User talk:Violetriga/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 RfA Thanks 2 Barrie 3 Template:Merge protection 4 Rollback 5 Live 8 Dates 6 Derren brown 7 London 2012 8 Tsushima Islands 9 Vandalism 10 2012 Olympics/subst 11 DYK 12 British county names 13 {{merge}} 14 Aesthetics 15 Revenge of the Sith credits 16 Star Wars War 17 Thanks on Talrias' RFA 18 Thanks 19 Templates 20 Thanks! 21 193.126.233.58 22 Talk pages 23 My nomination 24 DYK 25 Moving bet (letter) to ב 26 Re: Comedy gold 27 Boogers in British 28 Sparkit/templates 29 TOCright proposal 30 Edit summaries 31 Peace Dove 32 Oops 33 messagebox standard-talk 34 Improvement Drive 35 To the template queen 36 Rollback 37 templates 38 Template standardization 39 Question 40 User: Fenice 41 How dare you 42 Beth (letter) 43 Thanks 44 Wikipedia:Requested moves 45 Template:Current 46 DYK 47 Renaming after failed RM 48 Electronic Stability Control 49 thai royals 50 Irate 51 welcome to contribute 52 Only free license images on main page 53 Género chico 54 DYK 55 Superfecundation 56 Manual of Style 57 BB6 Housemates 58 Facial symmetry 59 thai, again 60 Thanks 61 Mendel

Archive 6 – Posts from July 2005

[edit] RfA Thanks

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA nomination. I appreciate the vote of confidence you have provided me. --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 14:20 (UTC)

[edit] Barrie

I know it says Canada. It also says all the other countries. I think it is blatant POV that all the other countries get a city listed except Canada. I am sorry for using "wtf" but it was just an expression of how surprised I was of such a npov being on a heavily used wikipedia page. I must also say, that the feed I am getting says "Barrie" but then again, it is the Canadian coverage. Use Barrie or use Toronto, I dont care, just dont use "Canada" because it is not NPOV. -- Earl Andrew - talk 2 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Yes, the website does use Barrie, and is why it should probably be used. I think discriminating against Barrie is in itself POV. Sure, it's not as big as Toronto, but that's no reason to not include it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 2 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I can tell you are frustrated. My apologies for the NPOV tag, I am frustrated as well. But, I think your recent edit is a good compromise. Cheers! -- Earl Andrew - talk 2 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Merge protection

I respect your decision to protect the page, but I wish that you had done so on the compromise version, which appears to have garnered more support (on the various "merge" templates' talk pages, and on the templates for deletion page). The style (which is consistent with almost all of the cleanup templates) seems to be more popular, and considerably more people have expressed support for the neutral wording.

More importantly, whether good or bad, the above changes are the results of good faith discussion. Netoholic, meanwhile, unilaterally deemed them invalid and has continually reverted them without discussion (beyond authoritative proclamations). His repeated edit warring (both here and elsewhere) recently led to two blocks within less than a one-week span.

I'll set up a vote, but don't be surprised if Netoholic repeatedly deletes it (along with most of the discussion), as he did three times with the spolier warning talk page (citing his belief that "voting is evil").

Oh, and I should point out that this edit war also includes the {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} templates. Netoholic reverted those too, and I'm informing you of this without reverting them back. —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

I submitted a request for comment, and set up two separate votes (one for the wording and one for the visual style). —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Just FYI, the Rollback tool is meant to be used exclusively for vandalism, never for edits by other contributors.--Eloquence* July 3, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that, but I see making such a change to the Main Page as vandalism, though good faith vandalism (if that's possible). In other words, I don't think you should make a change like that without some clear support. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Vandalism is quite clearly defined.--Eloquence* July 3, 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Indeed, and my point still stands. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Not really. You are redefining vandalism in order to use the rollback tool against another editor. That constitutes a misuse of adminship. It's a singular case and I intended for the change to be reverted, so it's no big deal. But I sincerely hope that this kind of behavior on your part is the exception and not the rule, as it is contrary to Wikipedia:Wikiquette.--Eloquence* July 3, 2005 18:15 (UTC)

As I hope your edits to the Main Page are incorrect and I hope is th exception and not the rule. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

And, as some backup:

Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

From Wikipedia:Vandalism, emphasis mine. The Rollback tool is intended to be used against vandalism, not "good faith vandalism", which is an oxymoron.--Eloquence* July 3, 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Not really an oxymoron - take graffiti for example. Yes, I agree that it was rude, and I'm sorry for that, but I was a little preoccupied with a baby in the other hand and wanted to return the Main Page to the actual version. I think your edit was done in good faith but not done the correct way, and at least I left a comment about it at Talk:Main Page. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Baby-related apology fully accepted :-). I personally think it's fine to be bold in updating pages, if done in good faith. However, it is absolutely reasonable to manually revert such bold changes when you feel they need to be discussed further. I'm not going to get into much of that discussion; I created the extension primarily for Wikinews. It remains to be seen whether it will be useful on Wikipedia. If you have any suggestions for changes to the HTML the extension generates, let me know. Cheers,--Eloquence* July 3, 2005 20:02 (UTC)

[edit] Live 8 Dates

I am tired of removing duplicate date enteries from Live 8. Please remove the several links to 2005 which you have just added. Thank you.. Andy Mabbett 4 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

They must be there to be in line with our date preference system, otherwise they don't display properly. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page explaining this policy. Thank you.. Andy Mabbett 4 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)

I can see nothing on that page, which necessitates the multiple year links you have added; indeed, the "Month and day" examples explicitly do not have year links. Andy Mabbett 4 July 2005 10:07 (UTC)

That doesn't actually tell the full story, as years are needed for some of the preferences to work. Did you look at the Mediawiki link? violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)

What Mediawiki link? Andy Mabbett 4 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

The date preferences one. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

I can sse nothing there either, which supports the changes you have made. Andy Mabbett 4 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

[edit] Derren brown

How exactly do you want this rewritten? I thought it was important because a lot of people appear to take Derren's claims at face value without question, and irresponsible claims like he made in the "Waking Dead" episode encourage public perceptions of narcolepsy and epilepsy which are quite dangerous. 207.109.251.117

Well, there are some levels of truth to what he says and that implies that he's totally making it up. The "implying 1/3 of the entire population" section is not true because only a particular type of person would play the game (given its location and genre). The "quite obviously revealed as a staged hoax" is also not true as he doesn't say that it is. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

Err what? It's not a hoax because Derren doesn't say that it _is_ a hoax? So if I commit a robbery and say that it's not a robbery, then it's not a robbery? I'm having a hard time making sense of what you just said.

