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:68.21.185.217

How odd. I'll watch him in case he leaves the sandbox. He's already been warned about removing the headers, but if he just plays in the sandbox I'm not sure much that can be done. Cool Hand Luke

Answer

Right on the first count, wrong on the second count. I didn't add it to my watch list, thank you for pointing out the question. The second point: I didn't think it was necessary. I figured you'd have put it on your watchlist as you made the article (it's what I do anyway). I thought the two were the same. Maybe I was wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't speak for others, but I sure would! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moving comments

That's fine. I think I've made my point now. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No worries :) Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Please follow the instructions at the top of the evidence page and provide diffs. Fred Bauder 12:12, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence by date

Hi Viriditas, I modified my evidence and actually shortened it all into the one particular date of offense that I was reporting. See what you think. As far as adding more detail about the "link", I'll have to work on that later today or tomorrow. --MPerel 03:33, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni blocked for 24 hours.

That is all. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Yasser Arafat locked

Yeah, it look suspicious. I've locked it for a small amount of time. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's cool. I've unlocked it as the anon promised they wouldn't revert again. We'll see. Please keep an eye on it and let me know if I don't notice it's been reverted again. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat locked again. Will more than likely block anon's but I want to try something first. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oi! no more naughty thoughts Viriditas... the thought of a hybrid HBE+Albernui gives me pause! ;P Ta bu shi da yu 12:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Haabet is serious all right

He is NOT trolling. He just seems to be obsessed with the subject of corsets. Plus he insists on working on the English language Wikipedia, when he can't write grammatical or intelligible English. If he limited himself to the German Wikipedia he might sound more rational there. Zora 12:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IP addresses and sock puppets

Could we shift this to WP:AN? things might get confusing otherwise :) Ta bu shi da yu 23:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

cheers :) Ta bu shi da yu 23:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xenobiology moved to Astrobiology

I think it should be OK, with the history intact. The Astrobiology only had a history move in it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Hi Viriditas! Just wanted to say thanks for the welcome. I realize you may get tired of pasting standardized boilerplate onto the talk pages of newbies, but it was cool to get the "you have mail" message upon logging in ;) Wikepedia looks neat! I hope to be able to keep contributing. --Culix 11:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey again! Thanks for the feedback. No, I am not on Czech time, I'm actually on -7 GMT. If you are in Hawaii that puts you in -10GMT, am I correct? I would be glad to talk about computer ethics or pages relating to such if you so wish. What would be the best way to do that? Also, I hope this is the correct place to respond to your message. If not, please let me know. --Culix 10:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Viriditas. Yes, that Ethics of technology article is very interesting. It seems like ethics is a hard subject to write on while still keeping NPOV, especially for contemporary topics like computer ethics, don't you think? I will do some research into it after I have finished exams (in a couple weeks) and see if I can find anything to add. Thanks! --Culix 03:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Alberuni

I'm very aware of that, but I will not block him (conflict of interests). Also, I didn't think to warn him about it specifically (though I did warn him about his three reverts at Zionist revisionism). User:Tarek seems to have convinced him to stop, so I'm willing to let it slide, but you're certainly free to find another admin to look into it. Cool Hand Luke 09:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I asked him to clarify the copyright issue three times on his talk page. Cool Hand Luke 09:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Just saw the message on my user page. Mate, I appreciate the encouragement :) your comments mean a lot to me! And hey, you're a very diligent admin... you are an admin, right? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Corrie's photos

Truly. I did put that they were BBSNews photos though. ¿How can I erase the GDFL in the images though?

Ciao.

