User talk:Viridae/Archive7

Archives Template
1:28/04/2006-25/06/2006 2:25/06/2006-26/07/2006 3:26/07/2006-24/08/2006 4:24/08/2006-12/01/2007 5:12/01/2007-14/07/2007 6:14/07/2007-14/02/2008 7:14/02/2008-06/06/2009

Leaving??

This doesn't actually sound like it will be such a good thing. Maybe you could stick around awhile. Something good will happen soon. I just know it. —BETA 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not permanent, its until I can hold myself to the standards I used to hold myself to again. In the meantime, people like SirFozzie and Alison are admins I hold in high regard because they always play fair. Good luck, I am going to see if i can get a DYK under another account name. Viridae^Talk 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Never good to see a good sysop give up their bit. Take some time out if you want, but I hope you do decide to return with this account and regain +sysop. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't leave for good - we need honest admins like you on the project. :/ krimpet✽ 01:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Your work is greatly appreciated. Rudget. 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 03:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Viridae, stick around and/or come back to us soon! GlassCobra 03:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys I'm back. Though I enjoyed the time with the other account more - and I enjoyed the article writing. I will do more of that, its definitely more staisfying. Viridae^Talk 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. :) Acalamari 23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't really gone as such - just reduced activity with this account to concentrate on writing with my not so hidden sockpuppet. Much more satisfying. Viridae^Talk 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also reduced my watch list to a quarter of what it was - about half was old afds etc but still, that wil help. Won't spend half my time rverting vandalism. Viridae^Talk 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cherso's inflammatory messages

Hi, Viridae.
Few minutes ago, you wrote on WP:ANI [1] (section Inflammatory behaviour) "No you are both in the wrong, you more so for attempting to get someone else banned fro doing something that you yourself were doing".
It's not fair to equalize me with Cherso. He said those things, not me. He crossed the line with that.
"...from doing something that you yourself were doing." That's not truth at all. How can you say such things? Have you ever been involved in my discussions that I had with Cherso? I've never sent such taunting messages to Cherso (I've never mocked to anyone because of losing of their territory). Please, stay focused on the problem - his inflammatory messages.
Also, I haven't mentioning banning at all. I've just said that Cherso's messages (and behaviour, because he referred directly to me, for no reason) are heavily inflammatory and that something must be done. I didn't say what should be done. You've mentioned the ban, not me.
We may disagree with someone, we may have disputes, that's normal (Slavs have saying: "Nema zbora bez spora." - "It's not the discussion if you don't have disagreeing."). We all could be wrong, nobody's perfect, we're all humans, after all. However, some lines should not be crossed (and Cherso did it with those messages).
I hope that you've understood what I wanted to say.
Looking forward for better mutual understanding, sincerely, Kubura (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

read, understood and largely disagreed with. You BOTH have inflamatroy messages on your respective userpages so how about we get the ball rolling by removing it from yours - then come back in a month or so if his are still there. Viridae^Talk 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For this edit.[2] Durova^Charge! 07:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC posted

here. Cla68 (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the talk page please ?

What sort of laughable bullshit is that. Your section heading is a comment, so if you're not happy to leave my comment there, I fully expect you to move your comment onto the talkpage too. Nick (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is acomment like all the other comments that can be agreed with like all the others. Please do the right thing and use the talk page for replying like everyone else who is not certifying. Viridae^Talk 11:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how RfC works. I can leave a comment even if I'm not a certifying body, as indeed a number of parties have already done. It's bad enough it's a witch-hunt, but to make it one in which members of your little clique are the only people permitted to comment is substantially worse. Nick (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the top of the page. Threaded discussion within the sections is discouraged. PLease utilise the talk page as requested. Its my section and I would prefer if you placed your comment in the appropriate place. Viridae^Talk 11:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And I would prefer you restore my comment. You didn't even have the decency to move it to the talk page, it's just removed. Shall I remove your comment too, just to even things up ? Nick (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on nick, that sort of attitude isn't helping anyone. It is up to you whether you want to put your reply on the talk page in a new thread or as part of another. Now please don't be silly, this is helping nothing. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And you removing a comment is helpful, I suppose. I've posted it as an outside comment, please don't go around censoring material you find to be unflattering. I'm entirely certain if the comment supported your stance, it wouldn't have simply vanished, would it. Conflict of interest and all that, dear chap. Now, because it's an RfC and all user conduct is open to scrutiny, let me have a little preamble I think to be rather pertinent to the situation. You shouldn't have removed the comment yourself in the first place, had you asked me to move the comment into it's own section or onto the talk page, I would have probably obliged, a straight removal (not even moving it to the talk page) is simply unacceptable. You surely know that that I'm online by the fact I posted the comment and reverted your removal all within the space of a few minutes yet you simply chose to revert without any sort of comment on my talk page, instead preferring to use a crappy edit summary. That's the sort of shit you're complaining about. I don't like to say it, but blundering about on an RfC like that when you're bitching about another user is most unbecoming of you. Nick (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I happent o like "crappy edit summaries" and using my crappy edit summary I posted a perfectly polite message directing you where to post such comments. You reverted without any summary at all beyond the automatic one - and you are calling my edit summary into question...? If there had been a supportive comment I would suppose it would have been in the endorse section immediately under my statement - where it is perfectly fine to have comments, as long as they do not turn into threaded discussion. If it wasn't in that I would have removed it as I removed yours, with a polite edit summary telling them where to put it. Assume good faith Nick, you have nothing to base your accusations on, so I ask that you stop making them please. Viridae^Talk 11:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of 217.70.21.183

Hi Viridae, this was one of the IPs that was vandalizing Alison's talk page, and you beat me to the block. :) It turns out this is a TOR node, but you blocked it for three months, however. Shouldn't it be blocked for something like 5 years? Just asking because I don't want to change your block and end up making an error. Acalamari 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, I dont check for tor stuff because I have no idea what I was doing, I blocked for 3 months because it is probobly an open proxy and definitely being used by a sockpuppet. Remember Tor nodes change very frequently though. Viridae^Talk 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Viridae. For clarification though, when you say "go for it", do you mean change the block? Acalamari 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

if you thinkt hats the correct thing to do. However, knowing that Tor nodes change very frequently I would say leave it short. Viridae^Talk 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll leave it. 3 months is a reasonable amount of time (to me anyway). Tor is not my area of expertise, I'm afraid. :( Acalamari 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Alison's changed it to 6 months. :) Thanks for the responses, though. Acalamari 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A little help needed

Hi, user:Luftetari07 is removing sourced information and putting some (in my opinion) very POV text into the Kosovo War article and I've been reverting him, I was wondering if you could help us to sort this out? Discombobulator (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I gave him a 3rr warning, you are on the edge of that yourself, so don't revert further. I suggest you attempt to talk about it on his talk page or the article talk page, and it would also be useful to ask for opinions from other people - try a WP:RFC - or just ask for opinions on the talk page. Viridae^Talk 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Would you admin delete these two pages from my user space: User:Cla68/RfC/Sandbox and User:Cla68/RfC2/Sandbox? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted User talk:Cla68/RfC/Sandbox as well, but I'm not sure if you wanted that. Give me a yell if you want the undelete. Viridae^Talk 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Thank you for your input. What was the problem with Lir editing his own page? I have seen several objectionable user pages, but it seemed to me that these are left to the user.

Personally it seems to me that if Wikipedia doesn't want people to know the policies and guidelines, then it shouldn't have any. Conversely, if Wikipedia creates these, it surely expects users to know them? Correct? For example I commonly tell people not to J-walk in real life, but no one has accused me of being a police officer, or a lawyer. Most just assume I'm trying to prevent them being hit by a vehicle.

My interest is that Lir was able to offer quality edits to articles with in my scope of editing.

In any case, could you expand on "If he wants to be unblocked he has the means to do so."? --Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the last unblock request he was provided with the arbcom mailing list. Any admin that has dealt with him over this block has grown sick of his behaviour and given up. He can appeal to arbcom if he so wishes, as was suggested to him several times - instead he replied with wikilawyering garbage. Everyone has been very patient, he has been given chances, and a way to get himself unblock but has steadfastly refused to take it. It is his choice entirely at this point because the community grew very rapidly sick of his behaviour. Viridae^Talk 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so at least you seem to know what's where. So far I have seen about 6 editors actually involved in the ban, and about a dozen others "voicing". That, a community does not make.

Having looked at the history, it seems to me that when Lir returned from the previous ban he occupied himself with two concerns: his user page, and the Stalingrad article.

Consider the results of two editors contacting Lir.

1. Calton decided to summarily cleanse Lir's user page based on his own self-defined proclamation of a "defender of Wikipedia" role. Everything else seems to have snowballed from there. There was no attempt at all to understand were Lir was coming from, no attempt to understand him as a person; just ban and be done with it based on "history". If same approach was taken in real life, no one convicted would ever leave jails!