Derren quite explicitly and matter-of-factly claims in the intro to the program that he doesn't use actors or stooges. So what exactly is Derren saying? What's the purpose of him making that statement? How does the average person watching the show interpret the claim? Exactly: "the show is honest and not a hoax". We can play semantic games all day, but ask the average person watching the show what they interpret Derren's claim as, and that's the answer you'll get.

And we STILL have Derren claiming that 1/3 of people who visit pubs and are into horror-genre video games are vulnerable to being sent into catatonic trances by well-timed flashes. Again, if this is true then Derren has stumbled onto a new medical condition of nobel prize proportions.

Please, we don't need people going round thinking you can put 1/3 of video game players into horror-genre video games who visit pubs into instant catatonic trances with flashing lights.

So again, how EXACTLY do you want me to reword the post? Please be SPECIFIC. 207.109.251.117

He doesn't use "actors or stooges". Surely that's easy enough to interpret, meaning that he does not perform tricks on people that are just acting - he says it to (try and) stop people claiming that he's faking it all. You're still looking at his "one third" words too simplisticly. He doesn't claim that one third of all people, or even pub-going horror game fans, are susceptible, just that one third of people that would play that game (given the carefully chosen environment and situation) are. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

His exact quote: "At no point are actors or stooges used in the show.". That is pretty explicit. There was no conditional context in his statement. It does not say he does not perform tricks on people who are just acting. He says "At no point are actors or stooges used in the show" -- period. No conditionals, no wobbly context. Very simple, direct, and to the point.

I am curious then, you say "just that one third of people that would play that game (given the carefully chosen environment and situation) are.". Do you mean that you believe this episode was truthful and real and not hoaxed? That Derren really can put people into a catatonic trance by carefully timed flashes of light? Either Derren can do this or he can't. Which is it?

Criticism of the addition because you believe it's biased is ok and i'm open to changing it if you feel it's biased, but _deleting it in its entirety because it opposes your beliefs_ is not ok and is completely contrary to the spirit of wikipedia.

It is also not the first time Derren has been caught fibbing.

And again (third time) how EXACTLY do you want me to reword the post? Please be SPECIFIC. Stop avoiding the issue. 207.109.251.117

He does not perform tricks on people that are acting, that is exactly what he is saying. I removed false information and placed it into the talk page ready for discussion, I didn't just remove it and leave it at that. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Tell me exactly how you want it reworded. Fourth and last time.

I have an idea: how about discussing this on the talk page of the article itself, where others can comment, instead of harrassing this user? It isn't Violetriga's job to tell you how EXACTLY and SPECIFICLY to word the article. Your addition had emotive POV, such as using the term absurdity, and bringing the utterly irrelevant Iraq war into it. When something is moved to the talk page of an article, it is for the people who have worked on that article to discuss the matter. By taking this issue directly to a user-talk page, rather than commenting on the article's talk page, you have made this discussion unnessesarily confrontational. func(talk) 6 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

[edit] London 2012

I love what you did to the London 2012 page that I started. (I makes it look much better than Paris'!) I hope we do get the Olympics tomorrow! UKWiki 20:08, 5 July 2005

Thanks! I've gone through and restructured everything - you'd already done a great job at the London 2012 article though! Fingers crossed for tomorrow! violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

Just thought I'd say Hi, and give you a heads up— I compressed all the commentary out of the two previous votes on Talk:Tsushima Islands working carefully, (One goof- I erased my own signature at one point) and posted the terse remains above your section for 'Final Votes'. I'm impressed. I was beginning to think WikiCulture never acted decisively! Nice to meet someone that does! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you, but there's Some loose ends flopping around on this vote:
  • First: issue you need to 'Clarify' ---> HERE. Testing the original Link, I noticed that User:Hermeneus essentially commented to the same logical point above in that talk 'back up' where you laid the new vote on the table.
  • User:Baru, who has been a voice of reason for the most part, I believe had a similar concern, and you made no post to his protest of the vote 'back up there' again.
  • So I guess that makes three of us that aren't too sure about how these votes group out when combined with the compromise you placed as option three. I started to withdraw my vote for the 'Compromise' earlier (minded that 'Islands' is better than just 'Tsushima' as takes less changes, and things like Tsushima the singer shouldn't go through disambig on the islands— but wanted your reasoning on the vote first), but reverted (see history) at which time I'd posted my first version of this message, which got lost when I tested the link that didn't work properly. So it's delayed, but I did get back here. The matter is running pretty close on the 2nd and 3rd choices by overall count, which means what, as option three was proposed as a compromise versus the first two. Makes me head spin, it does!

