User talk:Viriditas/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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 9 |
Archive 10


Contents

Jane Hunter

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

Salvia

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

List of tropical cyclone names

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

That name list goes up to 2009. We know that names of major hurricanes are retired, and because lists are used again, I put the 2011 list. One of the names, Henry, was spelled wrong (with an I) and I fixed that. I didn't know that You owned the page and that You're not allowed to edit it. 69.112.54.11
Please IM Me at [personal information removed]. I don't know who the heck I'm talking to. Are You the webmaster? 69.112.54.11
I've left you some information on your talk page. For your own security, please do not post your private, personal information, here. --Viriditas 10:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too worked about the vandal, Viriditas; he's obviously a troll. I can't imagine anyone is dense enough to think they can make up new hurricane names on their own for those that they feel will be retired. I made a post on the talk page for Lists of tropical cyclone names. Peyna 13:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Viridita, you might want to post a report about this matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -Willmcw 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Alfréd Haar article

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

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

Vegan

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vegan II

Hi

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

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

Thanks

195.82.106.176 11:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

EddieSegoura

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

Hi Viriditas,
I got the same question from Daycd and gave basically the same answer before I noticed yours. I have no idea if he's for real or not, either, but here's some more food for thought: www.eddiesegoura.com. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Viriditas, I've been following (and indeed getting involved!) in the matter with Eddie. I noticed you posted something on Kim's talk, but I note this from Daycd's talk: "EddieSegoura (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log) edits mainly via AOL. As such, it is impossible to identify whether any other account is a sock of his, given AOL's randomizing proxies. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)" Right now to me, only 69.112.54.11 and Eddie's own user account seem to be him. NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't do anything right now, so I'll be waiting to hear the results from you. About his website, I obviously have no idea, so I hope that it was a rhetorical question. Apparently it was updated for 9/11 though. NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support

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

Re:Mr. Transit

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

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

Enough, already!

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

Viriditas, I'm not a mean person. I'm just upset that You continue look at Me as someone that likes to drive people crazy and make people suffer. If You truly feel that way, I have no reason to speak to You.
But it seems to Me that You're making Me suffer by "sockpuppeting" Me. It seems like that's the only subject You can bring up when You write to Me (You still do it). I also said I'd put the AfD page behind me and move on. (That "AfD" page should have been closed already, in my opinion.)
Look, I don't even need to talk to you to read and edit pages, anyway. - EddieSegoura 06:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Aloha!

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

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

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

Who exactly are You?

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


Exicornt

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

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

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

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

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

The correct page for Exicornt is Crossover (rail). That is the page we all agreed to keep. -- Eddie 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no. Not again... :-) --Viriditas 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
For once You didn't dispute My archived Exicornt page. I wonder if You started cleaning up the tag mess You made? -- Eddie 01:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no tag mess, Eddie, see my comment on your talk. Well, Viriditas, this looks like it may finally be coming to an end. NSLE (讨论+extra) 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well to Me it's a mess and it must be cleaned up. ::looks for the broom:: -- Eddie 09:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

User:Spum

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

I"m sure that, being a veteran Wikipedian, you've figured out what's happening here. Spum sees this as "his article" and you are now "defiling it" by having the audacity to say that it needs cleaning up (which it does). For some reason, I was thinking that you had been at this for weeks. But. It's been. A DAY? Good god. I'm sorry man. I know how rough it is to deal with major POV warriors...been there many times. Hopefully he'll calm down a bit. If you need help, you've got it from me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I read his post on SV's page. I just don't know sometimes. Editing sometimes involves a word or two being added. Again (and I'm not sure if you've mentioned this to him or not), we canNOT take possession of articles. That's the problem here. It's what Nobs01 and others do alot of...they act like the source material they add to an article should not be altered to fit Wikipedia style. Unless he gets over that, he shouldn't be here. Just my opinion. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll read his posts. Pretty sure a block is in order. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I gave him a final warning. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicotine addiction/dependence

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

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

This is getting silly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spum has been blocked for 24 hours