1. I had contacted him for the Stalingrad edits. As it turns out, he didn't know more then me about the battle because he lacked Russian sources. Having got that out of the way, we got along quite well. He outlined his intended scope of editing, and his sources, and I outlined the scope of category development based on work by other editors in the team.

How is it possible that where article editing was concerned, I, applying only the benefit of doubt, the guideline of starting with the premise of good faith, and having the objective of integrating Lir into a team which is working on developing articles, was able to start a fairly civil relationship with this "rogue" while Calton's interaction led to his ban within a day?

There is a missing policy in Wikipedia WP:BH - be human. Don't treat others in a way you would not want to be treated yourself. We are not just bits of electronic debris. We are not just avatars to be banned or unbanned. Lir could be your neigbour, or the guy who saves your kid's life three years from now, or the guy who marries your sister five years from now, or a Nobel laureate 20 years from now. He may have an attitude you don't like, but it may be just the right attitude to be an effective contributor to articles. He is very precise, and that happens to be what users of a reference work expect.

I don't have access to this arbcom list. I shouldn't need to. I would like to know what it was specifically that yanked a potentially very productive member of an editing team out of the project. Do you think you can help me with this?

I have also offered a to mentor Lir for a 6-month probationary period. This was not something proposed or attempted before. Is there a problem with this proposal? There is a very competent MilHist Projet admin who is also a co-ordinator who will be more then able to ban Lir should he "misbehave" within the realms of the project. Lir agreed to only participate in editing articles and in discussions on article talk pages only.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't that that would work. Lir has been a troublemaker for the whole time I have known him. He is unable to not troll and needs to be gone. No amount of mentoring would do the trick IMO. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Therese, we don't know something won't work until it is tried, right? I think Lir was not the only guilty party, however his personality may be contributing as much to him being a productive editor a very bannable one. Would you agree that the troublemaker label had been applied to some outstanding individuals in history?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir was provided with a framework under which he could be unblocked (stop being disruptive, to paraphrase), he refused. Until he stops refusing he will stay blocked as far as I am concerned. On another note, although a dozen people may not be the whole community, it is considered representative of the community because it is those people who bothered to weigh in on the situation. Viridae^Talk 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir has communicated to me that he is only interested in working on articles. How can he communicate this to the community?

Neither I, nor others on the project were aware of his spat with Calton. And this is what I meant. The ban was executed so quickly hardly anyone had a chance to step in and mediate.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

see WP:AN where the block is being discussed again. Viridae^Talk 10:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Viridae, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 RfC sandbox

Hi -- Regarding this deletion and/or this one -- could you please undelete the page(s) and their history insofar as they contained substantive contributions by others than Cla68? For reasons of transparency I think the edit histories of any pages preceding the live RfC need to remain available to the community. Thank you. Avb 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted this request before, but apparently my account has been compromised as an impostor "Avb" reverted some of my most recent edits starting with this one. Avb 10:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wondered what happened there. Can you please ask Cla68, its his userspace I would prefer if he had input. Note that should the pages remain in the userspace too long they are half as likely to be MfD'd as attack pages anyway. Viridae^Talk 10:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just by the way - thats not an imposter (not sure if you were joking). Either you performed the reverts or someone else has access to your account. Viridae^Talk 10:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask Cla68. As to "impostor": I would think it's obvious I did not make those edits. Someone else did: accessing my account without my knowledge or consent and editing as if he's me makes the hacker an impostor. It's actually rather serious as I have never given my password to anyone so there has been a security breach on my side (i.e. he's hacked into my computer over the Internet) or on WP's side (security hole related to change password request from third party). Avb 11:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Imposter generally means someone who has spelt account name to look like yours: ie Jimmy Wales and Jimmy WaIes (the second L is actually a capital i). I would say it is highly unlikely there is a security breach at wikipedia, I would simply suggest you change your password. You may have left your account logged in somewhere or a relative has access to your computer - it happens reasonably frequently. Viridae^Talk 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were using WP-slang. I meant the real life use where an impostor will generally use the exact name. Avb 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you hit the "rollback" link (assuming you're one of the users who has this capability) by mistake? If it's somebody else hacking into your account, then they can't have changed your password since you can still get into it yourself, so they might have somehow discovered or guessed the password but not changed it. In that case you might be able to keep them out by changing the password yourself, to something nobody can guess. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a few rollbacks in a short space of time though. Viridae^Talk 12:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the various suggestions. I've asked for a checkuser which will at the very least tell me if the edits originated on my computer or elsewhere. Avb 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

After the helpful input above I could trace the problem to the combination of a different user on my computer and the use of the DownThemAll plugin for FireFox. In short, no impostor, no hacker, no problem. Avb 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If AvB wants the pages undeleted I don't have a problem with that. Cla68 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GRBerry restored the relevant pages, and I have now checked the things I wanted to know. Avb 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

File:Raf Tomatoes.jpg

Here are a lot of tomatoes for you for you! Tomatoes somehow promote WikiLove, and are tasty, and hopefully all of these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh thanks. Viridae^Talk 23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 00:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cockpuppet

lol! Lawrence § t/e 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

lol pure mistake - i have a python wrapped around my left writs - it makes typing difficult. Viridae^Talk 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone always blames the snake. ;) Lawrence § t/e 06:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LOl really dropping myself into it here. MUst be careful of the inuendo! Viridae^Talk 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One handed typing, playing with the python? TMI! TMI! (grin) SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I think I'm going to put little Linguine (yes that is the pythons name) back and shush up for a while. Viridae^Talk 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

good on yer, viridae.... (and an early contender for year's best unblock summary.....) Privatemusings (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My blocklog! Well, maybe it needed a joke. Thanks for looking into it. Mackan79 (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would have been wiser...

...for an admin not involved to unblock. It would also have been cleaner to wait and get opinions from someone not already involved in the MM case. It would also help if Mackan79 posted the rest of the email or consented to its posting. I am concerned that excessive factionalism is blinding a number of people who are against Mantanmoreland to other issues.

I always entertain the possibility that I may be wrong. I don't believe that a number of people ever entertained the possibility that I may be right. This was not a good way to end it - Mackan79 hasn't done things which would help convince me it's a mistake, and the rest of the community hasn't weighed in. I would prefer to have a situation clear enough for me to either ask Arbcom or another senior admin for a re-block, or where I can see I was wrong and apologize for a mistake. We're not there.

All of that said, no wheel warring. Good night. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No george, it's transparent to many that it would have been wiser if you hadn't blocked in such a slapdash and poorly thought through manner. Consider applying your reasoning above to your own actions, please. I also really feel an immediate, and unreserved apology would speak well of you, as it is undoubtedly appropriate, and it's a bit embarrassing to have to bring it up again, to be honest.... say sorry. Privatemusings (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are so clearly wrong its not funny, you even admitted yourself that the block was based on a mistake. If you applied the same standard of evidence to the MM case you would be the person most active in calling for him to be banned. Thankfully you don't and the evidence there is quite considerably better thought through. Really george, you screwed up, its pretty damn clear that that is the case, be a big man, apologise and move on. Viridae^Talk 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

In User talk:Durova#In keeping with your past efforts, I discuss the Don Murphy deletion situation. I would like to point out to you that Don Murphy can get people to want to deal with him by either being nicer or being even more trouble for us (he could go all Daniel Brandt on our ass). Let's not demand nice; he has alternatives. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your inappropriate deletions of Don Murphy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Don_Murphy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bongout (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"As before BLP deletions MUST go through DRV before they can be restored." <-- Not when they are bullshit. John Reaves 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool it John. Viridae^Talk 02:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm plenty cool, you're the one looking at getting desysopped. John Reaves 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the precedent for undeletion of BLPs without discussion greatly favours you getting desyopped. Viridae^Talk 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I think your decision was an erroneous one. DS (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please. That's the third threat of de-sysopping in as many days. It's getting absolutely ridiculous :( - Alison ^❤ 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You may, I don't. See the DRV for my reasons why. Murphy is a barely notable individual who doesn't want an article. No reason why he should have one then. Viridae^Talk 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I really think you should consider restoring the article, and using AFD. It appears like end run around AFD discussion here. Will you consider reversing yourself? I think that would be the correct way to go. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No i disagree, per my reasons stated on the DRV page and those of Squeakbox and Durova in the same forum. Viridae^Talk 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to echo John Reaves comments above (except about being desysopped, since I'm not sure if I would come to that conclusion based on this alone). -- Ned Scott 03:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on the wheel war issue, but if some kind of amicable agreement can be worked out I'd be willing to nominate the usual way. This would be a holding-one's-nose-and-acting-on-principle-for-consistency's-sake nomination because there was a very nasty thread about me in particular on Mr. Murphy's site forum about half a year ago. Still, an open offer is an open offer, and I estimate that he meets the dead trees standard. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If Don Murphy is not notable, why is he covered prominently in these articles: The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, and LA Weekly. He even plays 10 Questions. RTFA (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread on the BLP talk page in regards to all this. Lawrence § t/e 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the DRV is clearly going in the direction of overturning your deletion, perhaps you could save some time and just reverse your deletion? _(1 == 2)^Until 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