Astrobiology

I had to delete the redirect first, then I moved the article over. Simple :) You need to be able to delete articles though. Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About Gary Webb

My revisions to the Gary Webb article were directly drawn from the facts as reported in the Los Angeles Times obituary on 12/10/2004 by Nita Lelyveld and Steve Hymon. Hymon in particular is a muckraker well-known for his hard-hitting coverage of inner-city issues like healthcare, and for attacking government officials when he knows the facts are on his side. If he felt that there was some truth to Webb's allegations, I have no doubt that the obituary might have been a lot more sympathetic. --Coolcaesar 22:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I got the title of the book wrong when I was paraphrasing in a hurry. The original article got the title correct. The URL of the L.A. Times obituary is: [2] Also, I just looked on LexisNexis (I have access to the real thing, not that Academic Universe crap available at most universities) and in addition to all those investigations, the CIA's own internal investigation (with assistance from the Department of Justice) found no direct link. The majority of the articles supporting Webb ran only in far-left political publications like Tikkun and the Progressive---not exactly the most objective sources. While I have a healthy distrust of the government like most American intellectuals (and I do enjoy reading Mother Jones and the Nation regularly), I think it's important to remain neutral in an encyclopedia and keep the conspiracy theorizing to a minimum. --Coolcaesar 22:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Richta

Hey - I noticed you did some categorization of Richta's page. Looks good, thanks! --Culix 01:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus

Firstly, thanks for kind comments on my user page. They were toally appreciated... I'm in a much better state now so I'll be reverting back. It's good to know that people are very kind on this site though :-)

Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Could you help me out with the changes that CheeseDreams is making on Historicity of Jesus? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article, and she has an agenda (this can be seen from her contributions to other articles, also see the RFC on her). It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate help with this one as I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Operating a cabal

It's so nice when people leave blatent evidence of operating a cabal, and a reversion tag-team system.

P.s. Note Filiocht's comment on WP:AN

P.p.s. Your side made 5 reverts before I even made 4.

CheeseDreams 18:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doh! Now Viriditas has been found out! Sorry mate, you're kicked out. Remember: we're a sekret cabal! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goldberg

New info at WP:VIP. I also asked Goldberg not to direct any more personal attacks at you. Since VIP isn't the place for this case, I suggest you take it to dispute resolution. Good luck. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:53, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

You can always do a WP:RFC or take it to arbitration. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:17, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I couldn't help you. Feel free to direct any additional proof of violations by Goldberg my way, and I might be able to help out in the future. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

24 hours

I noticed the dispute about a whether a 4th revert at 24:05 was within 24 hours. This is not against the rules. Within means less than. In this case, the 4th revert occured after 24 hours plus 5 minutes. So the reverts were within 25 hours, but not 24 hours. Wolfman 20:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the policy should be made more explicit. As you can see on the 3RR Talk page, the poorly-defined policy has been a concern of mine. Obviously, someone who makes the 4th revert in 24:05 is showing little respect for the spirit of the rule. That's frustrating. But I don't think it's ok to "round down"; that would be showing little respect for the letter of the law. Regards. Wolfman 22:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Camera

Sorry for the late reply (I'm in the process of moving across country). The camera I use is fairly unremarkable actually: The 3.2 mega pixel (MP), 3x optical zoom (OZ) Sony Cybershot DSC-P71. The trick is to play with the settings and take a bunch of different photos at different settings. But for landscape shots in full daylight an ISO of 100, focus set to infinity, exposure value of +/- 1 or 2 (depending on ambient brightness), mode set to daylight, and maybe use of the integrated spot meter, will result in good photos. A rule of thumb to create great photos is to slightly underexpose the photo and then post process the image with The GIMP/Photoshop by increasing gamma and contrast until it looks nice (be careful about increasing brightness since it washes out the image). Sometimes I have to do this for only part of an image (such as an area in shadow). Overexposing an image is *always* bad since that destroys image detail.

I had wanted to buy the 4x OZ, 4 MP Canon PowerShot G3, but needed something smaller and that could use AA batteries. Of late, I've been eyeing the 7.1 MP, 4x OZ PowerShot G6 and the 8MP, 7x OZ PowerShot Pro1 to serve as my main camera. --mav 22:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be careful

I'm sure you don't mean it, but try not tell CheeseDreams she's naughty. That could be counted as baiting, and it may reflect badly on you. I figured I'd let you know because I'd want someone to tell me directly if they saw me do this. Be very careful with CheeseDreams, she may be infuriating but we must behave better than she does so she can't come back at us with accusations of bias and unfairness. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know that, but others won't. Sometimes it's better to be ultra-cautious about these things :-) I'm sure you understand that in the medium of text where you can't see facial expressions or human gestures these things can be misconstrued. It's good to see you take my comments on board though... Like I say: be careful with CheeseDreams. Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kaise Soze

