User talk:Violetriga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk to me...

Recent archive
Add comment

 My view of this talk page

I will usually reply here, not on your talk page
Comments will not be edited except to reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy
Obvious spam will be deleted

Contents

[edit] 2018 FIFA World Cup bid

I am looking for your immediate help in improving the 2018 FIFA World Cup bid article. I have no wish to engage in the sort of "edit war" that I was blocked for last week. I wish to bring to your attention however that after five hours of editing the page per the discussion on the talk page, User:Fronsdorf (talk) has again reverted my edits without explanation or comment on the talk page. I resented last week when you told me that my activities should be on the talk page, which is where I have been trying to reach out to users for two weeks now. I have directly contacted this user requesting that they explain their activities on the talk page, but without success.

I was intending on continuing my editing tonight, probably to standardize the references, and am wondering if reverting his edit, so as to continue this, is considered part of an edit war. Will I have to stop every few hours and wait for another user to restore my position before I can edit the article again? Can you help solve this situation?--Patrick Ѻ 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

His edit has been reverted by someone else and I agree with that. I'm hoping that it won't go into an edit war again and would advise you to avoid breaking 3RR, but one or two reverts won't be a problem given that consensus appears to be going your way. Since the reverting editor has very few edits I doubt you will get much response. Do please continue to improve the article - I think the direction you have been taking it in is working well. violet/riga (t) 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Accessibility

turn into standard WikiProject format - hope the changes are ok...

Yes, it looks lovely! Thanks for being a voice of reason... we can be pretty crazy over there, typing messages willy nilly! Might you consider joining? Pay's not great but the benefits are nice... Big grin -- L'Aquatique talktome 03:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it. I'll try and help out when I can - good work so far. violet/riga (t) 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Great! L'Aquatique talktome 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Yes, My move can be left undone. I intended to create a new page but due to other events that took place almost immediatly after the move I won't have the time for a while. Maybe in a month or so--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Violetriga. It's been a while since I last saw you and I wish you the best in recovering from that bike accident. It sounds nasty. I was wondering. Your userpage doesn't say, but since you wrote Bold Lane, I'm wondering. Do you live anywhere near Derbyshire? I'd love to see Eyam improved with a few more photos and info from local sources (for me sources are particularly hard to get), so if you ever are in the area, please consider making it a WP excursion. :) - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the well-wishes - I'm almost fully recovered excepting several scars and a missing tooth! I used to live in Derbyshire but now live in Worcestershire, so I'm no longer that close to Eyam. I still go up there but I don't get much time for excursions nowadays, especially with the lead-up to Christmas. I'll see what I can do, though I can't promise anything. There used to be various "Wikipedians that live in..." categories/userboxes - that might be a possible avenue for finding someone. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Three fried eggs.jpg

Would it be possible to reduce the size of this picture by at least 50-75%? Currently this picture is used as a tool of vandalism by the banned user Mmbabies to justify some sort of warped math in his mind for 'death threats' to celebrities (see his long term abuse page for more details), and he doesn't reduce the image at all, causing chaos to the pages he vandalises. I tried to reduce it myself but I was locked out from being able to. I apologize from even having to ask about this, but I don't want to see your picture deleted just because of vandalism from someone else. Thank you. Nate 02:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My AfD closures

Thanks for removing the AfD templates for me. After a long stretch of creating articles, I had a momentary lapse of thought and kept assuming that the templates were removed automatically. Thanks again. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American films

I have created these lists entirely by myself from scratch and I also created the template. If it wasn't for me we wouldn't have these pages started or indeed any template at all. I'm happy with the template the way it is - it makes the decades stand out. Now what is the problem? Couldn't you help fill in the lists? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia, but I'm sure you are more than aware of how the wiki process works. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I;ve reduced the size from what it is before. Can we agree on a medium? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but please remember that my edits were intended to improve accessibility (makes it harder to read if the text has no spacing around it, visual style (I believe the smaller version looks nicer), and the code used (there were no closing tags). violet/riga (t) 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Having taken a look I'm still convinced that my version is better, but I don't like edit warring. The obvious next step would be to get a third opinion. violet/riga (t) 10:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've asked someone for another opinion. violet/riga (t) 11:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOSLINK change