On this case, we agree. FCYTravis (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP watch

No problem with you adding to this, but can you use a link to the debate in the edit summary, that way people can watchlist if for new debates.--Doc^g 23:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Viridae^Talk 23:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Time For Smiling!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou :) Viridae^Talk 06:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I sent you an email. :) -WarthogDemon 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hullo. I am looking to overturn this last go round on AN and am trying some WP:DR to that end. I think you were premature to block my Alfadog account. The account was/is legit under WP:SOCK and I cannot see anything that you were aware of at the time that would support a block. I did use it improperly three weeks ago to make some minor WP:RCP edits but I do not think you were blocking me indef for that. I would like you to please unblock the account. I know there is a degree of mootness as Ryulong's proposal would reblock but I would like you to please undo your bit and then I will talk to Ryulong. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In support of my suggestion to you, let me mention that Ryulong has withdrawn his restrictions on AN. I will not characterize or paraphrase his statement out of courtesy to him but I do maintain that no abusive sockpuppetry occurred. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi Viridae! This is regarding the message I left a few days ago on reporting agaisnt a user who sends me inappropriate emails, just because I left him this message. Can you please guide me on what can be done about this. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison ‎(checkuser, Administrator)

How did you arrive at this conclusion? See here. Dorftrottel (troll) 09:37, March 31, 2008

She handed up her tools a few hours before i wrote that. They were reinstated a day or so later. Viridae^Talk 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Commented on your talk page - Alison ^❤ 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing diffs

Could you check something for me? According to these comments at the bottom of the New antisemitism article talk page, some edits were made to the article's lead on 13 March and then the articles was protected [3] the same day. However, when I look at the histories for both the main page and talk page, I don't see any edits being made between 12 and 16 March. Something doesn't seem right there. Was anything admin deleted from that article or talk page during that time period? Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be edits missing between 17 and 28 March. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Were the edits lost after a redirect? Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With help from Cool Hand Luke I've figured it out. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah saw he was giving a hand. Grateful to help any time. Viridae^Talk 07:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try not to cross-post next time, just was eager to figure out what was going on. Cla68 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NO problems at all, I was at work when I first saw your note so i didnt have the time to go delving. Viridae^Talk 08:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the MediaWiki:Watchdetails page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —David Levy 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! - Alison ^❤ 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (well, I laughed :) )

Did it even work? It might have been reverted by the time I refreshed my watchlist because I didnt see anything. Edit conflicted when I went to revert it cos I couldnt see anything. Viridae^Talk 05:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, heyyo to you, too :) And little Linguine, which is a totally awesome name - Alison ^❤ 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me - must fire up photoshop when i get home and do that image :P Viridae^Talk 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. —David Levy 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to User_talk:Zzuuzz

April Fools joke? I hope? ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 11:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Viridae^Talk 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

{{unblock|Someone lacks a sense of humour. Or to be boring and technical - not even a hint of a warning that was going to happen.}}

Thanks :) I only have 20 minutes left here and that will be used to sleep. I might never have noticed the block to be honest. Viridae^Talk 12:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You were previously warned by David. I've been looking through your April Fools Day contributions, and several are not acceptable. See this, and this. Those could have directly damaged the encyclopedia if they hadn't been reverted. Your following edit here would probably only have confused people, but was quickly reverted. A joke is only acceptable if it can stay up there without damaging the encyclopedia. If people have to revert you, you are wasting their time. This edit is unacceptable because it is a generalised personal attack. This edit and this one may be funny to you and others, maybe even the people you named or played the joke on, but if not, then you would need to apologise to them and at the admins noticeboard. There is being funny, and then there is taking a joke too far. Please consider this for next year, or any other time you feel the need to be funny. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NURSE, WE NEED MOAR KITTEN'S, STAT! Viridae^Talk 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you not notice my username? I eat kittens for breakfast. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

YOu are going to have to explain that one :( Viridae^Talk 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to look up Carcharoth in a popular online encyclopedia. This is quite handy because it helps demonstrate that humour depends on the person trying to understand the joke. Which is why attempts at site-wide humour don't really work very well. Of course some people are always going to try, but maybe you could help explain to people next year why April Fools jokes shouldn't be allowed to get out of hand, and shouldn't extend to site-wide pages like the MediaWiki namespace. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thinked you dropped this somewhere...

Here, I think you dropped this somewhere. Maybe a kitten will help turn that frown upside down! Viridae^Talk 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that I don't find site-wide vandalism (and personal attacks against those who revert it) funny must mean that there's something wrong with me. —David Levy 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there is one thing that I find laughable: the idea that you needed a "warning" that vandalising millions of pages could result in a block. —David Levy 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely does :). It seems the first kitten didn't work. Looks like we are going to have to try a pile! Viridae^Talk 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now they are cute my good man! Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MediaWiki:Tagline edit warring, an ANI thread I started involving actions taken by you. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bollock notice

You are hereby bollocked for 9 hours for having a sense of humour. How dare you. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		LO fuckin' L -- Ned Scott 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad about the wikidrama, but thanks for at least trying to make the site a little more enjoyable.  :) This place is way too argumentative and unforgiving most days. — Omegatron 01:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been reather amused byt he claims that fiddling with the mediawiki namesopace can actually break anything. Viridae^Talk 01:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It's the articles that need to remain untouched; changing the page headers is harmless when it's obvious. I have to agree that the "sticks up their ass" edit was out of line, but so were the blocks and uncivil responses it garnered.

I just noticed Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Day, where we can hopefully prevent this kind of nonsense next year. — Omegatron 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabals

There is a new discussion regarding the cabals which were brought up at MfD last week. I've started an informal consensus survey which I hope will help us come to a conclusion on whether the cabals should remain deleted. You can express your opinion at this page (link). Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin intervention

There is a dispute at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Request for edit by an administrator. There are two self-proclaimed "critics" of LaRouche, Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who edit Wikipedia as Dking and Cberlet. They have posted a lot of subtly defamatory material, where whenever LaRouche makes comments that are critical of bankers or medieval nobility, they "interpret" these comments as veiled anti-Semitism. In the dispute in question, they go beyond this to the point of attempting to present their "interpretation" as fact, and they are resisting the proper attribution of an "interpretation" originating with Dennis King to King. Will Beback, who is an admin, has a long history of assisting them, and in this instance is attempting to deflect all discussion away from the issue of attribution, using diversionary tactics. I believe that this is an open-and-shut case of BLP violation and requires action without further debate. I am asking you to take a look at it. Thanks in advance for your attention -- Terrawatt (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to take stock of that situation already after someone else asked me to check it out. Give me some time its difficult to sort out. Viridae^Talk 06:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin, User:Happy-melon, has agreed to make the requested edit if one other admin concurs. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

You know 192.168.0.1?

Well,um, could you please tell me about that?

Me again

not precedding that, i think that was automatic.

Is that adress a permanent one, or does the "owner" change periodically?

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just doublechecking who's calling the police

I jost got a note on my talk page straight after I posted on the AN/I thread. Are you calling them or me? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has done it already. Viridae^Talk 01:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, right. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to User:Viridae who valiantly made an unpopular decision, which took a lot of bravery. Inclusionist (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you so much for unblocking me. I was reblocked again. The hypocricy on wikipedia jsut makes me gag. I would have no problem being blocked if the rules were the same for everyone. there is an RfC that resulted from this incident. (travb) Inclusionist (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Message

		Thank you
		I would just like to say thank you for your efforts regarding the potential suicide thread on ANI last night. This may have been a poor taste message or hoax, but if it wasn't hopefully...... we may have made a real difference. So thank you and if ever there is anything I can do to help you in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. Khukri 08:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My username change

Done, done and done! --Wiki-page-protector (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

Thanks for restoring User:Sherurcij/cars for me, but it seems it got deleted again immediately by some other administrator on the prowl - any chance you could re-restore it? At the very least, I want to save it - though I really don't see why it's any different than hundreds of other WP Userspaces that store articles which aren't accepted on WP yet - I briefly tried making it a "List of" in the articlespace, but it got AfDed and moved to my userspace (which is fine, it still needs more work, needs to be merged with a list of similar things, whatever - I can accept it doesn't belong in the mainspace yet - but I have a problem with the notion that it shouldn't be allowed to be an ongoing project. I've been on Wiki for four years, the fact I go a year without editing a particular project hardly means I don't have plans to one day come back and use the information. Much thanks! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can provide a copy for you off wiki, but I suspect it will not be useful for me to re-undelete (see WP:WHEEL). I suggest you ask for it to be undelete at WP:DRV and say exactly what you just said to me. Viridae^Talk 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2