Yeah, I saw that. But I've just responded and left it at that. They haven't tried to edit the page or cause any major disruption, and I have no real proof. Best to just respond in good faith and monitor what they do. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then she's baiting us. Don't respond and she'll get no satisfaction. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD

Heya, please keep in mind VfD articles take H3's (i.e. 3 ='s) for individual VfD headers. (The current VfD process is horribly complicated, you can hardly be faulted for such a small mistake, just thought I'd remind you) --fvw * 10:49, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Dubious.

Don't do that. Just use {{subst:dubious}} - Ta bu shi da yu 12:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No harm done. I've removed it. How's that article going anyway? I've stopped watching it: it was raising my Wikistress too high. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Asbestosis - Compensation and Liability Disputes

Thanks for your contribution. Significant revision in progress. Please re-visit and comment, if you consider appropriate. 201.8.95.202

Goldberg

That's a horrible thing he said. I've removed it and added a link to the history. Horrible. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Special Contributions

Ahh, thank you Viriditas : ) I was doing it the hard way. --MPerel 05:25, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipuppets

Thank you for the link to User:Viriditas/wikipuppets. I didn't realize he was using so many. It's nice to have a central location to show the relationships. I've placed that page on my watchlist. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 03:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcoming anons

Hi Viriditas, I noticed that you used {{welcome}} on User talk:66.30.225.29 instead of {{anon}}. Try and remember to use the latter, as registered users are more valuable to the community than anons - and it gives us somewhere to put user vanity. Thanks, Alphax (talk) 04:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

PS. I changed it and left the user a message. Alphax (talk) 04:41, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I've been welcoming a lot of anons lately - they seem to have a habit of creating vanity pages about themselves. Alphax (talk) 05:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Wiesenthaler

Hey Viriditas, I agree that it's very unsavoury to have magazine clippings on your user page, however at least it gives us an idea of his POV. I'm loath to do anything about this one, because as much as I disagree with his views I don't want to censor him. The big problem, as I see it, is that he's committing a copyvio by pasting them onto his front page. That's well outside the scope of fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanx for bringing it to my attention. I'm going to ask him to stop, because those copyvios are a real worry. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Talk" after signature

How do you get it to include a link to your talk page after your signature? Is that with the help of a macro, or is there another way to do it? Nathanlarson32767 13:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aloha. I know of two methods for modifying the signature. The easiest is to change your preferences. You can learn how to do this in detail on Help:Preferences. Look under the section, "Your nickname". That's the easiest and most reliable method of changing your sig, and that's what I did to add the "talk" link. The second method is to use a dynamic signature template. Let me know if I can be of any further help. --Viriditas | Talk 00:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm having trouble getting it to work. Here is what I have pasted into that box: ]] — Nathanlarson32767 | [[User talk:Nathanlarson32767|Talk. — Nathanlarson32767 | Talk. 01:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I guess it's working now. Let me try that again. — Nathanlarson32767 | Talk. 01:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, never mind. Thanks for the help! — Nathanlarson32767 | Talk. 01:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you're using my {{bottompostusertalk}} template. I just made a new one that you might like better, {{usercomment}}. --Theodore Kloba 19:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Following the various tos-and-fros on WP:VIP, I have made a request for arbitration. You are one of a handful of users in the "Various" request. Sockatume 21:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request withdrawn; turns out that the user accused of being a sockpuppet has been blocked, therefore resolving the issue. Sockatume 22:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You were included in the request because a suspected sockpuppet was making a big fuss on WP:VIP about being labelled as such. You'd called out a preceding suspected sockpuppet of the same user, therefore your input would've been valuable. [[User:Sockatume|Sockatume User Talk:Sockatume]] 22:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image for deletion

Viriditas, could I get you to vote on WP:IFD to delete Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg? It's a picture of a child on a paedophile magazine. It needs to go. Now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

It is not your "edits" that are in question, it is your removal of an entire section.

I removed two paragraphs, which have absolutely nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus but merely restate religious opinions.