Still User:Fabartus w/new Sig FrankB 9 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

I don't have much Wiki-Time today, and after visiting the Talk:Tsushima Islands due to a post by User:Baru on my talk, found the vote closed, et al... but also found the talk file doubled in size. I decided to act boldly and struck through my lesser preference, and moved the doubled talk sections (60 or 61) to 'ArchiveA'. Cheers! FrankB 13:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I only used the term vandal once. I was not referring to your edits. I was referring to a person who has repeatedly blanked out an entire article. I'm pretty sure that this would qualify as vandalism. Parmaestro 6 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)

[edit] 2012 Olympics/subst

Nice work on the 2012 Olympic article! I was already thinking of splitting the bid article when you did it. And thanks for the pointer about using subst. I'm still picking things up at the moment. But I am still a little unsure about it, so if you could reply to my query at the Village Pump, I would be very grateful. Sonic Mew July 6, 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Thanks! I've replied on the VP - if you have any more questions please feel free to come along and ask. violet/riga (t) 6 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Olympic Javelin, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 07:41 (UTC)

[edit] British county names

The debate on this is going horribly pear-shaped and I, for one, would be grateful if you'd take a calm and balanced look with a view to helping us out. I've raised an RfC or you can go straight to the Project's talk page. Thanks. Chris Jefferies 7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

[edit] {{merge}}

User:Lifeisunfair has created a poll on this template's talk page in order to resolve the layout issue and prevent further edit warring. This poll has now run for five days, which would be the amount of time a VFD vote lasts, and has received several dozen votes. Would you agree that, if the votes show a clear preference, the template be unprotected and the preferred wording installed? Yours, Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 09:24 (UTC)

I still have some concerns about some of the wording choices not properly fitting in with the WP:DA, but I won't go against any plurality vote. I also think that WP:DA may need to be clarified slighty, depending on the result. violet/riga (t) 8 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

I just found out that amidst the mess of that talk page, it was established (several days after the vote started) that the vote should last for one week. So I'll wait until sunday, and I do believe I'll be archiving the talk page afterwards. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 14:06 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetics

Hi. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability, you wrote: "If anyone has further suggestions about how to make this place more "usable" (with regards to appearance) then I'll lend a hand."

This gave me an idea for a page that could list visually unappealing pages, if other people with the ability (which is not me)would be interested in fixing them. What do you think? Maurreen 9 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

I like that idea. I'm not sure if it should be a WikiProject (perhaps a sub-project of the Usability one) or a type of cleanup page. There are a few pages that certainly need some sort of "prettying" but I'm not sure if there are enough for a need to create this project. It might be best to come up with a few ideas of what it would cover (sectioning, image placement, TOCright usage, etc.) and a few examples pages that require attention. violet/riga (t) 9 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll follow up at the Usability project. Maurreen 9 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge of the Sith credits

Sorry, I am kind of new around here. Thank you for your link to the info and for your understanding. It will not happen again. Copperchair 9 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars War

Just to give you a heads up, there is no edit war at the Star Wars page, it is vandalism reverts from a persistant vandal RC patrol has been fighting for several hours. -- Essjay · Talk July 9, 2005 11:38 (UTC)

The same user has been at George W. Bush (resulting in it being protected) and Dick Cheney this morning under a variety of ALTNET IP's. No less than three admins have blocked his other IP's this morning, and if you look at his contributions, he clearly calls himself the "Bush vandal" referring to his prior vandalism.

As for the edit war, I can't be involved in an edit war on Star Wars, as I've never seen the movies, and have no clue what information is correct or not. I'm just being a good Wikipedian doing RC patrol (and if you had taken a look at my over 1200 edits, you would have seen I'm a valued contributor to the theology section).

Frankly, I'm highly offended that you would assume that I'm involved in an edit war and threaten to block me. I saw the note at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Question_on_how_Wiki_Polices_content that more RC patrolers were needed for the early AM EST, and I responded. I believe I'm owed an apology. -- Essjay · Talk July 9, 2005 11:51 (UTC)

I see why so few users do RC patrol; it's a thankless job. I believed the individual to be a vandal, as did several other users, including admins. I took edit summaries like "NickBush, you just cant keep the old bush vandal down. Im baaaaaack!!!!!" to be prima facie evidence of vandalism. Add to that his edits to Talk:George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and it looked to me like an open-and-shut case. I believed it was a case of silly vandalism:

Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles...(emphasis added)

especially because his edits to GWB & DC were to replace thier photos with Star Wars characters. If you look at his contributions you'll see that the edit summaries smack of vandalism. Earlier IP's he used were: 139.55.52.114, 67.140.155.58, 67.140.148.199 and who knows what else. He made vandalism edits and used "rv vandalism" as the edit summary, so that could not be taken seriously. He made numerous comments that his intent was to vandalize, and I took him at face value. If he was making legitimate edits at the Star Wars articles, I submit that it was simply for the purpose of creating exactly what has happened.

I believe my actions should be viewed under Wikipedia:Assume good faith, particularly when it's taken into consideration that:

1. I've been here almost six months, and I've never been accused of edit warring, vandalism, or bad faith
2. I've made nearly 1000 good faith edits in the past month and a half
3. I'm an extremely well credentialed editor, and many other users have stated that they would hate for me to leave the project
4. This was my first attempt at RC patrol (again, trying to be a good editor, since AM EST patrolers were requested) and my good faith attempts at defending the wiki has led to me being labeled an edit warrior and threatened with a ban.

I'm sorry if you feel bad for treating the two of us differently. I appreciate that you didn't ban me, but if you still think you should, then that's what you should do. I don't think I did anything to deserve a ban, I believe my actions were outside of the perview of 3RR. As for requesting page protection, that is how George W. Bush ended up protected, after I listed the vandal's previous IP on Administrator Intervention. I also listed the IP you blocked on AI, and an admin went to block him and found you had already done so.

I think the whole situation has just been one big mixup, creating chaos and havoc, which is exactly what the vandal wanted. You're upset with me, I'm so upset I could cry, my hands are shaking so hard I can barely type, and I think I need to go throw up. This project has been a great joy for me, and I think the best thing for both of us at this point is to say "I'm sorry for the confusion" and put it behind us. To that end, I'm sorry if I was brusque before. There's no need for Admin noticeboard, I'm just going to go have a good cry. -- Essjay · Talk July 9, 2005 12:58 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I feel a lot better now. Honestly, I really was upset, because I've never had anything like that happen before. I was aware of 3RR, and I thought I was doing what I was supposed to. Until today, I've had a policy of staying away from anything controversial, because I didn't want to be in a position where editing Wikipedia was a stressful activity. I'm a college professor, and I have a lot of demands associated with my career as an academic; I like Wikipedia because I can edit here without all the stresses of scholarly publication.