How was this page improperly certified? Can you please email me the deleted information? You can respond here. Thank you. Inclusionist (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know as well, or be directed to the discussion. 4 people had signed and now it seems to have vanished. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On principle I am happy to give you the material on a deleted page: here, even though the outcome of my doing so is likely more time wasted. However, I am afraid that it does not look to me like two different users coherently complained about the same issue and showed that they had tried to solve it with WMC. So I would agree under the rules with the deletion for improper certification. --BozMo talk 12:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, the only person who was not discussing the same issue, was not the initial supporting signatory. All names on the article are discussing the state terrorism page except Uber. Travb I think can speak for himself above if his issue had to do with the events on state terrorism page and we can ask Giovanni as well. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Love being called wrong. However see User:Travb/deleted-rfc#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. There are two names but not two sets of evidence that they have both tried to solve it with WMC. I suggest (actually I don't suggest this because I think moving on would be better but you know what I mean) restarting at the beginning and including diffs of evidence of people trying to solve it with WMC. Bear in mind that general complaints don't count as trying to solve it; you need at least to have proposed something. I did not do the deletion for improper certification because I had commented, and there may be other good reasons for the deletion but that one is glaring. --BozMo talk 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you followed the difs you would see all of those signatory people had attempted to resolve the dispute, which is why I stated you were wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the next step would be Arbcom. As violations of blocking policy and protection policy are not issues that require dispute resolution. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When you have quite finished disagreeing you might realise that actually I am trying to help you understand what was filed wrong. You need to put the right diffs in the right place. If you think these steps were satisfied by your RFC do appeal the deletion or by all means go to whoever you think you ought to go to next. --BozMo talk 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of appealing, which is why myself and all the signatory people are on this page, you do realize Viridae is the one who deleted? And I already stated I may take it to Arbcom, so I am not sure what your point is. Further there is only one section to list attempts to resolve, so they were placed there, and like I said above, and you seem to ignore, you can see if you follow the links that were in that section, that other editors did attempt to resolve the issue ... In the future fully investigate a situation, however I do appreciate your attempts to clarify the situation even though your understanding of it was not complete. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The said user has a long history of inappropriate blocks and has been warned many times. There was no reason to delete the RfC except to please the said user. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fluff

During the moves and redirects, I think the talk page may have been misplaced...or else I'm just not seeing it? APK ^{yada yada} 09:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll look thanks for the notification. Viridae^Talk 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok it is back where it was supposed to be - it didnt move when the article moved. Viridae^Talk 09:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I too was wondering where that had gone. I blanked the redirect I found there, but was looking in the wrong place for the talk page. I see that all is now right with the world. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste does not violate the GFDL. Moving content from one part of a page to another part of that page or to another article is done all the time and is an obvious desired intended consequence of using the GFDL. The GFDL requires an actual copy of that license to accompany the GFDLed item and you will notice that we don't have a separate copy per article, just one for the whole wikipedia. The whole wikipedia can be legally considered one item and copying from one article to another is no more illegal than moving a sentence within an article. But ethically and for purposes of being able to extract specific articles we do our best to maintain article specific lists of authors. To that end current best practice is to note in the edit summary and sometimes also on the talk page where content was moved from so at a later date the top five article editors can be reasonable determined (Include the top 20 by edit count and size of edits will probably get the top five, for example). WAS 4.250 (talk)

That is for merging and splitting. Where possible, to keep things simple, we try to use the "move" function provided as part of the software. In this case, it seems an admin was needed, but all that required was patience. Anyway, all fixed now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Evening

Evening sir - long time no see! Just checking in to see how things are? Haven't had the chance to catch up with you in a while. Hope everythings cool, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

heyo - yeah good good. I am a bit less active these days - life > wiki. Viridae^Talk 01:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll be joining that club very very soon. PhDs mean more than anything wiki-related unfortunately.... Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PhD? Nice one - I have been tossing that option over - love to go back and do another on of my honours supervisors projects - but my field is pretty small so a PhD might limit my employment to a handful of research labs around the world. Viridae^Talk 02:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

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/C68-FM-SV/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/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you probably have it watchlisted, but FYI just in case you hadn't seen it, FM has added a section about you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Viridae. --B (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’d like to say that I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project; however, I’m not sure whether you feel I am Voldemort or Harry Potter in the BADSITES situation. Please feel free to elucidate. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither actually - will explain by email. Viridae^Talk 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks. Risker (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

I would like to call your attention to this deletion that I disagree with and User talk:TimVickers#AIDS denialism where I comment on it. You are the second person I have notified. I will also notify FT2 then walk away and let you guys sort it out. Thank you for helping Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC )

A rhetorical question

I intended it to be more of a rhetorical question, but point taken nonetheless. Still, one can hope, can't they? --Dragon695 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that one - I laughed :) Viridae^Talk 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You have flaunted your incorrect use of flouted :)

Which Tony corrected, and I uncorrected on the grounds that one does not change the evidence of others, even to correct nits. Tony is correct about the usage, you should go restore the correction in your own name :) ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2008 Omnibus Editor and Administrator Conduct Review

Good luck! All I can say is wow! This is going to be a real whopper of a case. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been added as a party to the merged case. If the case was accepted separately, you'd have been a party to that one since you initiated it, so this only makes sense. Hope you understand. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I always extecped to be a party in the JzG case wether I initated it or not. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorftrottel has suggested here that the parties might like to make a fresh statement now that the evidence has been thrown in, and the community is trying to decide what proposed remedies are appropriate.

I have created a new area for this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties. Please consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A salient question

As someone who has tangled with Guy and observed quite a few of his other conflicts, I'd like to see something noted:

I have repeatedly seen Guy compelled to make some sort of acknowledgment that his behaviour has been out of line, but I have never seen him apologize to an immediate victim; at best he apologizes to the rest of the community.

I simply cannot see him as ever really reformed until he not only starts apologizing to some of his victims (though I must agree that sometimes his behaviour, though objectionable, is in response to the objectionable behaviour of others), but also starts walking through the process of apologizing to past victims. —12.72.72.242 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have OTRS?

And if yes, can you check the alleged email on the Marsden talk page? (ps. kudos on protection, the last thing we need is another two people blocked for edit warring...) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. Try Guy or Krimpet or possibly Alison (she seems to have every other userright!). No probs on the protection - they are obviously good faith, just need the ins and outs explained.c Viridae^Talk 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Or jump on IRC. Viridae^Talk 12:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I ended up getting Daniel (here). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw that. Good work all round. Viridae^Talk 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cla68

I've scrambled my password. Are you so petty as to not allow me one parting comment? Raymond Arritt 74.9.242.66 (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its a pretty petty comment. I was not however aware of the scrambled password. There is no garauntee that you are who you say you are however so please sign it like it is above. Viridae^Talk 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

A neutral bystander's observation:

I concur in your temporary blacklisting for now since the site's been hacked. Given all the controversy around this site, however, any permanent blacklisting should be based on wide community consensus. In that spirit, as soon as this site is back on line and safe, it should be removed from the blacklist.

From my observation of wiki-politics, there will be a tendency for that blacklisting to become de facto permanent the longer it stays in place -- sort of like setting concrete. The burden of making a convincing case vis-a-vis its blacklist status will tend to shift to the person removing it; to date it's been on those wanting to add it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It was removed as soon as the site was unhacked, which was my intention too. It was better that I, a WR user, did it because there was less controversy that way. Viridae^Talk 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

acknowledgement of evidence

Do you have a link or links to where you concretely acknowledged specific parts of the evidence presented against you in the RfA as valid, something along the lines of what Cla68 did here? I didn't find anything to that effect on the evidence page, where it should imho ideally be posted, or at least linked. dorftrottel (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, just now noticed that Jayvdb has created this section. dorftrottel (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TV template

Hello... a request. In your summary for the discussion regarding the use of flags, you stated "As there appears to be an established protocol that they are used I guess that means no consensus for removing them." I'd like to ask that you remove that statement as it does not reflect the actual situation, (There is no protocol regarding the use or non-use, hence the problem.) I think it is sufficient to say that there is no consensus, and encourage further discussion (as you've already done.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to Unprotect Joe Scarborough

Please see talk page. We have consensus. Thank you. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A guy from NET is harassing me

This guy http://en.technocracynet.euDISABLE/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=358 Network of European Technocrats - Jure Sah . He is this guy here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:89.212.75.6 DustWolfUser talk:89.212.75.6 .

He showed up out of the blue and put a spam sticker on the Technocracy movement article and also my user page... I feel like he is stalking me or harassing me. Could you look into this? Maybe ask him to leave me alone ? I explained to him that it was not me that put the NET site up for deletion. Thanks.

Check again

This user Special:Contributions/Beyonce9481 you just blocked, its pretty evident from the very first edit its a vandal only account. Its your choice but lets see what happens in 24 hours :) Monster Under Your Bed ^{(talk 2 me)} 11:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep - probobly won't be constructive. But I prefer to give them once chance - after that they will be indeffed whoever deals with them (if they come back) Viridae^Talk 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Social Networking!