You are not obliged to seek consensus for an edit, that is true, but you are obliged to work with consensus in mind when editing controversial articles.

Says who?

The section you keep removing attempts to make a case (a bad one at that) for historicity.

It does no such thing. It states religious opinions.

This is not my POV, but does in fact, represent a Christian POV.

The article is not about what Christians believe, it is about whether Jesus was a historical figure and if so what can be said about his life. What Christians believe is quite irrelevant to that. Adam 10:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You removed two paragraphs which attempt to introduce the reader to the historicity of Jesus couched in terms of the religious opinions of the adherents.

The religious opinions of Christians (or anyone else) have no relevance to the topic of the article, which is whether Jesus was a historical figure and if so what can be said about his life.

What Christians believe regarding historicity is certainly relevant to the article.

Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God who rose from the dead etc. These are religious opinions not opinions about history. Christians believe these things through faith and tradition, not because they have studied history. The Christian view of Jesus is amply discussed at the main Jesus article and doesn't belong in this one. This article is about what secular belief systems have to say about Jesus.

Adam 00:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, well I am off overseas for a month tomorrow so I don't have time to argue about this now. When I get back in February I intend taking an axe to this article. We can talk about it again then. Aloha. Adam 03:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet

I think you might be interested in this: [3]. Is User:Pravda a sockpuppet for User:HistoryBuffEr? MathKnight 18:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The usual good faith is being assumed by all, of course. I came here because I noted that you had put a comment on Pravda's page demanding tha he not make reverts. Do you put similar comments on Jayjg's page? Or do you only disapprove of certain reverts?Dr Zen 01:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda

I moved it under Alberuni because Pravda also edited Muslim related topics, like Alberuni but unlike HB, Pravda's other edits tend to be better written than HB's, and Alberuni has used sockpuppets to revert to HB's versions in the past (see Yasser Arafat for example). Jayjg 02:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in my view his latest edits just confirm whose sockpuppet her really is. Jayjg 04:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, he changed the sentence "Her death sparked controversy because she was the first Western protester killed in the conflict and a U.S. citizen, and because of the highly politicized nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict to "Corrie's death sparked controversy because she was a U.S. citizen and peace activist killed during a non-violent protest" and "the U.S. did not conduct or request an independent investigation, and Israel has cleared its soldiers of responsibility while refusing to release documents from the investigation" 7 times in 13 hours. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. And all 7 are reverts to HistoryBuffEr's version. Jayjg 06:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiesenthaler

Hi Viriditas, take a look here at the contributions of User:SLUR. They are remarkably like Wiesenthaler's. Slim 05:33, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

re: your note on my talk page

RfC

If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. — マイケル ₪ 04:42, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

RfC on User:Auto movil

Hi - I've filed a RfC for now on the comments leveled at us by User:Auto movil. For it to proceed, it requires a 2nd signature. I have compiled all evidence there. Please review the RfC and if you agree with it, I hope you will sign it so the RfC can proceed. If you will not sign it, I hope you will let me know why on my talk page. Thanks. The RfC is here Jewbacca 06:59, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Stub sorting policy

Please help me and others in deciding the stub sorting policy. Thanks!

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Policy

-- AllyUnion (talk) 01:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Logarithmic timeline of current events

Thanks for the reference - it was interesting. However, I'm afraid that I'm not going to change my vote. It still seems like original research, given the slightly strange selection of events; I'm not convinced that it belongs in an encyclopedia; on the page there's still no discussion about the concept and I still can't see why you'd want to do it for "recent" events- it really doesn't add anything. I don't suppose it'll actually get deleted though! I can see the point of the Logarithmic timeline page (and the concept), but that page needs serious cleanup, including NPOVing (Progress and Regression?!) and a discussion of the actual idea, etc. Thanks again for the reference. --G Rutter 16:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've now created Logarithmic timeline/New version. I'd be grateful if you could comment on it. Thanks. --G Rutter 19:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cocoa Tea