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

I shortened it to 3 since I told him it'd be 1 or 3 hours. I work 3rd shift...heading to bed now. Let SlimVirgin know if Spum returns with guns blazing. We have to somehow get through to this person that people editing your contributions with no discussion is the norm here...and not to pick on people. "Policy is vague" isn't really an excuse. Name calling defines personal attack IMO whether it's sad or not. I always figured that alot of that policy was supposed to be obvious. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep I know. That's partially why he got the block. Like I said, you 2 seemed to be making progress but then he went into that rant and the name calling, etc, etc. And now apparently he's not going to respond to any messages left on his talk page. I spend alot of time in the #wikipedia room on IRC. I think I'm going to see what my fellow admins think should be done. I'd like to just block him permanently but I'm not sure I can at this point. But you know, he basically says on his page that he refuses to work with anyone else. If that isn't against the spirit of Wikipedia, nothing is. I'll monitor him. If he acts up again, let me or SlimVirgin know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
For now we'll just monitor him. We'll escalate it if he continues on this path. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:List of religious topics

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

A disambiguation page can't be a religious topic, because a disambiguation has no topic—they are contentless. They are more like an extension of the search function, and theoretically could automatically be generated by the MediaWiki software if it had human-like intelligence. There has been some ideas about granting disambiguation pages their own namespace because they are different from normal articles in many ways.
With the watchlists, I assume you're talking about the notice at the top of List of environment topics which states "This page aims to list articles related to the natural environment. This is so that those interested in the subject can monitor changes to the pages by following the Related changes link..." That is a self reference, and if its only purpose of the page is to aid editors, it does not belong in the main namespace. For instance, the other watchlists listed on your user page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Hawaii recent changes and User:Silsor/Neo-nazi watchlist, are properly not within the main article namespace. If List of religious topics is only to aid editors in spotting vandalism, it also does not belong in the main article namespace.—jiy (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"nonsense"

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

John Coltrane

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

Thanks for the useful info about Sufism and Bhagavad Gita. I incorporated them at the section. Please review it to see if they were correctly fit. Cheers -- Svest 03:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Excellent! It looks better than ever. There's a big coherence now. I'll try to expand what you requested. Cheers -- Svest 19:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Spum

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

I just gave him his final warning. Honestly, I think every other admin would've went "see ya" when they saw that comment about you on his user talk page. As SlimVirgin said, he's not going to change. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like he's at it on Healthy diet again. He just made some changes with 0 discussion. I'm watching it very closely. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not hopeful. I don't know if you saw this, but apparently he's doing an "overhaul". In other words, still acting like the article is "his". He's being nicer, but you know, being a POV pusher and not talking things out with others before making wholesale changes isn't alot better than what he was doing. Oi. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

IP locations

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

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

LSD

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

Jenga Guns

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

Definitely no cites -- this is something that a few of us came up with on our own years and years ago. I'm sure a decent number of people have seen them, but it's hardly a well-established phenomenon. There's not going to be any information on them online outside of what I just posted. --Dantheox 11:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, so what about something like "Modeling Weapons with Jenga Blocks" with a reoriented focus to match? --Dantheox 11:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I've reworked the intro to focus on these contraptions as models for learning about weapons, mechanical principles, and physical laws. Is this sufficient to warrant keeping the article around? --Dantheox 11:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Images from Grinding (dance)

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

Burritos

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


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

Ante

Dear Viriditas,

Please help us! Ante Gotovina.

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

Ay, you aren't an admin, are you.
There's one for the books. With your permission, I'll ask someone else. Would you recommend someone who doesn't have too much to do? --VKokielov 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. --VKokielov 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Burrito

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

Best Burrito? Just in my local area, the list gets divided into best chimichanga, best carnitas burrito, best good cheap and filling, the ocassional something different (a pastrami burrito), and best self-indulgent burrito (a "Loco Burrito"--chile relleno w/carnitas). ;-)
I think it's weird that someone classified burritos as a "sandwich". Still, it's not something worth edit-warring over. Someone else will probably come along and take up that fight, however. BlankVerse 07:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Watchlist help

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

Watermelon

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

Apology

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

User:Canaen

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

Vegan meatpuppets

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

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

Also, here's another Livejournal blog that Canaen posted his request to.[1] God knows how many blogs he cross-posted this stuff to. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest filing a request for comment against Canaen. It's the first step in the process. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I blocked him for 24 hours. It was really for the attacks against Skinwalker more than anything else. He's been warned a couple of times. Enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
FYI, one of the meatpuppets is reverting the RfC summary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law, calling it libel and/or slander. I've just done my third reversion in 24 hours. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See No Evil