		The Barnstar of Social Networking!
		Congratulations! [4] giggy (:O) 11:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I LOL'd Viridae^Talk 11:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Thanks very much for the kind words. — Dan | talk 04:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

The first edit of 3 I have made to that page wasn't an undo, it was just a normal edit. I have only done two undos there, so how can I have hit 3RR? Also, the particular thing I have reverted seems to be something that User:QuackGuru is likely to revert now. We have a difference of opinion, and he won't listen to what I (or another user previously) have said on the talk page.I hope though that it's not needed and that he doesn't revert, but any chance you (or someone else) could have a gander at Talk:Jimmy_Wales#lead_sentence_and_cite_.22failing_verification.22 and weigh up our arguments? Thanks and sorry, I am acting in good faith and don't mean to be a nuisance with this. Deamon138 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

“ Reverting involves returning a page to a previous version. In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined more broadly as the undoing of another editor's work by returning any part of a page to an older version. - WP:REVERT ”

So your first edit, while not using the undo, was essentially a revert. Viridae^Talk 08:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, I won't revert that page again today. Deamon138 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

revert

Sorry, I reverted this. I understand your intention but this looked annoying on top of the page and not at all aesthetically pleasing :) --Irpen 01:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh but did you get the reference? :P Viridae^Talk 01:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For posting "Don't Panic" in large letters at the top of a heated discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe thanks :) Viridae^Talk 01:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully understood the joke and appreciated it too. But I just thought that that page is better off without it. At your own page it looks great though. --Irpen 02:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Coolio :) Viridae^Talk 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Given the fct that we were in conflict when this tragedy occurred, I find it extremely noble of you to reach out and attempt to comfort me. Your words have helped to sustain me in an impossible situation. I will never for get your kindness to a Wikipedian in distress. Jeffpw (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Username

Yes, it is a reference to a Dire Straits song, although it says that on my userpage.--Les boys (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Didnt read your userpage. Went straight to talk. I love Dire Straits. Viridae^Talk 07:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Refactor?

Perhaps the more academic bovine feces would suffice...? Durova^Charge! 12:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I do overuse that word, on wiki. Thanks :) Viridae^Talk 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ty :) Durova^Charge! 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like a little bit of Latin to pretty things up a bit :) Or use another language like I do. Nobody's ever going to guess what "cac tairbh" means! :) - Alison ^❤ 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprising

The reason I summarily reverted your edit to the Albanian pederasty article was the edit summary you posted: "(rem questionabl pro pedo material)". You should not be surprised if this sort of comment invites that sort of reaction. I, however, am very surprised to discover you are an admin. I do not think it right that you should permit yourself such remarks when in a position of authority and presumably charged to control exactly that kind of behavior in others. I have taken the text you have reverted and placed it on the talk page of the article. Please drop by and express your objections. Haiduc (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What led you to protecting United States intervention in Chile

Was there a request? Where was it posted? --DHeyward (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There doesn't have to be a request for protection to be instated. The reasons for protection were given when the protection was instated (and are pretty obvious) Viridae^Talk 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What brought you to that article? --DHeyward (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page. Someone gave you a 3RR warning. I saw that, checked the article history, determined that you hadn't broken 3RR but there was a slow motion edit war in progress and there had been for about 5 days and protected the article. Viridae^Talk 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting IP stalkers is not a "slow motion edit war." Semi-protection would have been a better choice so that established editors can still edit. I'd also prefer that you take my talk page off your watch list. --DHeyward (talk)

No reason for the latter, i have hundreds of userpages on my watchlist and it is and was an edit war over content. Salker is a seriou scharge - take it to RFCU or ANI as appropriate. Viridae^Talk 12:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'd prefer you remove my talk page from your watch list. I don't believe any good can come of it and your judgement is seriously lacking if you think reverting this IP and this IP constitutes an edit war that requires protection instead of realizing they are IP meatpuppets/sockpuppets of the now banned User:Giovanni33. Their only contributions to WP is reversion of my edits without talk page commentary. Please reconsider both my requests. --DHeyward (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence that that is a banned user, take it to RFCU. If not - it remains an edit war. An edit war between a registered user and an IP requires full protection. As to your last request - no. Viridae^Talk 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Viridae, I came here to post about this two days after protection expired. This is a WP:DUCK obvious banned user, and protecting it was a bad move. I suggest reading up on the history of Giovanni33. A quick look at the article history would have made the connection obvious, and I'm a bit disappointed that even after an editor did so, there was no effort to even look at the history. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way familiar with Giovanni33 and DHeyward didn't provide any reasoning? What am I, psychic? I told him that if he had any evidence, to post it and the protection would be removed Viridae^Talk 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: Here you protected this article that Giovanni was edit warring in. [here] you protect another article with Giovanni edit warring (his only edit BTW). [Giovanni and his sockpuppets edit war here], you protect. Considering that you don't really protect a lot of articles, this seems like an awful lot of articles related to Giovanni33 for you not to have any familiarity. You should have a lot of familiarity or you should refrain from protecting those pages. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Or not. Really DHeyward, asking admins to be familiar with every user who has edited an article they protect is nothing short of ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 07:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you have protected several pages with Giovanni and said socks, I will do the favor of letting you in on his editing pattern. He edits with a heavy left-wing POV, and most edits concern state terrorism by US or articles about Latin American left-wing history. He will IP hop, often finding IPs that do not resolve to California (you will notice on the page I mentioned above, we incredibly had IPs jumping in from Germany and Malaysia, yet using the same editing pattern). I provided a very short analysis which is nevertheless informative here.

As another note, it may not often be in the best interest to protect a page with someone who is warring via IP hopping anyway. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks The Evil Spartan - that information would have been useful at the start. DHeyward in future, if you are going to complain I have protected a page where you are edit warring with a banned user, can you provide evidence as to why you think that is a banned user? Viridae^Talk 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV - Sloan Bella

Just advising you of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 11#Sloan Bella, since you had previously deleted the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Viridae^Talk 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IM PANICKING

Comment by indef-blocked user removed, revert if nessecary. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of Dyinghappy

Hi. Please respond to this user. You blocked him without warnings for sockpuppeteering, but he claims to have not done this. Of course, they always do, but I can't find any diffs anywhere that suggest he is. Apparently, many emails have been sent to you as you requested, and he's getting a bit upset. Given your history with upsetting other editors (User:MONGO and User:Dheyward) I wonder if this block is valid. Thanks for your time. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly who that is and that is a guaranteed sockpuppet of who I blocked him as. If you are going to question my blocks on the basis of MONGO's sayso you can go away now. Viridae^Talk 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is now at WP:ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser has now  Confirmed that this account is a sock of banned editor Internodeuser/Blissyu2/Zordrac - Alison ^❤ 08:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And a number of other socks, too. In my block logs ... - Alison ^❤ 08:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/i for Dyinghappy

Here. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For the reverts and protection.[5] I used to have the page semiprotected for a long time due to the ongoing vandalism it was getting...--MONGO 21:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

For unblocking me. I hope you see one of the reasons I'm usually reluctant to block people. But at least at AN they get investigated, some people don't get that liberty apparently. Beam 02:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't leave insulting and nonsensical messages on my talk page