I don't consider "A GREAT PERFORMING REAGGER ARTIST KID OF LIKE BOB MARLY MANY SAY" to be a valid article in any way shape or form, and deleted it under category #4 of the speedy deletion criteria. If you could bring it up to Wikipedia standards, that would be wonderful, but I don't think there's likely to be a single character in there that remains in your version, and I think it would be infinitely better if your version were to be the first one in the article's history. Cheers! —Stormie 09:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bio-stub deletion

Quoted from: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Comments_on_proposed_stub_deletions -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, your point is valid, but as I stated below, do you truly want to create a stub for every job profession? I certainly do not think so. Suppose there was a garbage person who became really famous for, let's say, saving an entire building from a terrorist bomb and died from the bomb. What would you mark this person as? Hero-stub? The thing I am trying to see is that we create only stubs of useful value, stubs that really are going to be used. I can clearly see how you wish to address the fact that by not classifying people under their approprate fields, bio-stubs won't be expanded. My point is that the bio-stub should remain as a point where they can be re-sorted. Stubs will be always recategorized based on need, but this doesn't mean we need to get rid of the stub. This is like saying that we need to get rid of the Sci-stub template and create a stub for every obsecure field of science. In the event that someone creates a bot, for example, that creates stub articles for famous people who's entry is not listed in the Wikipedia, they may be able to use one stub for the job. We would certainly want them to avoid using the stub template, we would optimally like them to pick one of a job profession of the person, but we can't expect their bot to be smart enough to do so. Certainly, our project would be a lot easier if they had a feature to allow us to somehow reference the main category along with our own stub category or allow a unionized view if we use two stubs... Here's another example: France A. Córdova. This is an article I created, because this article talks about my University's chancellor. My University is part of the University of California so it is notable, and the chancellor of a notable school certainly deserves an article. Especially when she was the chief scientist at NASA. (See references.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 revert

I know what 3 revert rule is. I did not revert more than 3 times, and I was not amused by you chipping in the middle of edit dispute with a bogus revert that the article is only about IDF in order to do the 4th revert for Humus sapiens. That was not amusing. And you are an admin??? OneGuy 10:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Care to post the URL for these four reverts? Also, you have now reverted the article twice OneGuy 10:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not only I didn't revert the article 4 time, but I followed Humus sapiens comprise on the talk page. You jumped in the middle of that with your bogus assertion that I reverted the article 4 times and with a nonsensical reason given for revert that the article is only about IDF OneGuy 10:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[11] [12] [13] [14]

The last one is not a revert! Go the talk the page of Israeli violence against Palesntinian children where Humus sapiens asked me for this compromise. OneGuy 10:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a revert. Can't you read the above edits? OneGuy 10:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy and his revert wars

Well done taking OneGuy to task for his constant revert wars trying to force his Islamic Apologistic views on any articles relating to Islam. If you dig deeper into his history (see history of Aisha, Jihad and Muhammad you will see that he sometimes reverts almost 20 times a day! At least with all of these reverts he now knows how to spell the word "revert" (for the first 30 or so reverts he spelled it "rivert")168.209.97.34 08:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what conspiracy theory? I never claimed you were collaborating with Humus. I was hoping the issue was stale, now. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see, no problem. I thought the comment, being on my talk page, was addressed to me. cheers, dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is Dr Zen. Unrevert the changes to my user page please. If you need to confirm I am Dr Zen, email me at drzen1 AT gmail DOT com

Sheets of sound

What's going on with Sheets of sound: are you indecisive, learning as you go, padding your number of edits? Hyacinth 18:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 RV

Of course there was no 3 rv in 24 hours. I reverted it back within second to previous version when I realized the it was done before 24 hours OneGuy 21:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Admin Board

My finger slipped, I didn't mean to rollback. OneGuy has since commented further. The net effect of my change was to restore part of your comment–it's poor form to edit ones comments, particularly on a public talk page. Mackensen (talk) 06:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Must bed, that's nothing I did. Mackensen (talk) 06:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy

At the time I made that remark, it appeared to me that both sides in that edit war were simply reverting like mad, and OneGuy was in danger of having his views overwhelmed not by any reason or logic, but by the simple fact that a more numerous side gets more reverts in a 24-hour period. I've worked with OneGuy on several articles and generally found him reasonable and cooperative when people discuss the actual substance of articles, but extremely recalcitrant when it turns into a power game. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mediate what conflict? On what specific page? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen

Uh, oh. I'll change it back. Thanks. SlimVirgin 00:39, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

3RR thoughts

Hey Viriditas -

From a legalistic point of view, going strictly from policy as it's currently written, you're probably right. 3RR doesn't say anything about "undoing" a revert. However, I'd caution against being hyperlegalistic, and I think you'd have difficulty finding any admin willing to impose a block in that situation in general. As a thought experiment, consider what it would be like if the MediaWiki software had an undo feature that would eliminate changes from history if a user made a mistake and realized it right away. This would actually make the point moot, as the revert would be completely erased, history and all. That said, watching the clock and just squeaking by is not appropriate and just not cool.

Also, if users know that they're going to be blocked regardless, it creates a disincentive for self-reversions like that, which I'm inclined to think is a bad idea. - RedWordSmith 03:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, actually I've had "RedWordSmith" as a handle for a long time. Glad you like it. - RedWordSmith 17:16, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Shoah (movie)

Relevant to Shoah (movie). I dont know how to build the sentence, but the criticism and controversies about the movie should be imho mentioned. In 80s there was shortened version of the movie (to 2 hours) showed in Poland and the reaction was almost hysterical. Recently there was whole movie showed, and again there wasz a lot of discussions in POlish press (though not as much as previously).

In short, Lanzmann did not made documentary, he did not intended it to be documentary (he said in interview with Anna Bikont that this is art form, not documentary). He made movie with a thesis, removed everything from 610 hours of material which did not suit his thesis. From Poles interviewed he chosed only most backward and primitive people. He ignored almost anyone (besides Karski) involved in saving the Jews. He even falsified some fragments (As when Jew is saying tha he was helped by Poles, while the English translation says that he was caught by Poles and put back into the train).

Something mentioning it, maybe milder than in current form, should be entered. Maybe "movie made a lot of controversies in Poland and was accused of anti-polonism and one-sideness" or whatever it's called in English. Szopen 09:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Media ecosystem

I'm not sure about your addition of Media Ecosystem to the Media ecology page. This term doesn't have any direct relationship to the academic discipline of Media Ecology (which I'm studying), and should likely have its own page. --michael zimmer 16:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust

Check out the talk page. You can't claim fallacy without grounds explaining why. I have recapped the argument and the reason I claim excluded middle is because the evidence forces a middle position (the current state of the article) to be inconsistent.--160.39.194.93 20:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Israeli art students

The fact that all the edits are from 216.174.52.x suggests it is the same person. There would be one edit plus three reverts, plus one final edit which is just a removal of the external link rather than a full revert. Technically this could be a violation of the 3RR, since the external link element of the page was reverted four times; on the other hand, technically, it's not the same IP each time.

Hopefully his final edit not being a full revert is a hopeful sign that there might be grounds for an NPOV compromise version. Can you try dialoging with this user on one of their anon IP talk pages? I'll add this page to my watchlist and try to monitor further developments.

-- Curps 23:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that his first "edit" was in fact a revert to the earlier version he originally created. So it was in fact four reverts, plus the fifth edit was a partial revert. I see the page has already been protected, RickK reacted more quickly. -- Curps 23:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No hay de que. Rick K 00:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Substance D

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I had planned to add quite a bit more to Substance D, but got sidetracked and then forgot. As it stands now, I think that it belongs in A Scanner Darkly, so thanks also for making that change. -Seth Mahoney 01:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Art Student topic

I took your advice, and now have an account.

As you see, I rewrote the article with the NPOV guidelines.

You said you had a problem with my sources.

Yes, I have read the DEA Report and most of the other material written on the subject. The current version is nothing more that a "whitewash" with very little information given. The first paragraph is ridiculous for an introduction. The article should be change back to the capital version of "Israeli Art Students" since this represents a particular phenomenon of allegations of Israeli spying that occurred in a particular time and place. My external links should remain since they are relevant and contain other information the reader may fine useful. I don't have a problem with the Washington Post link, but CAMERA is a bias Israeli source and should not be used.