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

Veganism RFC

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

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

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

RFC on User:Canaen

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

On second thought, I went ahead and posted it. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry. It clearly wasn't ready to go yet. Thanks for your help with the RFC, and for removing the vandalism from my page. Vegan smegma!?!? WTF? I'll refine the RFC today as time allows. Regards, Skinwalker 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser

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

Btw, I am sure you noticed that the guy who hit RfC and my talk page yesterday was 195.82.106.78. Same ISP as the one you posted about with 3RR today. Both start with 195.82. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
OK I can do that. Like I said on the RfC, I am trying to give Canaen the benefit of the doubt, but it's difficult. I mean, no one admits to using sockpuppets. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
195.82.106.78 has been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. He just kept going and going despite warnings. Next time it'll be 48. I *think* it's a static IP but I am not 100% certain. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Now, he's claming that he's now posting from 212.18.224.118. Unless he's posting from a weird ISP, that's not possible. Totally different bank of IPs. Add it to your checkuser request. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well now he admitted to being the person I blocked earlier, so I blocked him again. :) Unfortunately, I can't keep doing that if he keeps changing IPs. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[2]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 03:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hula

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

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

Glutamine

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

Notice

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

Xed 2

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

Look up the page at the findings of fact, edit history of Divine Intervention (film) Fred Bauder 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. From what I can tell, I twice restored a citation request [3] [4], and removed false citations as well as unsupported and irrelevant content [5] [6]. Xed reverted, and I added a totally disputed tag. [7]. I fail to see any alleged "POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources". --Viriditas 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, why was any mention of occupation removed when that is the theme of the film. Were all those references Xed dug up, just crap to be deleted? How come he had to provide them anyway for such a notorious event that it Googles 80,000 hits. How come a article on a film which portrays the Palestinian point of view is being stripped of that point of view by you and Jayjg? Fred Bauder 01:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removing Personal Attacks

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

Glutamine

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

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

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

Chowder

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

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

Definition of "vivisection"

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

I restored the citation you removed and removed your "factually incorrect information". You wrote, "the term "vivisection" is sometimes incorrectly used to describe all animal testing in which the animals suffer pain or discomfort", however the cite you posted doesn't say that.--Viriditas 04:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, but the cite I posted does say how it is correctly used that that correct usage doesn't include "all animal testing in which the animals suffer pain or discomfort". I included that last bit because there are evidently people who are under that misapprehension. You can take it out if you really feel strongly about it, but it doesn't explain why you removed the cite for the OED and the correct definition. But, in point of fact, my statement was 100% correct - "the term "vivisection" is sometimes incorrectly used to describe all animal testing in which the animals suffer pain or discomfort" --SpinyNorman 04:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The Britannica link presents a broad treatment of the concept which illustrates Croce's statement, while the Oxford cite presents a restricted definition. It is your claim that the word is used incorrectly, and the Britannica link shows that is not the case. --Viriditas 04:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course OED presents a restricted definition, the purpose of a dictionary is to provide a definitive meaning for a word. Britannica isn't a dictionary. And without the overall context to determine how this "broad" definition is being used, it isn't very useful as a source for the definition of a word. The OED's defintion should take precendence. It surprises me that I have to argue this point. --SpinyNorman 04:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is simply not true. Dictionaries do not have the purpose of "providing meanings". They exist to collect and display the meanings that words have. When a word clearly is used more broadly than your dictionary of choice would have it, it surprises me that there are contributors who will argue for the sake of their desired narrow view of a word or concept that the dictionary must be right and the world wrong, when not even the lexicographer responsible for the dictionary would agree with you. -- Grace Note
So you're saying that a dictionary isn't a reference work at all but rather a catalogue of popular conventions? Would you also argue that we should redefine the value of a pound because people lie about their weight? --SpinyNorman 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Meaning is determined by use. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly right, and I'm afraid, SN, that "reference work" and "catalogue of popular conventions" are not at all exclusive, and a dictionary is both. Dictionaries simply are not prescriptive. They don't say how words should be used; they say how they are used. You didn't just cross the is/ought gap; you flew it without a glance. -- Grace Note.
ROTFL! How sad for you. I guess this is part of the reason why wikipedia is not taken seriously by so many people. --SpinyNorman 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/r/User_talk%7EViriditas_Archive_10_0f68.html"