What do you mean by "about to violate 3rr"? Are you a mind reader that you know what I am about to do? I have more than double your amount of edits and I'm very familiar with the 3rr policy. Please don't leave any messages on my talk page regarding this issue or any other warnings for "imminent policy violations". Thank you very much and have a wonderful day. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You have three reverts in less than 24 hours. If you make a fourth I will block you for violation of 3RR. Viridae^Talk 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with brewcrewer that Viridae’s trigger-happy attitude and the attendant accusations, are not conducive to harmonious editing. Me and brewcrewer are actively trying to resolve a dispute very calmly. Most of the edits are not even considered reverts if you report this to the 3RR board.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You also have three reverts in less than 24 hours. Same applies to you. However if you both do work it ut harmoniously then good on you. Lastly a revert is taking any part of the page to a previous version. Viridae^Talk 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be blatantly obvious to you that my 2nd and 3rd “edits” were not “reverts”. As plainly stated in the edit summary, brewcrewer said my only revert was a result of laziness. (to unretire Clemens, a free agent, a bunch of productive intervening edits were lost). My 2nd edit was to salvage the situation by only replacing the retired player box with the active player box. Brewcrewer reverted because I accidentally deleted Clemens’ achievements. My 3rd edit was not a revert either. It was to correct the error of the previous edit by keeping the active player box and his accomplishments. Note that not in anytime did me and brewcrewer disagree on contents and the retire/active issue. We are merely avoiding laziness which made us lose productive intervening edits. Your bogus accusation was uncalled for. Please refractor.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You made 3 reverts to the page, returning a portion of the page to a previous version. I can list them if you wish. Either way the point is moot, you have both stopped edit warring. Viridae^Talk 08:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Either you or an admin from the 3RR board has a flawed understanding of 3RR. [6]. As for your claim that there was a "heated edit war", please read User_talk:Brewcrewer#3RR for our "very heated" exchange and brewcrew's witty advice.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At no point did i claim it was a "heated edit war". From WP:REVERT "In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined more broadly as the undoing of another editor's work by returning any part of a page to an older version." I count 3 reverts are you still denying that they occured? Would you like me to list them? Viridae^Talk 08:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I sense you are getting emotional, but I fail to see the difference between [7] (in which the admins from the 3RR board deemed there was no violation) and my/Brewcrew's edits to Roger Clemens. With all due respect, I don't trust your judgment on 3RR. Please read this [8] for an example of your partial use of admin tool in regard to 3RR. (Ideogram VIOLATED 3RR then self-reverted: not block. I did NOT violated 3RR yet was blocked by none other than you) note that the 4th revert was not within the 24hours timeframe and I would've self-reverted if I knew you wanted to give the upper hand to Ideogram. When I claim you have a trigger-happy attitude that is not harmonious attitude and possibly a flawed understanding of 3RR, they were not baseless assertions but a valid concern from an editor who doesn't have the tool (ie. vulnerable to poor admin decisions).--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Emotional? Nope. Breaking 3RR is remedyable by self reverting - that is also in WP:3RR. You made three reverts, you now don't seemt o be denying that. In which case why are you still arguing? You havent made a fourth, it doesn't look like you will be blocked - whats the problem? All you got was a warning. Viridae^Talk 09:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have 2 questions because I'm sensing a bit of a double-standard in 3RR enforcement.

1. Is this [9] a violation of 3RR? If not, then why is User:Yankees10's edits not considered "reverts" while me and Brewcrew's are considered "reverts"? 2. [10] Your understanding is that 3RR is remedyable by self-reverts, but why is NOT violating 3RR a blockable offense in the above instance? How could one editor with a long-history of edit-warring be excused of 3RR penalty by self-reverting while his opponent (who was getting stalked and harassed by his malicious scheme) is guilty of violating "the letter of 3RR" even though the editors who wasn't blocked clearly had an equally defiant, if not worse, edit-warring record? I would be very interested to know your understanding of 3RR under these two specific scenarios.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to 1. That is a clear violation IMO and I would have blocked. Answer to 2. Because 3RR is not a hard and fast rule - it isn't an allowance, edit warring is edit warring and is itself blockable if it is disruptive. Viridae^Talk 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. A few more questions so please bear with me. 1. Is it still possible to block the offender now? 2. Do you think the admins on the 3RR board have a flawed understanding of 3RR? or better, do you think it's a good idea for me to come to you instead of the 3RR board when someone violated 3RR? 3. Since 3RR is not considers a "hard and fast rule", is blocking indiscriminiately and partially not consider abuse of power? 4. When dealing with massive stalking and edit warring between 2 parties, do admins try to block both involving parties for violating "the letter of 3RR" to remain unbiased or simply indiscriminately block one of the parties even though he/she might be the better out of the two (ie. had less of a case of being blocked, not the initiator, a victim of wiki-stalking, etc) while turning a blind eye on the other?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The comma is not to be trifled with...

[11] Why, is he certifiable? :D Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for [12], but it's unnecessary. It was my username for over a year, was displayed on my userpage until recently (and I didn't take it down for any other reason than that I felt like redirecting my userpage), and is my username on WR - and on top of that, it's not even my real name! So I'm not bothered (just amused at the rather transparent attempt at being intimidating). I appreciate the concern, though! naerii 09:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't sure. Didnt know that was you! Viridae^Talk 12:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's beyond me why you think I would care to intimidate you, or why you think something you provided, a fictional character's name, would be intimidating regardless. But, hey, I stopped trying to understand the Wikipedia Review hivemind awhile ago. Cheers. --David Shankbone 14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Top Gun

I noticed that you blocked Top Gun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 72 hours for edit warring. I came across the user via the two cases at AN3 and would like to comment that the user was indefinitely blocked last year, but was unblocked on the condition that he not occur any major infractions. Fourteen reverts on one page, with various sockpuppets to add, and five reverts on another is a pretty serious infraction. If you could, your comments may be warranted at AN3, and a longer block may be needed (IMO). Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 72 hours based on previous (but not paticuarly recent) edit warring blocks. Can you link me to the old unblock discussion? Viridae^Talk 05:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case - new evidence

If you haven't already, please see my comment on the proposed decision talk page regarding the submission of any new evidence. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you still planning to submit additional evidence in the case? Last call, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Viridae did submit it already [13]. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I did see that the other day, but from his post on the Proposed decision talkpage, was not sure that was everything. I'll proceed from here unless advised there is more to follow. (I'm not encouraging more evidence from anyone, unless new and probative; I suspect that this case probably has more diffs on /evidence than any other ever. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I had - its not groundbreaking but it does provide a continual pattern. Viridae^Talk 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

I never thought I'd be defending Betacommand, but his latest activity involves removing a bunch of redlinks to a non-existent article, which superficially appears to be a useful edit. Ironically, he was reverting another bot which was trying to restore those redlinks. I might have overlooked something, but just thought I'd bring this up. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of what was being achieved by the edits, but BC had such a history of problems with bots etc that he has been community banned forom all automated or semi automated tools until further notice. Much of BCs bot work was helpful, but the behaviour that surrounded that was not and that qhat got him the sanction. There are plenty of pother people that could have performed that edit run who arent currently under a sanction. Viridae^Talk 12:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now read the ANI discussion, and I agree he had to be blocked. Even if the edits were good edits, and presumably can stand as they are, he could have done this work in such a way that did not violate the rules, right? So he be blocked. Again. I do have to wonder, what will it take to get this guy's attention? He has been blocked numerous times already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to spread the discussion to your talk page, but it should be noted that his restrictions did not mention "semi-automated". -- Ned Scott 05:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

They did however include "appear automated" - his 80 edits in 2 minutes, which was the first thing I saw certainly fit that bill. Viridae^Talk 05:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they didn't include "appear automated" either. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate." From [14] under the heading Other restrictions: The same wording appeared in the notification on his talk page. Viridae^Talk 05:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

An incorrect summary. This is why you don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. The actual restrictions that were agreed upon by the community did not mention that at all. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you had better take that up on the appropriate page - the person who suggest those restrictions, sam korn, certainly believes that this was the kind of thing BC was not allowed to do - BC was also informed that that was the restriction he was under. Regardless of that, the scripts he was using obviously pushed the definition of semiautomated to the edge - its not possible to review 40 edits a minute when multiple changes are being made to the page - so they are to all intents and purposes automated, and calling them semiautomated is pretty much wikilawyering (or BC would have noticed that TW did not perform the function he wanted to before it did the wrong thing 220 times) Viridae^Talk 07:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that the admin who lifted the block was out of line. Betacommand continually misbehaves, and often gets away with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(Viridae) He didn't press the link 220 times. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I promised diffs to you, so here is a initial set to show that I was not acting alone: here. I'm not expecting you to agree with my analysis; perhaps just an understanding that I saw significant opposition to the block and was not acting purely on my own opinion on the situation. If need be I will continue to break it down as it happened to, but the ~1/3 opposition is roughly what I had thought was there at the time I unblocked. I was also taking into account the length of the block served. And it is worth repeating that I didnt see the initial block as somehow wrong; it is only its continuance, after more light had been shed on the matter, that I felt needed to be remedied. Cheers, --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Viridae/Archive7 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Chamal ^Talk 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved opinion

There is a discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks regarding:

1. Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
2. Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article

I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Want a barnstar?

I'll give you one if you put Bliss as owner... :P Giggy (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha - I'm home sick with a horrible cough atm and that just made me laugh into I disolved into yet another coughing fit. Viridae^Talk 00:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Crap. Sorry about that. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol not your fault - i got a good laugh either way. Viridae^Talk 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in the decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described in the findings of fact, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct. The Committee provides a list of six behavioural issues (click to read) which the parties in the case are "specifically instructed" to ensure that their future editing complies with. The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances.

The Committee also notes that editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request 2

Would you please admin delete this page? I've already blanked it. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No probs - as per usual, the net where i did the deletion from was screwing up and the bottom of this page wouldnt load - hence no notification it was done. Viridae^Talk 07:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse as this page has now served its purpose. My kudos also to Cla68, as much as I might agree or disagree with their stance, they operate on a strict set of honourable principles. Franamax (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pic 4 U

Say hi to Jeff

Hey, Viridae - I just had to snap this little guy for you. This is 'Jeff', a 10-year old Corn Snake, in a tub on the front seat of my car. I'm just getting him ready for his first meal after shedding. Nyommy - live rats :) Anyways - thought you'd appreciate this one - Alison ^❤ 09:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Aww sweet - I love corn snakes (we can't unfortunately get them here)! Hi Jeff! Hope you enjoy him! Viridae^Talk 09:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Was it Tony?