I've tried to help out where I could: adding my expertise (Roman Catholicism) to articles, working on policies, welcoming new users, helping out the newbies, etc. I've done everything I can to be the nice guy, and while I've had a few users yell at me (once for newbie mistakes, and once for I realy don't know what), I've never been accused of any kind of misconduct. I felt like the good samaritan who tackles the mugger, then gets sued because the mugger skinned his elbow. I honestly think that particular user was making those changes in an attempt to get an innocent editor (me) blocked for 3RR, particularly because he's on a dynamic IP and can come back after rebooting. Like I said before, I don't know anything about Star Wars, and if I had known it was a revert war rather than vandalism, I would never have reverted it. I guess the lesson for me to learn is that I should stick to editing theology articles, and not get involved with the other areas of the site.

I appreciate that you were watching out for the saftey of the wiki, and I apologize for any rudeness on my part. I hope we will both put this behind us and go on with the good work of the wiki. -- Essjay · Talk July 9, 2005 14:11 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks on Talrias' RFA

Heya, thanks for your vote and comments on my RFA, I'm grateful for your trust in me. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 9 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your kind words. I literally just got finished typing "Today I got to barnstars for RC patrol, yesterday I almost got blocked for it. What a weekend!".

I do appreciate what you were doing yesterday, and if it hadn't been my first time (first time RC patroling, and first time almost being blocked) I probably would have shaken it off and gone on. Anyway, thanks for the good work you do here. -- Essjay · Talk 09:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Hi, I noticed your comment on Template talk:Expansion. Currently SimonP is unilaterally moving the template from articles to their talk pages (for many of these I have been going round undoing this unilateral action). Is it possible for something to be done to prevent such action before consensus has been reached? ~~~~ 13:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Template locations may well be the best way forward. There is no consensus for either side and so neither party can claim to be right. violet/riga (t) 13:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention in this issue. For now things seem to have quieted down. - SimonP 13:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for catching the vandalism to my user page! ➥the Epopt 16:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 193.126.233.58

Thanks for vandal whacking 193.126.233.58 for me; I don't think he even realized that I wasn't the one who left the other comments. For your quick work, have a vandal whacking stick and my thanks! -- Essjay · Talk 16:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, just wanted to make sure you saw this. Much WikiLove your way. -- Essjay · Talk 17:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! I'll add it to my user page shortly! violet/riga (t) 21:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

I'm sorry, I know you've spent a lot of time refactoring template talk:merge and mean well but you simply cannot change what people say on talk pages. You have done this many times and it is not appropriate. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The first round of voting has ended, so I archived all the comments. For the sake of convenience, I copied over the votes for wordings "B" and "E" (leaving behind the comments that pertained to the other wordings), and I explicitly noted this fact (providing a link to the full remarks).

If you felt that this was inappropriate, why didn't you simply restore the full remarks? —Lifeisunfair 21:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the changes were so extensive. By all means you can archive old talk page comments, but you should never strip down what people have said. In doing so you can easily lose the original context that it was written in. If there is to be a second round of voting (which by all means you can arrange) then it should start again and not include comments from a previous poll that have been cut down. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the changes were extensive, but you objected only to a single section. You could have simply modified that section (by either removing the abbreviated remarks or copying the full remarks over), but you reverted the entire page (which I worked very hard to update).

The primary votes for wordings "B" and "E" are to be carried over from the first round. The point was to simply retain a list of such votes, thereby reminding the voters that they needn't vote again (unless they've changed their minds). In no way did I create the appearance that this list constituted the full remarks that were posted during the first round (most of which do not apply to the current round of voting). The original context was not lost, because readers were invited to view the full comments.

Nevertheless, I shall honor your opinion. —Lifeisunfair 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please see Section Thread bottom above Click FrankB 13:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My nomination

I included where templates go in my nomination. I thought I should ask you if that is ok, since it wasn't the original intention of your project. Falphin 21:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I should add that I didn't use your template, sorry. I somehow skipped over it and just created the page. I am very sorry. Falphin 00:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Tobacco advertising, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Moving bet (letter) to ב

Thanks Violet. I thought it was such an excellent idea (I was too close to the forest to see how glaringly obvious the trees were), but I was far too involved in the initial fit-throwing about it for it to have been appropriate for me to have moved the article. IZAK and I sometimes butt heads. Thanks to you and to Angr for putting some foam between us.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 04:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comedy gold

Thanks for the award! I'm honored! I'll have to stick it on my user page when I get around to updating it... — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boogers in British

Re. your change to the Booger article; I must disagree that "snot" is a synonym for "bogey" or "booger": surely "snot" is wet nasal mucus, and a "bogey" is dried? This is a very important distinction, no?! --Gangle 17:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say "snot" can be used for dry nasal mucus as well. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sparkit/templates

This is a very nice submission, and you've come up with some suggestions (the urgency colouring, "Editors note") that I don't think has been discussed particularly. Nice work. violet/riga (t) 09:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Where would I make these suggestions for discussion? -->>sparkit|TALK<< 17:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussions are very much spread out at the moment. When the WP:TS voting starts properly I think it will spark some good discussions. violet/riga (t) 19:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TOCright proposal

Hello. Since you were part of the discussion of the Template:TOCright template once it was moved from VfD to the MoS, you might be interested in the draft proposal currently posted there. We appreciate any comments and suggestions you may have. -- Titoxd 23:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

You're absolutely right, we should care and look after newbies. And that would be true, if I was addressing newbies in my edit summary for Creationism. Which, I'm not. Project2501a 01:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Dove

To all participants of the WikiProject Kindness Campaign: There is a proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kindness Campaign for the Peace Dove. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks, Sango123 15:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