Hi—your recent addition was: "Years should not be linked to articles, such as 2003 in music or 1985 in film, especially when part of a date." Do you mean that piped links to years shouldn't be used? Unclear. Tony (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not entirely clear is it. I'm meaning that we shouldn't link "2000" to 2000 in music as an Easter egg link (ie. "The album was released in 2000"). violet/riga (t) 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We get the WP:POINT

Please, this has gone far enough. There is no need for you to do a weekly sweep of every music article to make sure that the word "sophomore" is never, ever used in this context on Wikipedia. Chubbles 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? violet/riga (t) 11:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vandal message

"Stop being so stupid"? Violet, how could you ? Don't you know you're supposed to say "Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for being so stupid"? :-P Bishonen | talk 12:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

I apologise for my lapse - I know that the anon didn't realise that replacing articles with "MY FREND IS GAAAY!!!11!" was wrong and I should have assumed good faith. violet/riga (t) 12:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Damn straight! WP:BITE! Bishonen | talk 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
Maybe the anon's friend really is gay. Next time, you should just request a citation.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, though I must confess to being unaware of the link between friendship, homosexuality, and wrought iron. I should have left the edit for an expert to review. violet/riga (t) 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Administrator's notice board

Hello Violetriga. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

- Smerdis of Tlön 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting List of Marxists page

Hi, I notice that you keep deleting/redirecting this article. Although you did give a reason for this ("no references at all - WP:BLP concerns and WP:V violation"), WP:BLP says "If, either as an editor or a subject, you have concerns about biographical material about a living person in Wikipedia, please report your concerns on the BLP noticeboard" not "Delete the article". Similarly, WP:V says "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, the section with {{Unreferencedsection}} or if the entire article is unsourced by adding {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}".

This deletion was discussed on the Marxism page (because the person who raised the point didn't know how to find the talk page of a redirected artile) and undid. So following the two policies you quoted, your next actions should have been to report it on the noticeboard and to mark the article as unreferences. Instead, you deleted it. This deletion was then undone with the following message please start an AfD discussion rather than peremptorily deleting without process which you ignored. There are a number of people who are involved in the Marxism pages that beleive that this article is important and should be a standalone article. We are restoring the article once again. Please do not undo this action again without following the appropriate channel (afd discussion). Regards, JenLouise 11:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_3 Zeitgeist (video)

Hi, I commented on your endorsement. Could you respond to my question? Thank you, Pdelongchamp 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DAB

Just a quick heads-up for you. I disambiguated one of your DYK's. It didn't change the content, just updated a link for completeness. Cheers, PaddyM 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Very polite of you to let me know - thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: sig

Sure thing. east.718 at 20:24, 11/16/2007

[edit] Beep Beep (band)

This article was already subject to a prod deletion (in addition to several speedies and an AfD). Per WP:PROD an article that has already been prodded may not be prodded again. Chubbles (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But WP:IAR says that a prod is allowed after over a year has passed and an article has not improved. violet/riga (t) 10:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Willis Wharf, Virginia

Recently, you deleted this article on the basis of no context. Could you please explain you reasoning to me? I politely disagree with that and feel that it is a suitable stub that can be expanded. If you don't mind, could you let me know on my talk page? Thank you for your time.

The article was basically a substub that didn't assert any notability or give any details about the "small town". It is a close call I agree, but given the lack of content in the article I don't think it's worth keeping.
Ok, I was just a little confused why it was deleted for context. Failure to assert notability seems like a good reasoning.