I felt rather guilty after reverting your removal of the IP's comment because I suppose, on the balance of probabilities, you are likely to be right and it isn't Tony. In which case, I guess he will come along sooner or later and remove it if he doesn't agree. However I thought it was a very positive comment (unless I'm missing something?) and if it was Tony, I'd rather not give anyone the excuse to attack you for removing a genuine comment. Anyway, see if my reasoning is sensible and if not, feel free to undo my revert - I really won't be offended :) Only sorry the edit summary box isn't big enough to hold this chain of thought (Fermat also had this problem). All the best --RexxS (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually if it is tony (or someone pretending to be him) I would say that that was far from a positive comment. Judging by the other contributions to the case, it was actually trolling, masked as a positive comment - his constant line during that arb case was to accuse Cla of hounding good contributors off the project, and that comment was really a continuation of that line. Specifically "The hounding must stop." which is far from the stated intention of "move on". I am inclined to remove it again as either impersonator or trolling - but what do you think? Viridae^Talk 02:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - I should have checked Special:Contributions/82.18.14.143 first - he's got more edits than I have! Have a laugh at the altered welcome template at User talk:82.18.14.143 and particularly the IP's edit to TS's Talk page. If it's not Tony, it's somebody doing his work for him :D. The IP also resolves to an NTL address (i.e. VirginMedia, UK cable ISP), so I'm now inclined to believe that it's genuine.

Now, as for the comment, I actually thought it can be construed as positive (particularly "Let's draw a line under this"=Move on), but if you take it as trolling, just let me know and I'll revert myself. Better to let me take the flack than you, right now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image_talk:Cho_Seung-hui_3.jpg

I was looking too see whether David Levy might be a Brittanica plant, and that doesn't contradict my speculation. Oh. Don't do that in articles. BrewJay (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla

Thanks very much for your help with the block log! Bishonen | talk 10:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

Barnstar notice

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Cool Hand Luke. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Viridae^Talk 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just read it. Nice. :D Acalamari 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick work

Thanks for sorting that. Seraphim♥ 12:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no probs - that sort of thing is pretty much all im good for - dont have the time for writing these days - and im pretty terrible at it. Viridae^Talk 12:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano

I blocked him whilst you were writing your please don't message. I'm happy to unblock once he calms down but condoning that kind of personal attack can't be right. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well no it doesn't help a friendly environment for sure - but even if Giano didnt have a history of it, I wouldnt have thought those comments to be paticuarly blockable. He got blocked by mistake and was blowing off steam - to be expected (not excused but understood instead). It would be great if you could unblock before it hits WP:DRAMA Viridae^Talk 12:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry my message was a little short (not in the physical sense) btw. Didnt know you hadnt seen my previous one when I wrote it. Viridae^Talk 12:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(from User talk:Theresa knott)Hmm, let me think. I would have blocked anyone for making constant personal attacks like he was doing. Whether they were or were not on civility parole. Why is he being given a free hand to make attacks that no one else is allowed to make? I don't understand. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt have drawn the line there for most people - not paticuarly egarious personal attacks. I don't like the disparity between the furore over blocking an established user and the lack there of after blocking a new user but it is apparently the way WP works. Either way, blocking Giano for something like that is jumping in the deep end. (Believe me I am not one of his vocal supporters) Viridae^Talk 12:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking the IP. Jack1956 (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The first one, I don't know, the second one - yes I would have warned anyone for that. But doing it again after a warning, that's asking to be blocked in my book. I would certainly have blocked anyone who did that. I know he was blowing off steam but his autoblock lasted all of 6 mins ( check his contibutions) how much steam is someone allowed to blow. Perhaps it will cause drama, i don't know, but unblocking sends entirely the wrong message about what is acceptable behaviour IMO. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - be prepared for possible consequences though (and you might like to email arbcom and tell them you have blocked giano for incivility). I'm not going to unblock him, I will let someone else do that - or you. I'm supposed to be going to bed but instead im chasing autoblocks :P Viridae^Talk 13:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done that. And thanks for sorting out the autoblock, you should have made me do it. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, come on! "As soon as he calms down?" We used to warn people and then not act on the warning for at least 24 hours. Compressing the warn, warn, warn, block, appeal into "warn, block, announce" is abusive, at least in past practice. Furthermore, announcing that one person gets to decide what is and is not insulting is simply insupportable as a standard. Could I say that your comment about "calming down" is an insult, tell you to stop saying things like that, and then block while you're explaining what you mean? Without some explanation beyond, "I find it an insult of someone who isn't me, and I don't need anyone to agree with me, because I'm an admin," we're in cults of personality, faction, and little groups beating at each other with meaningless clubs. That's exactly the situation that would make someone who has been here since 2003 decide that it's just worthless. Geogre (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally i have never warned then waited 24 hours. I think we probably edit in different areas of the encylopedia, Theresa Knott | token threats 14:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-block question

Hi Viridae, I noticed you unblocked and re-blocked Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) because of an autoblock problem. Thanks for taking a look at it.  :) However, I'm curious about one thing. I'd originally blocked her for one week, but when you re-blocked, you changed the block length down to 24 hours. Was this necessary because of the autoblock problem, or was it just a mistake, or done for some other reason? --Elonka 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake Elonka - for some reason I though the block was 24 hours - will reinstate to your original length. Viridae^Talk 22:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) BTW, would you like an archivebot for your talkpage? I see the page has gotten kind of long, but I could put a bot on it and then it would automatically archive inactive threads, so you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? --Elonka 22:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I ussually move eveything over in one hit (page move not copypasta) so I guess it would be time for me to do that again. Thanks for the offer, but I think I will keep the continuity. Viridae^Talk 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I twist your arm about the non political part of your vote?

Hi, if can you care to reconsider, I have answered almost all of the questions now at length. Answers to the others can usually be inferred from the answers given so far, but if there is any outstanding question that you are especially interested in, I'm open to suggestions on that front. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewin resolved?

You are asking me to go to dispute resolution? Are you serious? This guy completely ignored an RFC and two RFAR cases. He was banned for a year. Right after his year long block expired this August he got himself blocked a total of three times in one month (September). He was blocked for 24 hours. Then he posted stuff on his talk page (according to block log) which got him an indef. he was unblocked (for whatever the reason) four days later. It did not take him two weeks to get another 24 hour block. If anything he had been consistently escalating over the years!

Are you seriously telling me to try dispute resolution with such a person... I suggest admin review instead!

-- Cat ^chi? 04:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just let it go. It's an edit conflict and nothing more, consider some of the options I proposed for you at WP:AN (specifically, consider using a userspace sandbox test next time). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Let it go? You haven't even tried to review the case. You are not even looking into the case. All you see is an edit conflict and you are ignoring the rest! -- Cat ^chi? 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed what you posted, and I responded there prior to responding here. What else is there besides this lone diff you provided (which, BTW, is covered clearly by WP:TPG; it's entirely appropriate for an editor to remove talk page comments from their own user talk page if they feel they are inappropriate). Do you have something else? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in that dispute that requires the attention of an administrator. Admins are not mediators nor are admins dispute resolution. Nothing present required the use of the technical extras that an admin requires therefore it is not in need of direct administrator attention and should be taken throught he appropriate dispute resolution path. Viridae^Talk 05:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I was seeking a dispute resolution. I just demonstrated that dispute resolution would be a futile attempt. But you clearly are uninterested in listening. -- Cat ^chi? 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Err no you aren't listening - let me make this more simple. There is no cause for direct administrator action so that thread has no place on the administrators noticeboard. Consequently your only options are to forget it or seeks resolution of the dispute via the dispute resolution mechanisms. Considering the history that may involve a direct appeal to arbcom. Viridae^Talk 08:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

re Moreschi

I shall do it - I have provided the rationale and a time frame for a response. I will do it one minute after the half hour expires (unless desysopped, I believe I am still able to use the flags even if blocked - I just can't post the notice afterward!) Thanks for the thought, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Arbcom appears to be imploding. Viridae^Talk 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Small RFAR note

Hi, Viridae. My dino added a link to your Moreschi statement, in a spirit of helpfulness, I hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC).