Oh my God...I feel so bad; I asked Sjakkalle to block that user, and ended up getting you blocked! I'm not doing real well on the whole "get on Violet's good side," am I? -- Essjay · Talk 10:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - it's happened a few times. It's not difficult for me to unblock myself, so it's sorted now. I know there are a lot of idiots using the IP, and it's a shame that I'm lumbered with the same IP when I'm at work! Cheers, violet/riga (t) 11:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess it could have been worse; had I been an admin (and hopefully I will be in five days!) I would have done the block myself, rather than asking Sjakkalle. I'm sure you would have had a blood pressure spike if you'd gone to the blocklog and saw my name as the blocker; irony of ironies! -- Essjay · Talk 11:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] messagebox standard-talk

Before I revert your changes to back to class="Talk-Notice" (from class="messagebox standard-talk" ) I thought I'd ask you for your reasoning. If the classes are the same, why change them? There are loads of other articles that still use Talk-Notice. violet/riga (t) 17:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Talk-Notice" is bad practice because of the case-sensitivity. class="messagebox" now describes the basic middle of the page box format we're used to, and "standard-talk" describes just the coloration. This flexibiliy reduces redundancy in the CSS, and makes it more open to individual customization. The plan is to eventually migrate all of them away from class="Talk-Notice". -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Thank you for your contribution to the Improvement Drive. However, please propose major changes on the talk page of the WP:IDRIVE first. The new signature color has worked well, since I changed it when the project was almost dying. If you wish to further contribute to our project, your efforts will be most productive if you help finish last week's project Refugee, help edit this week's project article Mario or vote for one of our future projects. Thank you and best wishes.--Fenice 18:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Which word don't you understand, can you clarify? Which sentence do you feel is not directed to you? Can you clarify?--Fenice 19:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Thank you for your contribution to the Improvement Drive. However, please propose major changes on the talk page of the WP:IDRIVE first."

It wasn't a contribution to that, it was fixing the template.

Well violetriga, could you have guessed, the template is part of the project. Are you joking?--Fenice 19:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"The new signature color has worked well, since I changed it when the project was almost dying."

By all means have a theme - it's a good idea. But if it's a talk page template it is subject to the rules of WP:TS.

Well I do not understand you here. If you think it is a good idea, why on earth would you boycot it in your militant way? Can you explain?

"If you wish to further contribute to our project, your efforts will be most productive if you help finish last week's project Refugee, help edit this week's project article Mario or vote for one of our future projects. Thank you and best wishes."

And none of this was relevant to me, though it's nice that you are trying to drum up business. violet/riga (t) 19:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It is relevant to you. If you want to make changes to the project, make a real contribution. Oh, I forgot, it might distract you from your effort of starting edit wars. --Fenice 19:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The template is not even listed on the page you are mentioning. I was never asked if I wanted my templates standardized. You are obviously trying to step on small projects, because you can't disturb the important ones: see template for VfD. If you were engaging in serious work, not editwarring, you'd obviously start there. As you say yourself, you aren't trying to make a contribution.--Fenice 19:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat myself, which is of course completely useless in an edit war. It doesn't appear on talk pages. No, seriously, violetriga, I took over this project because no one wanted it. Do you want to spend hours a day on it? If you don't quit pestering me with your ideas, I will quit. I work on these collaborations because they are usually edit war free. The people there are. So now you come form outside because you have nothing else to do and interfere. I am so sick of this militancy around here I cannot even tell you. You want to pay the price for your edit-warring and take over the project? How could you feel personally attacked by anything I say? If a revertwar doesn't count as an edit-war what else would be? You can take over the project starting right now if you want to pay the price for your editwarring.--Fenice 19:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You are blowing this way out of proportion. I'm simply applying the rules of standardisation that myself and many others spent along time sorting out. violet/riga (t) 19:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well if chasing away editors for the fun of editwarring isn't out of proportion, I don't know, but I might as well talk to a wall.--Fenice 20:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this all way too personally. As I've said, you can stick to everything you're doing at AID, but you can't say "I'm going to use this style, sod the standardisation polices". violet/riga (t) 20:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't be infantile, violetriga, of course I can. I know it is useless to argue with people of your kind. You think it is fun to play around and harrass other users by making false claims about nonexisting guidelines. You claim to be too stupid to understand that talk-page-templates are called talk-page-templates because they are on talk-pages. Well, no I don't think you're funny. And have fun with the improvement drive. There are no instructions I have left behind as to how I did it and why it works now, so you'll basically have to find out on your own.--Fenice 20:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To the template queen

Just a quick note, as you are majorly involved in these things. I just set up User:Smoddy/Tools, and am suggesting moving it to Wikipedia:Toolbox. I have asked for comments at the Village Pump, and would appreciate your feedback. On a more sour note, old habits die hard, don't they? Cheers, smoddy 20:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I've commented on the VP. I'm sure Irate will be monitored very closely and banned very quickly should (when?) he steps out of line. violet/riga (t) 20:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Please do not use the "rollback" function, except for dealing with mass vandalism. That is its only function, and should not be used to further edit wars. this recent edit is the one I refer to. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

To my mind it was in violation of a policy and, basically, vandalism. I'd already commented on the reason for the revert in the previous edit history. violet/riga (t) 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No no no. Calling it "basically, vandalism" is bullshit. Go read Wikipedia:Vandalism and stop rollbacking to further your edit disputes. This is not to be taken lightly. -- Netoholic @ 20:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I accept your opinion, but respectfully disagree. violet/riga (t) 20:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll note that above, on this very same talk page on July 3rd, you were warned also for this. There have been occasions where admins have lost that status for using admin-only tools for editorial disputes. Even if you disagree, take our advice and avoid even the appearanve that you are violating policy. -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You "respectfully disagree"? Did you read Wikipedia:Vandalism?

"Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

I'm reminded of our discussion regarding your violation of the protection policy. Just as in this case, you invented a nonexistent criterion (claiming that a prior contribution was too minor to count) and applied it to yourself. When asked to review the pertinent text, you simply "disagreed" (offering no specific explanation). —Lifeisunfair 22:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully explained, but you clearly didn't understand. violet/riga (t) 16:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed your claim that Fenice violated a policy. What policy would that be? —Lifeisunfair 02:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well he violated 3RR policy and went against the guidelines of WP:TS, perhaps that's what you're referring to. If not then a diff would help. violet/riga (t) 16:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I was enquiring as to which policy you were referencing above. Indeed, Fenice did violate the 3RR, but that doesn't constitute "vandalism." —Lifeisunfair 16:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

He went against the guidelines of WP:TS and I'd written an explanation about the reason for the change in the previous edit summary - I don't see why he changed it back without proper discussion. Yes, WP:TS is a guideline and not really a policy, and yes, it may have been slightly wrong to do a rollback. violet/riga (t) 16:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] templates

I'm afraid that your distinction is wrong, though, so I'll go through any that are supposed to appear on talk pages and correct them. violet/riga (t) 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not take further action on this at this time. This sort of phrase shows an edit warring mentality, and is not healthy. I object to you pushing TS on cleanup and certain other templates. That objection is enough for us both to leave the status quo, until we can gain consensus. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. We have WP:TS for a reason, and one persons objection to such a widely-accepted guideline is not enough to stop the change. violet/riga (t) 20:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like there is more than one objection. That guideline was advertised to apply only to FA, FAC, and the like. -- Netoholic @ 20:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It was never advertised like that. It always has been aimed at ensuring that all templates that appear on a talk page are the same style. violet/riga (t) 20:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Take a look at this edit when you closed the vote. During the vote, this phrase was part of the proposal - "This is a proposal for template standardisation. Firstly it will look at templates used on talk pages for the development, status and Wikiproject information about an article." Also, the examples given all along were for FAC/peer review/and the like. Cleanup-style templates were never part of this proposal. -- Netoholic @ 21:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Requiring cleanup is a status. violet/riga (t) 21:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I read status as in "wikipedia project status", which fits with the examples given during the vote. Vague and open to interpretaion, isn't it. I guess we better get some consensus before rushing off and making more changes. This shouldn't be so forced. -- Netoholic @ 21:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think it's quite obvious that the whole idea of a standard template is so that they are all, well, standard. Having some out of line with others goes against the point of, and the consensus gained at, WP:TS. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

And, um, now there's Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Template standardisation. What's wrong with the world? smoddy 20:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template standardization

Hi. Mainly because template standardization has engendered some bad feelings, I'd like to ask you to back up some. I'm not taking a side (at least not yet), but perhaps as a positive gesture, you could change back the template for WP:IDRIVE to see if an amicable resolution can be reached through more or wider discussion. Thanks. Maurreen 22:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it's sad to see someone blow up and act the way he did. If {{COTW}} were chosen to be a specialist notice outside of CoffeeRoll as well as this I could understand it more, but there is no real reason for it to be out of line. Wikipedia:Template locations has shown that it should be a talk page template, and thus it should be that style. Had Fenice not gone on to protest so much and place WP:TS onto VfD I would probably had been more accepting of a compromise, but acting like that, along with the way he responded to me, does not make me think that he is willing to calmly discuss a solution. violet/riga (t) 08:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your disturbance by the VFD. I haven't closely followed WP:TS, so I have no idea what CoffeeRoll is. I'll follow this up at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation. Maurreen 15:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the conciliatory gesture toward User:Fenice. Maurreen 03:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Does the WP:3RR prohibits from editing more than three times in 24 hours the same article, or just reverting more than three times in 24 hours the same article? Thnaks. Copperchair 04:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The same article. So, in theory, a person could make 300 reverts as long as its over 100 different articles. violet/riga (t) 07:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User: Fenice

Now that User:Fenice has left the Wikipedia ("left due to edit-warring by violetriga"), what will be your next act of Template Standardization megalomania? Kasper Gutman 22:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:TS is under discussion as to the next phase. violet/riga (t) 22:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How dare you

How dare you call my contributions nonsense when you people just sit around wasting your time, apprehending vandals for what? For a quixotic dream of creating a "perfect" encyclopedia. Why don't you guys check the more popular articles, such as movies, books, e.g. Harry Potter Bk. 6, instead of spending your time shooting down vandals and trolls, deleting worthless articles, finding "worthless" articles to delete, politicking, nit-picking, whatnot. Why not? WHY THE HECK NOT? Are you all just useless hypocrites, sitting around doing nothing of importance? You are here for a reason, and that is not to make friends and chat all day long. That's why Yahoo Messenger was invented.

Think about it. You'll be hearing from me in the future, so I guess you better not ignore this, or I'll upload a virus into one of the media files. Either this project shapes up or ships out. I'm fed up with your relaxed behaviours, your boring routine of blocking, deleting, blocking, deleting, adding the occasional stub, when there are so many articles in immediate need of cleaning. I was under the impression that all the articles in a professional, free encyclopedia were supposed to be grammatically correct, completely devoid of serious grammatical and typographical errors. Oh, sorry, am I wrong? Then maybe I should cease calling your project an encyclopedia. Maybe I should say "it's a jumbled-up mish-mash of facts, thrown together by people from all walks of life. Professional? Oh, it's quite far from that, really, you see..." to other newcomers. Nice turnoff, right? Well, it happens to be true, unless you start the change that could spell all the difference between a jumbled-up mish-mash of facts and a professionally written and constructed source of information.