P.S. The articles that I marked were at the time, marked for deletion. Here it tells you to mark those pages as patrolled so other users don't waste time checking them over. I was just marking the ones that people forgot to mark. Icestorm815 (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - there was one that wasn't marked for deletion at the time and I (wrongly) assumed the same for the others. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No prob, we all make mistakes. Icestorm815 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dufur High School

the author blanked on Durfur High School. Just noticed you reverted. ;-). --Nn123645 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, then deleted it for the second time tonight. violet/riga (t) 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Handon on Okacha

Thanks for fixing that. I was pretty sure that "hangon" was a wrong tag there, but the guy who tried it did it wrong, and I wanted to give him a fair shot at it. PhGustaf (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOTD experiment

Now that my project is fully up and running, I though you might want to consider the four main benefits of my method over the one that you seem to be supporting:

  1. There is a set of orphaned articles for persons who do not have any featured lists of their own or persons that would like to take responsibility for more. Anyone can nominate such orphans. This benefits WP by getting people involved in list articles that might not have active editors to update them or defend them against vandalism. Please consider adopting one of our orphans.
  2. Each list will be encouraged to respond to commentary and feedback during the candidacy period, which will hopefully improve the quality of the articles.
  3. Articles without pictures will be encouraged to find them. E.g., List of Harry Potter films cast members had no image before its nominator added an image for this experiment. This type of thing, of course, improves the project.
  4. Articles are encouraged to add relevant projects to their talk page. This alerts other project to articles that they would likely have an interest in and would be able to either improve or protect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stranger Ball

Dear V,

I do not appreciate your insensitive deletionof my page on Stranger Ball. You mentioned that Wikipedia is no place for games made up on the playground, by I know that everygame must start somewhere. Stranger ball is growing and is a significant sport, even if it has not reached your city yet. I hope that you will reconsider the deletion of my page.Goodiea10 (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can show some reliable sources that discuss the topic the article can exist, until then it's just one of many non-notable "sports". violet/riga (t) 07:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of LG KS20

I disagree with the claim that it is "non-notable". There are many reliable sources out there concerning this product and information about it (just do a quick WP:Google search for some). It simply may need a rewrite, with sources incorporated into the text. нмŵוτнτ 16:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There will always been a plethora of previews and reviews about such a product but that does not make it notable. The fact that it fails WP:CRYSTAL (predicting notability and features) is one problem, but the article went through the WP:PROD deletion system and was deleted because nobody objected. While there might be some scope to create new article about the topic I'm not sure how worthy of a place in an encyclopedia it would be. violet/riga (t) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
According precedent, and a template tag, there are many articles about upcoming products. нмŵוτнτ 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Only those that clearly assert a claim of notability are acceptable though, and this one did not. violet/riga (t) 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly agree that it didn't. I'm saying that it will inevitably be recreated (or should be). It needed work and expansion, yes, but deletion is arguable. нмŵוτнτ 00:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The iPhone deserves an article, but I'm not sure that the KS20 is a significant enough individual product to require an article. We lost very little content and, should it be recreated, it will go through the proper channels of deletion if that is necessary. violet/riga (t) 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of song lists

Violetriga, thank you for deleting several pages for which I had proposed deletion. However, you also deleted a number of pages listed here to which I have yet to add a {{prod}} tag. One of these I do not intend to delete at all, but rather plan to return to mainspace. Please undelete the pages that had no prod tag and allow me to do this at a measured pace. I have already had inquiries from at least one editor regarding these pages and do not want to discourage other editors by ignoring procedure. I really would appreciate your cooperation in allowing me to go about my madness via. my own methods. -MrFizyx (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you stated on the songs page that you were going to prod "them" so I assumed that was for all of the articles and that you had missing the tag on some of them. Let me know which you want to undelete and I will do so. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If it is not much trouble, I'd like you to undelete any that did not have a prod. I haven't kept careful records and no longer have access to the history (which has now been deleted). The five day prod period should give other editors sufficient time to react. I don't "own" these pages. I did not write any of these articles and they were userfied by another editor to my sub page after one lengthly debate and then survived another debate. I understand why you have deleted pages without prod tags, but I feel we have done this out of process and I'd like to see this done correctly.
At the moment the only page I intend to move back into mainspace is User:MrFizyx/songs/List of songs about divorce. It has been sufficiently sourced and altered to be moved to the title "Songs about divorce". At minimum please restore that one. Thanks, -MrFizyx (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
All sorted now - let me know if there are any others you wish to restore at any point. violet/riga (t) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks a bunch. -MrFizyx (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page template creation

Would you be willing to create such a template? - jc37 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

{{reqcover}} created. I'll let you delete the category - it hasn't properly depopulated but it no longer appears in articles. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 21:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you : )
I noted it at the discussion.
And I think I'd prefer to wait out the lag before deleting.
Thanks again : ) - jc37 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gestational age vs. Birth weight image needs work

