User talk:Viriditas/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 13


Contents

Could you weigh in on the infobox at Cannabis (drug)

I say it is inapropriate and inaccurate, Rory069 insists it should be there, and reverts my attempts to remove it. Discussion is here. Could you please weigh in. -SM 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New Anti-Semitism

Hi, I thought that the word "claim" implies that the position held by the "claimant" is dubious and unsupported. See also [1]. Pecher Talk 13:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if my edit summary pertained to your edit; no offense was intended in that case. Nevertheless, my opinion is that the use of the word "claim" implies doubt in that particular context. If you think that we can find better synonyms than "believe", I would not object to a change, but I feel very uncomfortable with the word "claim". Pecher Talk 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Category:Self-declared emperors and kings

There're people crowning themselves as emperors and kings, when their coups or revolutions were closed to be successful. Most of these people had short-live control over some certain territories, but are not recognised by historians owing to their short-live, and/or disregarded by their successors. IMHO, you should try to narrow the limit of people the category may cover. — Instantnood 18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Buenas suerte

Take care, Eddie. I hope you decide to come back. —Viriditas | Talk 13:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not abandoning WP altogether. As I did state on My userpage, I'll still come back from time to time.  :-) Eddie, Monday April 17, 2006 at 11:20 PM EDT.

Your removal of category:occultism

You removed the category:occultism from the entry for S.L. Macgregor Mathers alsmost as soon as i added it, and you used as your rational that the article was alredy listed in category:hermeticism. It is aso listed in the category:esotericism, but you did not delete that, which makes your deletion of occultism seem arbitrary. I realize that these three catgories overlap to a certain extent, but i had a good reason for adding the category:occultism tag, namely that Mathers is listed on the page List of occult authors and it i my hope to develop that list into category status in the near future. At prsent i am going through WP looking for occult authors who are unlinked to the list (i have found dozens over the course of the past couple of days). I am also making red links to authors who should have short articles but have not yet been written up. I am intending to write these short pieces soon, and welcome help. In the meantime, since there is no list of hermetic authors, i would welcome your cooperation by re-listing or allowing me to re-list Mathers in categoy:occult preperatory to listing him in category:occult authors (when it bcomes a category). What do you say? Is this feasible for you? Catherineyronwode 04:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Simonapro

If the guy, User talk:Simonapro, wants to remove some comments from his talk page he is free to do so, he has most probably read them and taken them on board. Please don't revert those edits, especially with rollback - we need an edit summary to understand why you are reverting in a case like that.--Commander Keane 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned message removal

Hi, considering that it's a guideline to sign one's messages, it appears somewhat inappropriate for someone to remove the unsigned notice. There doesn't seem to be a formal policy on the matter, so this is just the opinion of a few editors so far. We could discuss this further on Wikipedia talk:Sign your posts on talk pages and Template talk:Unsigned. Shawnc 22:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that users should be allowed the option of omitting signature in their own userspace. I prefer that posters on article talk pages be identified, to assist in the communication. Perhaps some unregistered users do not wish to make their IP address visible in the talk pages (even though the IP can be retrieved in the history), but this does not apply to registered users. Shawnc 01:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Placentophagy

I guess I can understand placentophagy being unregarded as cannibalism, even though it fits the technical definition (viz., a member of a sentient species consuming, in whole or in part, the body parts of a member of their own species). But why remove the pregnancy category? I've known quite a few new parents who greatly revered the consumption of the mother's placenta following a successful birth. And on top of that, the placenta, and therefore placentophagy, is directly related to pregnancy. Your thoughts, please. Avalyn 06:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Viriditas, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reconciling Jack Kerouac's last years

I was reading the Jack Kerouac page (we have both made substantial contributions to it) a few minutes ago and saw where you added a few sentences in regards to Kerouac spending his last few years alone with his mother in Northport, New York. (Last paragraph of the introductory section). In the main body of the article, it speaks of him living with his mother,and his third wife in St. Petersburg, Florida at the end of his life. I'm sure he did both; however, maybe we can work together and do a better job explaining this seemingly contradictory information in the article. The resources I have reviewed (mainly old talk St. Pete Times articles) talk about his life there.--Hokeman 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Very good. Jack Kerouac was a restless, enormously complex human being – I know his article is mighty tough to get right.--Hokeman 03:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words in regards to the list work. I'll be delighted to share any tips you may need.--Hokeman 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bypassing Habitable planet

I linked about 30 instances of Habitable planet in articles. I see you have bypasse these Planetary habitability using "popups". I do not know if the change adds any value. In some cases the intended meaning might be somewhat different.