Think about it. Hendiadioin 22:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

A very relevant reply to what I said, I think. How touching to know that people actually read what you write. Hendiadioin 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In reply to your later message, I only wish to say that you administrators were picked for a reason, and that is because you contributed significantly to many articles; it saddens me to see that once you were elected to the post of sysop, you neglected to continue doing these things, focusing your attention more on moving pages, deleting articles, resolving disputes, and blocking vandals. While it is the job of administrators to do this, I would think that it shouldn't be too hard to continue improving the state of all these appallingly written articles, even if one is already an admin. The great paradox of fame (and power, mind you) is that once you get to the top (or promoted significantly), you don't know where to go or what to do. Do you? Hendiadioin 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I only hope there are others who are willing to tidy up the mess many anons leave behind, including the detrimental quality of the "popular" articles. It seems there are too few dedicated cleaners than there are dedicated contributors. ;) Anyway, I've done my best to help, but I've just left the project, too demotivated and tired to continue cleaning other peoples' mess. I do hope you'll understand my motives in trying to perk up your spirits. The whole place is getting worse - reminds me of this church in Vienna, there were some workers cleaning one side of the church. Our tour guide commented that once the workers had finished cleaning one side, the other would be dirty again, and by the time they had cleaned the other side, the first side would have reverted to its previous murky color. Guess the answer is to recruit more workers, eh? Hard thing to do when you're in as big and disorganized (no offence) a place as Wikipedia. :) Thanks for your time, though I guess we'll be meeting each other again soon. Bye. :) Hendiadioin 23:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, I'm being repeatedly and unjustly blocked for "threatening Wikipedia" and for "sockpuppeting" by some hypocritic oafs who didn't even bother to read any further than the word "virus." I wonder how I'm supposed to communicate if I'm being blocked over and over? (accounts User:Pugnare User:Pugnavi) I hope you see my point in saying "trigger-happy syops", not even bothering to listen to what the defendant has to say. They're even excited about blocking me, can you believe?

Since you're the only admin who has taken the time to listen to what I say, please, please continue my job for me. Sometimes people are just too thick or aggressive to calm down and listen. Hope you understand. Hendiadis 15:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beth (letter)

I think your decision to move Beth (letter) to something I can't type was a bad idea. See Talk:Beth (letter). --Quuxplusone 07:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

We are proposing to move it back to Beth (letter) for consistency. Evertype 12:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requested moves

Hi, I made an edit [1] to WP:RM to clarify the alternate pages which should be used, however Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) reverted me demanding that I get consensus on the talk page. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on which is clearer. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 17:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Doops has done a rather handy job in creating a section on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves in order to revise the opening text on this page for clarity. This has been a public service announcement (just to you though)! Talrias (t | e | c) 23:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Current

In your edit summary, you wrote, "this template should not place an edit link on pages, no matter how annoying it is not to have a section 0 edit link." I disagree, but perhaps you're aware of something that I'm not. Could you please elaborate on the template's talk page? Thanks. —Lifeisunfair 20:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Working Group on Internet Governance, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Renaming after failed RM

Could you please undo User:Halibutt's renaming of Anti-tank rifle wz.35 to Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35 after his request for move failed. Thanks. Gene Nygaard 15:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic Stability Control

Hi Violet,

Thanks for sorting out the page move on Electronic Stability Control. Can you clarify your comment that the destination had a history. I'm fairly sure I looked at the history and saw only one edit with the creation of the redirect. -- Solipsist 14:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There were about a dozen edits to the destination page when I looked at it, including an old duplicate of the information that was later blanked and subsequently redirected. violet/riga (t) 14:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Doh! I think I was getting confused by the uncapitalised redirect at Electronic stability control which had only one edit, but was using the capitalised version when trying the move. -- Solipsist 14:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That must've been it, and would explain why the error message said that the names were the same - oddly (and hopefully fixed soon) only admins can change the capitalisation of an article name. violet/riga (t) 14:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, it still suggests there is a problem with the page move error message. In fact I noticed that that page still sends people off to the List of administrators for assistance with page move problems, although WP:RM would probably be more appropriate now. Do you know where to go to edit the text on special: pages? -- Solipsist 15:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It used to point to WP:RM but I noticed that it changed recently. I can't quite remember where that message is though, so perhaps you'd best bring this up at WP:AN. violet/riga (t) 15:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thai royals

Dear violetriga, you recently renamed some Thai royals. In naming conventions, there is a clear statement that those conventions do not apply to non-European monarchies. Thus, such should not be followed. (In case of Thai, the addition "of Thailand" is redundant and should be kept away, as it unnecessarily burdens the heading without any added value. IF the -non-applicable- naming convention would be applied, the correct heading of a non-reigning member of a royal house is NOT firstname+territorial designation.) As the vote had not produced anything like "rough consensus" for the move, those articles should have remained where they were. I respectfully request you to revert your moves. 217.140.193.123 22:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

While it does state "These conventions do not apply to eastern civilizations" I think that, in the absence of an overriding, more specific naming convention we can stick with "of Thailand". The move request wasn't actually properly conducted either, having not appeared on the WP:RM page. Might I suggest a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to come up with a wider range of opinions? violet/riga (t) 22:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That talk page has so much going on that hardly ever there a result is decided. And most of discussants there are focusing on European matters. Rather, it could be some Thai style page (where such have been at least preliminarily accepted, see eg Bhumibol Adulyadej, Ananda Mahidol, Chulalongkorn, and Sirikit Kitiyakara, which are older articles). Re "of Thailand", what is the added value of that in heading, as you seem to defend it? Those royals have unique names. Territorial designations are used in headings just because of disambiguation needs - in Europe, most if all countries have same first names in use (there could be Elisabeth of England and Elisabeth of Romania etc). I have to remind that the vote was started by Antares around one day ago, now is weekend, and of course the vote was not complete yet (for example Ahoerstemeier who has had much to contribute to those matters, has been away and his vote is expected). I respectfully request you to revert your moves - made after an one-day vote. 217.140.193.123 23:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the vote was not listed on WP:RM. The discussion can go on by all means, but I think that it's more important to gain a wider consensus on this issue. violet/riga (t) 23:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The original proposer Antares is rather famous for cut-and-paste moves and such behavior, in trying to push some agenda over us others. The vote has not had sufficient time, and nothing should have been decided at this stage yet. I am not convinced that the said non-listing in wp:rm is any reason for anything. Why are you repeating it? (Rather, you should have added it to WP:RM and not ended the vote.) And, ending the vote by a move you made is not very apparent way to attract more contributors to vote etc, so what are you exactly saying? However, as it seems that you hold your move and do not want to revert them, I'll ask someone other to return those. If you so wish, you can regard this my opinion as no-confidence vote to your action. 217.140.193.123 23:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irate