Hi, I saw that you were the poster for the graph Image:Birth weight chart.png, and I wanted to make a couple of suggestions. First, put the units in which gestational age is measured on the graph (something like """gestational age (weeks)"""). Second, say what is meant by LGA and SGA (are they 5th and 95th percentiles, 25th and 75th percentiles, 1-σ bands, or what?). The Wilschon (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The gestational age axis should really have a "(weeks)" label, yeah. As for LGA and SGA definitions I'm not sure that they are required as the template that contains the graph details the terms. I no longer have the original files but it would still be possible to fix this first problem, so hopefully I'll get time to do so soon. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CART

CART is also an acronym for Computer Aided Real Time transscription which is basically using a court reporter style keyboard with output to a laptop for use by Deaf and hard of hearing people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.82.90 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Quakers

Please could you have a discussion before obliterating a lot of useful work? No-one is likely to be deeply offended by being called a Quaker, if they are not, are they?Vernon White . . . Talk 12:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some may, yes. Discussions can of course go ahead and you may wish to check the article as it does still exist. I my find time to go through it and remove all the entries that are not sourced. violet/riga (t) 12:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think WikiProject Quaker would like to go through it and check out all listed articles that do not identify the subject as a Quaker whilst adult (i.e. not just of Quaker parentage or education) and add Dates of Birth and Death to Listed articles, as Quaker families often recycled given names for several generations (e.g. Fox family of Falmouth). Hope you are well now. Vernon White . . . Talk 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hilliard Davidson High School

This page that you seem to insist on deleting is very useful to those searching for information on the high school. It not only provides an in-depth and accurate evaluation of the school, it gives people information on different areas other than academics, supplying history as well as culture. This page is an encyclopedia article. University Wikipedia pages detail information about all aspects of the school; a high school page should be allowed (and is allowed) to perform the same function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hersha (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The content has been trimmed, which is different to a deletion. Please discuss this at Talk:Hilliard Davidson High School. violet/riga (t) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spoiler template comment at User_talk:JzG

Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. When removing your comments he also removed my questions, so I have asked him again for a response. --Pixelface (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Hey, there! I'm not sure if you're aware (as I was not until about a year ago) that, in addition to the various spelling differences, there are differences as to how Brits handle quotes and Americans handle quotes. Your edits to A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant switched from American to British usage. While I personally prefer the British usage, as far as I know, the usage was standard throughout the article and didn't warrant a change, so I reverted them back. —  MusicMaker5376 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:PUNC, which details the way in which we use quotation marks at Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops -- my apologies. I just figured it was a Brit/American thing. I like them better that way, anyway.... —  MusicMaker5376 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan

I decided to make an RfC for putting the distinguish tag on Gilbert and Sullivan. I would like to hear your comments. Reginmund (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping

Why did you delete this? I don't see any reasonable reasons to do so. Friday (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about the category ended with a result to delete the category. It should not have been undeleted, especially not by the person that made the category in the first place. DRV it by all means. violet/riga (t) 19:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No it didn't. It ended in someone deleting it for no good reason. Surely you're not suggesting that Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/December_2007#Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_trout_slapping was properly closed?!? Friday (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It was closed as a delete and should go through DRV if there is opposition against that decision. It is not appropriate for an involved party to simply overturn the decision and undelete it. violet/riga (t) 19:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
How bureaucratic and silly. Mistakes should be undone without waiting for some form signed in triplicate. Oh well.. I asked Jc37 if he thought his close was valid. If he's willing to say he made the wrong call, would you restore this? Or do we need paperwork? Friday (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Not bureaucratic or silly - the original creator (and restorer) has already said that he doesn't care about the category anyway. If the decision is reversed by the closer then that's fine - I was merely upholding the decision. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love Actually critical reception

Out of curiosity, which talk page discusses the critical reception section for the Love Actually article? Cause it's not on the article talk page... Bhamv (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I was writing it after taking out the section - it's there now. violet/riga (t) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, right, thank you. Having read the talk, I agree with your change and the reasons behind it.  :) Bhamv (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree for the reasons I stated on the discussion page. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:List of Bahá'ís