You might find this link helpful. I really don't understand your skepticism on the IAS when there are so many details concerning them. [15]

This is from the John Sugg article, "Creative Loafing last week obtained a copy of the report from intelligence sources with long-term contacts among both Israeli and American agencies. The government has attempted to deflect attention from earlier leaks about the spy scandal. However, while declining to confirm or deny the authenticity of the document, a spokesman for the DEA, William Glaspy, did acknowledge that the agency had received many reports of the nature described in the 60 pages.

A source familiar with the creation of the document has told CL that the 60-page memo was a draft intended as the base for a 250-page report. The larger report has not been produced because of the volatile nature of suggesting that Israel spies on America's deepest secrets.

Another DEA spokesperson, Rogene Waite, told Associated Press a draft document had been compiled and forwarded to other agencies."

The 60 page draft of the eventually to be completed 250 page DEA Report is on Cryptome. I do not know if the entire report was ever finished. If so, the public does not have access. The draft of the DEA Report is real. Real people with real names given of FBI and DEA argents are in the report. Ketchum and Sugg contacted some of these individuals and concluded this draft report was not a fabrication. As stated previously, one DEA supervisor went on record and confirmed the veracity of the report as it related to his area. Perhaps in the future, a Freedom of Information request will release the report. If this ever happens you can bet the 250 pages will be blackened-out. I don't know if Sugg has an agenda other that getting the story out and preventing a government cover-up. This is the part of "conspiracy theory" I find myself in agreement. I think the government believes this information is too sensitive for the general public. The Justice Department and perhaps pro-Israeli sentiment within some media organizations would prefer the "whitewash" version of events.

You have said the "report" is an alleged memo that hasn't been substantiated by anyone. I agree the "report" is a draft and is incomplete. I do remember a DEA official saying they have a copy of the report, however I have yet been able to locate this statement within the material. I agree to a timeline of events for the article, but I will post it on my version--the one with a NPOV--and not the "whitewash" version. Also, I will include the links that have expressed skepticism in regards to IAS.Rob216 14:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Viriditas, just a note to say thank you (properly) for supporting me in my nomination. I really appreciate it. The vote closed today so I can relax now. ;-) Best, SlimVirgin 04:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo, deleted polls section

Hello Viriditas, it was the following text that was deleted by User:Astanhope. The polls section still existed on March 26, 03:37. Astanhope stated the following on changing the article: rm Polls section due to bloat and irrelevance over time - poll data has no lasting power, doesn't belong here. I find it important to include these poll results in the article since there is a huge media hype about Terri Schiavo, and the article would be still objective when it says that most people don't agree with her parents. Do you think the article would be more interesting by contrasting popular opinion with the Congressional/Presidential actions, don't you? Regards, Keimzelle 16:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Polls According to an ABC News poll conducted over the weekend of March 19-20 and published on March 21, 70 percent of Americans believe that the issue of Terri Schiavo's death should not be a federal matter and opposed the legislation transferring the case to federal court. In the same poll, a 63 to 28 percent majority said that they support the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. A 67 to 19 percent majority agreed with the statement that "elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved." [27] (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=600654) Results of a CBS News poll: 82 percent believe the Congress and President should stay out of the matter, 74 percent thought it was "all about politics," while only 13 percent think Congress acted because of concern for Terri Schiavo. Furthermore, Congressional approval rating sank to 34 percent, the lowest number since 1997. The question about reinserting the feeding tube was answered very similarly to the ABC poll (66 percent against, 27 percent in favor).[28] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/politics/main682619.shtml) For more poll results, see [29] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml).

as far as movie infoboxes go,

Thanks for the reminder; i had planned to update all the movie infoboxes, but got distracted and ultimately forgot to finish. well, i believe all the movie infoboxes are now compatible with the music and awards fields. Some boxes, it seems, have good ideas for new fields, for instance rating, series, and tagline. The time it would take to flesh out all those infoboxes, with ACTUAL information, is kind of a lot, and i'm hesitant to throw in too many more blank fields, number one: for completeness' sake, and number two: the infobox is becoming a bit unweildy i think. maybe reducing the font-size by one or two, or compressing the tables, or creating two distinct divisions withing the infobox, is in order. well holler back, just thought i'd put my thoughts out there. --shuff 21:49, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

new message at [[16]] for you. --shuff 00:03, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, what are your thoughts about changing "Director" to "Directed by", etc., as discussed at Template talk:Infobox Movie? Make the edit if you are up to it, or at least come and talk about it. 62.148.218.183 12:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Viewpoint requested