I also created a redirect from Water planet and made another 25 links. I hope you do not intend to bypass these as well. -- Petri Krohn 13:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moved discussion to Talk:Water planet -- Petri Krohn 08:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Mediation Case: 2006-04-27 Funeral Homes

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten 06:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

NVCs

Just thought I'd let you know that I've split the US & UK NVC pages and done some associated disambig work (you have "National Vegetation Classification" on your Watchlist page - it's now a disambig page and you might want to link to the two country-specific pages instead). SP-KP 16:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ricketts photo

Viriditas - I've asked for and received via email permission to post a photo to the Ed Ricketts article. I have posted the photo on the Ricketts page. Permission is from Pat Hathaway of California Views photo archive. Mr. Hathaway provided the image to me via email with a note allowing permission to use it. The note is informal, is not signed, and does not specifically relinquish all rights to the photo. The image includes a "stamp" identifying it as originating with California Views. Please let me know if this is acceptable to Wikipeda, or if I should ask for more specific permission. If needed, I will delete the photo. Thanks, Scott D. White 03:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont like being told Im a sockpuppet

I dont like being labelled a sockpuppet. Provide eveidence. And why arent you a sokpuppet for unfutz? I have my suspisions but no evidence so I dont malign people. Lentisco 04:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration with regards to User: Simonapro

Please see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)]

User page listed in Environment category

Can you remove the Category:Environment from your User:Viriditas/watchlist page? It appears in the category and I feel it is not a good look to have user pages in the encyclopeadic section. Alan Liefting 08:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-02 Chuck Berry

Hi Viriditas! Regarding this particular issue, I've spoken my mind on the talk page and have nothing to add. Unsubstantiated rumors should not be propagated by Wikipedia. Besides, I'm taking a break since my wikistress is through the roof, so whatever you decide on this issue is fine by me, just let me know. Thanks. --Dr.Gonzo 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think mediation will be necessary since Gonzo seems to have popped off. It also seem someone more knowledgable than either of us fixed the paragraph in a way that makes me happy and gonzo has left alone. Sorry to bother you!--Mark 2000 07:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I am up for anything. What do you suggest as a next step?--Mark 2000 07:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing external links section

First of all, I don't see why you're saying I'm violating WP:OWN at all; please assume good faith. The external links section was added here by an anon to link to NORML (note that only having a pro-cannabis site would be a violation of WP:NPOV). There was no previous discussion and no consensus to implement this. After that, there were several additions of spam websites, making it clear that the section would need a lot of monitoring by editors to make sure it didn't become completely full of spam. From this information, I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the section entirely (until, of course, consensus was generated on the talk page, which would override boldness). I'm not really sure what the problem is. --Rory096 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad :)

Corrected Judgesurreal777 22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vandalism revert on Litre. We seem to have had an edit conflict on reverting. ;) ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Yes, I reverted vandalism after vandalism today, something I usually cannot do. 2)No, that is a good thing. The fastest reverted is needed, I am not bad at all! C)No, I haven't really thought about it, but I'll be glad to. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 11:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the user had vandalized the page. Still, I think it's a valid question, even if it was asked in an obnoxious way. Ckessler 07:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry, I missed the history. If I see this user posting more garbage, I will revert it. Ckessler 07:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cannibis

I replied on my talk. -- backburner001 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Menehune

I disagree - the Menehune has cryptozoological angles and links in with Bigfoot. Small hairy hominids are also common sightings in South America where they are sometimes associated with flying saucers, as Bigfoot is associated with them in North America (see John Keel's The Complete Guide to Mysterious Beasts). There is no easy division between folklore, cryptozoology and the more paranormal aspects - if you wish to maintain a NPOV without imposing your own opinions on the subject matter then you have to include those aspects I'm afriad. (Emperor 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Going by the definition of paranormal you posted on my talk page: "an observed phenomenon for which there is no agreeable rational explanation" - then they fit. They have been observed and there is no agreeable explanation. The entry itself says they are in the same league as airy folk and the Trickster both of which can easily fit int a paranormal category. I don't believe they are just legends or paranormal entities or relict hominoids but they could potentially be any one (or more) of those and until one is available for study (if that is even possible) we are going to have to define things as broadly as possible. Throwing in a category doesn't mean it is exclusively that - cryptozoology covers all possible angles from folklore to zoology to the paranormal. (Emperor 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC))
Its ironic - I state I have no belief about what they are (which you interpret as my somehow having a belief in it) and then you state "The menehune are a cultural phenomenon, not anomalous, and certainly not "paranormal". There is nothing paranormal about this article; this is the realm of history" - which shows you are the one that has clearly made up their mind. The citation for their sighting (and being hit by a car) is in one of the links I added [2]
Bottom line is I feel that, when it is unclear about the nature of the phenomena, we should try and make our classifications as broad as possible. My adding a Paranormal header doesn't mean its the only one that could be added - if you know of more that are relevant then add them in too. Or just take out the paranormal one if it upsets you so much - I am not going to lose any sleep over it. (Emperor 00:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

True Torah Jews

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.Bloger 00:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Believe you me I would love nothing more than to Write brief and to the point but it seems that every time I Write and I don’t elaborate Extensively, people tend (sometimes seemingly willingly) not to get the point. Bloger 16:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)