Please see comments. I don't see why the whole article has to be so radically trashed. I understand the idea of sourcing and have been working on and off for months putting citations on individual pages. I think the whole matter of sourcing on lists is at least confusing and to eviscerate pages seems darn disheartening after a lot of work to try an improve things(not that I haven't taken time away - as your own page says, sometimes Wikipedia takes a lot of our time.--Smkolins (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Fantailfan/Andy_Pratt

poof! and it's gone. I meant to get rid of it. I was unaware that it would show up on Google on its own, especially since I got the data from sites searched on Google! ~~--Fantailfan (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And now I forgot how to delete a page. Hep! ~~--Fantailfan (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fight songs

Please don't try to start an edit war; that would be quite childish. The point of a discussion is to determine how the community feels about a situation, as well as how to precede regarding that situation. Enforcing your own opinion, with little to no discussion having occurred is ridiculous and contrary to the point of the discussion that you linked. Allow something to come of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs‎ before going on a rampage of removing lyrics. - auburnpilot talk 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Best to discuss it there. As for "going on a rampage" that's not a nice thing to say, really. violet/riga (t) 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alma Mater

Hi. The Alma Mater from University at Albany, The State University of New York was listed as a candidate to be copied to Wikisource, but such action was under discussion on the UA's talk page. Since the only discussion (albeit my own) was against taking such action, I am unclear why it was removed (and even if it should have been, the removal was done without the corresponding addition to wikisource). I've reverted the deletion. Let's discuss it. Thanks --Igoldste (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonicaid

Sonicaid now redirects to Doppler fetal monitor, not Stethoscope. I had to create Doppler fetal monitor..!? --Una Smith (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just working on that - thanks for the heads up and good work. violet/riga (t) 00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

Dear Violetriga, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for your kind comment about George Merryweather! I used information from different sources like archives, e.t.c. Well, I also think that George was a nice fellow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Moskalev (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback on rollback voting

You wrote, "we know you think that - no need for such prominent links". May I ask what you mean by that? Most of the pages I linked to are prominently labeled "policy", which would seem to imply that quite a few others think that, too. I'm honestly somewhat surprised and confused to see an experienced editor such as yourself characterizing those pages as something that "I think". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to put a note on your talk page to explain but had to dash off for a moment. By placing "voting is evil" commentary atop the page it is sending a message that the whole thing is somewhat pointless and gives a negative impression from the start. Since there is already an ongoing discussion about it, and since it is a generally accepted principle that voting is bad, I don't think that it is worth including those links so prominently. Voting can be useful in structuring discussions (though it can also cause problems there) and is good at showing the general level of support for a proposal, but that is another argument. By omitting WP:VINE (and perhaps others) it doesn't present the full picture either. If you wish to include links to the pages I would say to keep it in the relevant discussion or place them at the bottom of the page (a la See also). Hope that explains it. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, okay, so the "we know you think that" sentiment wasn't directed at the policies themselves, but the fact that I put the links there? That makes more sense. • FWIW, the reason I felt the reminder was needed was that when I posted my "vote", which was a mixed response (giving "Support" and "Oppose" for different things), it got moved out of the poll and into the discussion section. That effectively canceled my "vote". If we're going to try and have a vote, I can certainly accept that, but if so, we should make sure the voting isn't being manipulated. The phrase "Voting is evil" is hyperbole, but an unfair vote truly is evil. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cupset

Hi. I'm wondering if you remember me. But that's not the point. I'll be off as soon as this is settled, didn't expect to have to come out of retirement. You might have to create-protect cupset. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A30708614 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/fa_cup/7171474.stm. – Chacor 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I may well do - was actually reading the whole thing unfold, so it's quite amusing! Hope you're well. violet/riga (t) 13:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear. I'll leave it in your capable hands then. Been nice to speak to you again. – Chacor 13:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A word created yesterday surely qualifies as a "neologism". JuJube (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Today, actually! I've left it as a redirect for now to save having to delete and salt it. violet/riga (t) 13:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cupsets