Would you mind taking a look at the current disagreement at Talk:Israel Shahak regarding how the Liberal Democrats party should be characterized? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The issue appears to have heated up again, if you have some time. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sketches of Spain

You're quite welcome! :) I believe that's the first time I've been thanked in Hawaiian. I've fixed all the links pointing to Sketches of Spain as well. The wiki actually let me move the page right over the redirect at its destination without the need for deletion, because the redirect had no other edits; I'm not sure (but strongly doubt) if this only worked because I'm an admin, but it's worth noting in future. That is to say, if you find you need to move a page but the title is occupied with a redirect, check the redirect's history to see if it has more than one edit (i.e., the creation edit). Although I've encountered situations where this does not hold true, there's a good chance it'll let you move a page over a redirect if it has no history. Cheers, -- Hadal 10:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sketches of Spain

Thanks for addressing this quickly and helpfully providing references - always impressed with Wikipedians' professionality. --The silentist 23:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been adding material here and there related to jazz, in particular, and most of the facts are from a professor of jazz history here at Yale - Michael Veal. I'm not sure how to reference things I've heard said in, say, a lecture. Can you make a recommendation? Should I not use lectures as sources? If I recall my MLA citations, lectures can be legit, but I'm not sure about here on Wikipedia.

neurologists

I tried to fill in the names I know for the neurologists/physicians who examined Terri Schiavo. It's on the discussion page now. There are some holes I can't fill in. FuelWagon 21:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

The anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism is still rather busy, and because he uses several different IP addresses is able to revert at least a dozen times. Currently he's deleting information from various sources, and trying to segregate statements from one leader into a special section (he previously tried to delete this information). Would you mind providing some assistance in bringing NPOV to the article? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Puzzled by your reverts of all my edits, this one especially - please explain

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drug_abuse&diff=12215441&oldid=12185893 You seem to be of the opinion that any recreational drug use is 'abuse'. That's a perfectly valid opinion, as far as it goes, but it is a value judgement. We should simply say that drugs were used recreationally, and let the reader decide whether this was an 'abuse' of the drug. We don't call speeding 'car abuse', we let the reader decide whether the speed was abusive, regardless of whether a law was broken. On the Bush thing, here is a page that shows the term with 5.5million google hits. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bush+regime&btnG=Search. 'Salazar regime', however, only gets 85,000. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Salazar+regime&btnG=Search, with 'Saddam regime' coming in under 3million. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Saddam+regime&spell=1 If anything, we should delete those two, but I'm inclined to keep them. Guttlekraw 19:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits without explaining. 'Use' is a statment of fact. 'Abuse' is a point of view. I though that stating that some people thought the use was an abuse was a good compromise - your insistance on promoting your point of view is the problem here. Guttlekraw 23:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't revert again without replying to my questions. It's rude. Guttlekraw 00:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. The term 'recreational drug use' is a neutral term meaning that someone used a drug for recreational purposes. Yes, someone stated that that was 'abuse', but the term 'abuse' is simply their judgement about the recreational use, not a fact. You might believe that all recreational drug use is 'abuse', but that's a point of view, not a fact. What 'sources' do you want? Sources that state that use took place, or sources that state that not all recreational drug use is abuse? Guttlekraw 00:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced I know what you mean. In the case of the Sex education article, you want me to provide a source that says that not all use of alcohol by 14 year olds is abuse? UK law, for one, there are numerous others, including French law, mosts legal systems in Western Europe. Do you really want me to reference that in the article? Guttlekraw 00:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You are saying that because you think I cannot prove that the use was not abuse then the statement that is is abuse must stand? That is ridiculous. By your logic every example of alcohol use would be labeled as abuse simply because no evidence could be presented that it was not. I think your reverting on these ground verges on vandalism. Guttlekraw 00:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)