Look who's back. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Violetriga and WP:RFAr#Irate may interest you. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 13:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I know. Doesn't it make you weep? [[smoddy]] 16:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] welcome to contribute

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles) 217.140.193.123 21:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only free license images on main page

So we have to remove Department S; I'm in the process of doing this. I guess I'll replace it with Carte Orange, which you were apparently also considering.--Pharos 21:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that - I'm pretty ignorant of copyright licensing and forgot about that rule. Thanks for sorting it. violet/riga (t) 21:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Género chico

At Talk:Género chico, you added a template pointing out that the Spanish-language article is featured and suggesting that material be translated. I believe that all substantive material in the Spanish-language article is already in the English-language article: they just have lower standards for featuring an article. Having done a lot of translation from the Spanish-language Wikipedia, I would venture that this will be the case for the majority of articles that are featured in Spanish and not in English. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I had tried to reword {{FAOL}} to say that some articles might be fully translated, but couldn't write it general enough. I've therefore created {{FAOLdone}}. I hope that is better. violet/riga (t) 08:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article superfecundation, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Superfecundation

Violetriga,

I just wanted to say that I am glad you write this article as it not only allowed me a place to do my very first real edit of a page, but it is a topic that interest me generally and one that I had no idea of specifically, even having had medical reproduction lectures. I wonder what inspired you to write the article - both from the standpoint of this specific topic but also as I am wondering how and where I should begin myself when I get to the point of wanting to write my own article.

Huge thanks in advance.

Cheers - Exmachina 23:48, 28 July 2005

[edit] Manual of Style

Just noticed you edited some figures in the 2005 Maharashtra floods. 1) the YYYY-MM-DD is the ISO standard and is acceptable in wikipedia. 2) We use a non breaking space (&.n.b.s.p.;) between a number and its unit instead of a normal space. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:45, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's not really acceptable when it's different to the other date formats used, so it's best to stay consistent where possible. As for the spacing, you're correct - I just changed it again for consistency. violet/riga (t) 11:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder regarding the unit spacing, btw. violet/riga (t) 11:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BB6 Housemates

I would like to say that I deleted the messages because I did not put the pictures into the page, and therefore did not see the messages relevant. I would also like to add that I deleted the pictures after you sent the message as I felt nobody else would. I think if you want to confront someone about Wikiquettes and Copyright Policies, I suggest you make sure you have the right person first.

An anon added and removed the pictures from the page. You had uploaded them. violet/riga (t) 19:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facial symmetry

Hi Violetriga,

In your July 1 edit, you stated:

"It has been proposed that facial symmetry is a universal determinant of health and therefore of beauty."

The issue at hand is the word "determinant". I searched inside each reference cited by this article on the following string:

'determin'

Nowhere was the word "determinant" found. Usage of words like "determines" or "determined" were carefully placed in context. Nowhere did any of the authors claim that facial symmetry is a determinant of health. Although by reading the references, one can validly infer a causal relationship between facial symmetry and beauty (an aesthetic claim), such an inference cannot be made with regard to health. Nowhere did any of these authors claim that facial symmetry caused good health, nor did they claim that facial asymmetry caused bad health.

Perhaps what you really meant to say was:

"It has been proposed that facial symmetry is universally associated with perceptions of beauty, which in turn could indicate good health."

This is a less ambitious but more accurate health claim -- one supported by the references cited in the article. Vonkje 22:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

What you're saying may well be true. That section of the article wasn't actually written by me, having been brought in from the physical attractiveness article. I'll look into the references there, and perhaps we can either source it or rewrite it – I like your proposed version. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thai, again

How do you interpret what is the result of "vote" at Talk:Manual of Style for Thailand articles#Consensus??.... Would it be time to you to revert your hasty moves amade a while back? 217.140.193.123 07:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm very happy that you've made efforts to progress the discussion of this, and will go with whatever is decided. I think it could perhaps do with a few more days worth of debate and the involvement of people other than those that have been involved already. I look forward to a consensus-backed decision. violet/riga (t) 10:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello, you are so fast – before I realized my mistake while editing 2005 Maharashtra floods, you had fixed the same. I regret the inconvenience caused and convey my thanks to you. By the way, please also do me a favor - on the Main Page, an "in" appears inadvertently with this article's lead sentence. Kindly correct that. Please! --Bhadani 13:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem at all - I just happened to be looking at it at the time. I've fixed the Main Page too, and so thanks for pointing that out. violet/riga (t) 14:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mendel

Why are you removing Mendel's picture from the genetics pages? This is twice this has happened why do you all have a problem with it? Or are you been tricked by a sophisticated vandal? David D. 14:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd hardly use the word "sophisticated"! The image can be put back - I removed it because it was not the correct version, though that was because he'd uploaded it here whereas the article pointed to Commons. Please feel free to add it again now that the situation has been rectified. violet/riga (t) 15:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The vandal is sophisticated if he tricked you into removing image details from the genetics pages rather than fixing the image at source. See Zscout370 comments on this issue. David D. 16:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Or "thanks for stopping a vandal". violet/riga (t) 16:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What am I missing here? Why is it necessary to remove the image from all the genetics pages? David D. 16:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He overrided the image with an incorrect one. I removed those that I saw, which unfortunately included about two correct ones. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And that's what I mean by sophisticated. Zscout also fell for the trick. This vandal is bating you on the administrators notice board. He posts his vandalism in full view knowing that you will then go and delete ALL the offending pictures. Thus we have administrators being tricked into vandalism. David D. 16:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be of the opinion that it's quite good what he did. If two articles have their images removed accidentally when someone is fighting vandalism then I hardly see that as a terrible price. It's easily fixed, anyway. violet/riga (t) 16:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Where have I said it is good what he did? I'm saying that he is causing you (administrators in general) to over react. The images, three not two, have been removed twice. If all the administrators start deleting this picture then what? I had already replaced the pictures after Zscout removed them. Then you came and deleted them too, whose next? Yes, thank you for fighting vandelism, don't we all, but at least look at the context before you delete. That is all I'm trying to say. David D. 16:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)