So you're not a fan of the word either? I've never heard of it till today. Hopefully it's just a one-day fad and will vanish as quickly as it arrived. Don't worry I'll be deleting it whenever I see it. Peanut4 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually watching the event unfold on the site and watched them come up with the idea of adding it here. I doubt they'll use it much more, but it would pay to be vigilant next cup day. violet/riga (t) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits

Hi, ya I just downloaded the program and was running through it for the first time. I hope I didn't cause any problems. I checked all of the edits and didn't find anything worrying? Could I ask how you encountered into my contributions? Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You edited one of the articles on my watchlist (Étienne-Gaspard Robert), adding a line space in. You didn't cause any problems at all, it's just that such cleanup edits are usually best done along with other useful changes to articles - the changes made make little to no difference and I wouldn't want you to be spending time with the thought that they were especially needed. Hope that makes sense. violet/riga (t) 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I actually was eating my breakfast and about to go to work but still wanted to make some sort of contribution (which didn't require my complete and total attention as article writing/editing does). And since my interest is France, I thought I could just load up a category and do a little clean-up. Generally, I've found that sometimes it's nice to do those little things such as Twinkle, etc when you don't have the time to do major edits. Granted, it wasn't the most spectacularly exciting thing I've ever done, but I thought it couldn't hurt to do a little space-deleting...ha....I hope you find my other contributions more worthwhile. Thanks for the comment! Lazulilasher (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

You should know better than to argue by edit summary. If you have some reason to doubt the veracity of the quote, would you please share your rationale on the article's talk page? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been claimed that the quote has been changed and no longer represents what the source actually says. This has already been mentioned on the talk page and, as a clear violation of appropriate sourcing, must be removed until it is resolved. Restoring it against policy is not acceptable. violet/riga (t) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have some evidence that it was changed, please do share it with the rest of us. It's unreasonable for you to change articles on the basis of "secret evidence". Please back your claims up - that's what article talk pages are for. This is ridiculously unreasonable, even for you. Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
More rationale added, but it was all documented on the talk page already. violet/riga (t) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As for your parting comment I'm somewhat surprised that you would say such a thing. More so I am disappointed in such a statement. violet/riga (t) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of this now, but since you've been more reasonable than most, I'll show you what is apparently the international edition of the article: [1] [2] - the quote in question is split between the two pages. Apparently the U.S. edition omits the words "with respectable academic credentials".

As this is dubious from a copyright point of view I will probably have to remove those images from my webspace soon.

By the way, you might find this post by Filll interesting. Evercat (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've saved those images so you can remove them at your discretion. It is odd that the U.S. edition is different, and I assume that the international version came out afterwards and the matter was clarified a little. violet/riga (t) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the two versions of the quote, as far as I can tell the shorter version was added at this point but the longer version was also included. The longer version was removed here. Evercat (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 17 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stubbins Ffirth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll look into it (credited for wrong DYK hook). Archtransit (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed my own. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What has happened is that volunteers move hooks to the next update. They also leave the credits (name of the person who wrote the article or nominated the stubs). The admin moves the next update to the main page and gives the credits.

The volunteer(s) listed the credits wrong. When updating the main page, I audit the hooks to make sure they are not hoaxes but I assume that if the volunteers say "User:x" nominated article the information is accurate.

Thanks you letting me know! Archtransit (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donny Tourette protection

Hello Violetriga. An editor asked at WP:RPP that this article be unprotected, and I didn't see why not, so it's now back to normal. Since you're the admin who gave it full protection back in August 2007 I figured I'd let you know, in case there is more to the story. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Zachary Jaydon

Hello!

You were involved indirectly in an AfD on Singer/Songewriter/Producer/Actor Zachary Jaydon. I have done many hours of research on the career of Mr. Jaydon and would like some help writing and citing in my article. Since you were kind enough to give me advice before, I thought maybe you would be willing to do so again. Do I have to do anything such as get permission to recreate an article on him? I just want to make sure that I have my ducks in a row before being attacked by the one same person whom has such an issue with him for whatever reason. Thank you again. Skyler Morgan (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Chase (school) emblem.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Chase (school) emblem.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reqcover template

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Reqcover

Template:Reqcover has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Traveler100 (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)