Not at all. Viridae^Talk 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Modifying a block

For your information, it is now possible to change a block of a user/IP address, without unblocking first. The way to do it is:

1. Go to the block user page for the user/IP address.
2. Set the new settings.
3. Check the "Re-block the user with these settings" box.
4. Click on the block button.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok now thats cool. Im too oldschool. Viridae^Talk 09:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Viridae,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou both. Viridae^Talk 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

You might have a point there. As you may have noticed, shortly after I posted I took the matter to arbitration (not regarding J.). It isn't easy to respond to these matters and many of us might not be spot-on in our very first reactions. Would you like me to strikethrough the comment regarding Jehochman's suggestion? Durova^Charge! 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks D. Blood raging all around I think. Viridae^Talk 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone shoudl go and look at the top of my talk page.~I'm tempted to put that at the top of the ANI thread again. Viridae^Talk 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Might take a few moments if I ec. Good call, thank you. Durova^Charge! 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks D. Viridae^Talk 03:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Don't thank me, thank yourself. You deserve it. Viridae^Talk 08:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

I appreciate the quick response. DreamGuy (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I just happened to be around. Viridae^Talk 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your unblock of DreamGuy

I was responding to his unblock request at around the same time you were. I was considering declining, based on the fact that it appears clear that he is edit warring at the article Near Dark, even if he technically does so while avoiding WP:3RR. If you look at the history of the article: [15] he has reverted to the same version of the article 5 times in the past 5 days, and multiple people appear to disagree with him. The compelling issue in the block, from my point of view, is the use of repeatedly committing the same edit to force others to accept his particular version of the article. I will of course not undo your unblock, but I also should note that William Connoly's block was not necessarily out of order, as his most recent reversion happened only a short time before the block, and it is clear from his pattern of edits that he has no desire to stop making the same edit over and over, even if he waits just long enough to avoid the literal definition of 3RR. In the future, please discuss these matters with the blocking admin, and do not assume bad faith or abuse on the part of the admin who did the blocking. I only hope that DreamGuy does not view your unblock as a liscence to skirt 3RR ad infinitum. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Skirting 3RR? Good grief. I do not view it as a license to do anything. Maybe you should assume good faith. I merely see it as affirmation that bad admins can't block for flimsy rationalizations, and also the number of admins who said I was right in my edits only further confirms that I was doing exactly what should be done. Thank goodness for admins who are more thoughtful in the way they approach such matters. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I consider you unblock regrettable and impolite. Were you contacted off-wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had no dealings with DreamGuy in the past, there was an ANI post. Viridae^Talk 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting. But I note you haven't replied to my first statement, and you haven't answered my question William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would you think I was contacted off wiki? There is clearly an ANI thread (which is how I became involved) looking for further input from uninvolved admins. I am uninvolved, I overturned a questionable block. I really don't care wther you think it is impolite to overturn your blcok, your actions aren't sacrosanct. Apply better judgement and it won't happen again (not by me, by anyone) Viridae^Talk 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this is not an isolated case. DreamGuy has also made similar edits on a multitude of pages. He removes a plot summary completely or he cuts it down to the first sentence or two (resulting in a non-sensical summary), always citing WP:NOT. He is hostile to others who disagree. See User_talk:DreamGuy#Your_recent_edit_of_the_Near_Dark_article for one example. Plot summaries are not the only area where he claims to be applying Wikipedia policies in ways that hurt it. If you look at his edit summaries, most of his actions are deletions. I became aware of his actions when he attacked the Ambigram article that I had recently spent a lot of time on. The article has still not quite recovered from his attack because, initially, I assumed good faith and I went to the Talk page to get consensus on undoing the damage. RoyLeban (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake -- multiple editors pointed out that your ideas of what was encyclopedic were completely wrong. Characterizing edits you disagree with as an "attack" is bad faith at its worst. Your edit comment of "Fixed annoying edits by someone who would rather just remove stuff than get it right" only further proves that you don't get how things work here. It's unfortunate that so many people here want to run off and try to get people they don't like blocked instead of learning how to work to resolve conflict by following Wikipedia policies and content criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just came here to ask about this. How can you possibly unblock saying "not 3RR" when the block reason said "edit warring"? We all have times when we are in a rush and not concentrating but that's not the mindset to start reversing blocks? --BozMo talk 13:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because if it were edit warring the other editor should also have been blocked, but he wasn't. The block was made by an admin with a long history of harassment and trying to come up with flimsy excuses to take inappropriate actions. Th block was the one made in a rush, and it's clear that many admins supported the unblock. In fact the admin that brought it to ANI could have just unblocked me, but she likes to avoid any possible accusation of taking actions out of bias, whereas the person who blocked me obviously doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this was badly done. There is a proper process for unblock requests which was flouted; a single admin should review a block via an unblock request on a talk page and anything else is a big time waste. The unblock did not match the block in terms of reason, which was a second process failure. (On these issues it is irrelevant, but I note anyway, that the block looks right to me as explained because the other party was trying to engage on talk and irrelevant that you are now coming very close to a personal attack on the blocking admin whereas you should be apologising for the edit warring). The question I asked Viridae was a process question. How can you unblock on a reason ("not 3RR") which had nothing to do with the stated block reason "edit warring"? --BozMo talk 13:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is your op[nion, but I've been through enough blocks where an admin jumped in and took action and which got overturned by others to know more about these situations than you think. I also think it's funny that you are trying to tell other admins what the proper procedure is when others have contradicted you both as a general principe and in this specific case. As explained to you many times on my discussion pages, there was no 3RR, and the edit warring claim was bogus and self-serving by an admin who ha a long history of twisting accusations. But, seriously, if you are really saying that in that situation you think that it was edit warring and the block should have happened, then the person who reported me is not only just as guilty, but moreso, since he afterwards went around blind reverting me on a number of articles I had edited recently and just today even blind reverted me simply adding a tag saying that the plot was too long on the article in question. If you honestly believe that what I did was a blocking offense, then I expect you twill be neutral, fair and even handed and go and block him immediately for a much more severe case of simple refusal to let someone else edit. DreamGuy (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

When I respond to this it will be on your talk page. I think we have stretched what V might put up with here. Your comment you have "been through enough blocks" however speaks volumes. --BozMo talk 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you intentionally missed the part about how other admins overruled them because they were made in error by irresponsible admins. And please don't bother responding on my talk page, as it's clear you're mind is made up and that you have a peculiar idea about the way things are supposed to work. The fact that multiple admins now have told you that your interpretation is wrong should be more than enough to close this discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally give up on people and this was a first encounter, but am happy to drop it. I leave you to dream about your clouds of phantom admin supporters and leave you dreaming somehow that what you do is a positive contribution to the project, although I confess I struggle to see either at present. --BozMo talk 20:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mudgegonga

From the HS's summary of the police figures - see here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help I hope your family is safe. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Read this you numbnut

http://www.theage.com.au/national/islam-group-urges-forest-fire-jihad-20080906-4b53.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.119.221 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is theoretical threat and has not been reported or these fires. Viridae^Talk 01:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mwyres (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Tabloid huh? What's this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Victims_of_the_September_11_attacks

I was reffering to the section labelled "Stories" Feel free to list Brian Naylor if he isn already, as a person of note. But personal stories of victims are not appropriate. Viridae^Talk 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

fyi

You commented on User talk:MONGO#Revert, I have asked a question of you there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lawton, Oklahoma

I find that comparing old versions to the current one and then rolling back to the last good version is better than manually editing. By the way, would you consider semi-protecting it for the next few days? Enigma^msg 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was directed to the section, I dont think the other person had seen the other addition either. Yeah comparing the revisions would have been better :( Protected for 1 week. Viridae^Talk 20:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

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/MZMcBride/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/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot

I have questions about the Talk page for this editor / bot and the thousands of posts that were made by this editor / bot. As you were the last person to touch the Talk page, I will ask you.

• How is it that this editor was able to edit the talk page so many times in the last few days as this editor has been banned indefinitely for many months?
• May the nit-picky "fair use" posts that were made by this editor / bot be deleted or at least archived as they are hopelessly out of date and insufferably wordy?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

JimCubb (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Any banned editor may edit their talk page until someone stops them - nothing is physically stopping them doing so, until you do what I did - protect it. You can do what you like with the fair use messages left on your talk page - you (mostly) have control over what goes on there. Anything added to images should remain as far as I am aware. Viridae^Talk 10:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was how a banned editor could edit under his own name.

Pfui! I was referring to the multiple-paragraph, overly wordy and self-repeating warnings that have no reference (the image no longer exists). I will leave them alone.

JimCubb (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear

Sorry to hear you are no longer active. I hope you return refreshed. Despite all the vandals and psychos, building an encyclopedia is good work. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle

Yeah, that was accidental, apparently hit edit immediately after you protected. The editing on that article is moving *way* to fast...too much junk being introduced. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured it probobly was. Thanks for letting me know. Viridae^Talk 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully request that the page protection be removed. This article is serving as a Wikipedia lesson to a ton of people, and the issue in question is simply not important enough to block that. At the very least if you want to maintain it you need to put a big protection template on top. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not moving to fast it's getting lots of visitors. No reason to stop all editors editing it. SunCreator (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Requesting the page protection be removed. SunCreator (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Not until the issue causing the protection is resolved, or parties at least take it to the talk page, not the article page. Viridae^Talk 04:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There ain't no real issues. Unprotection makes sense. SunCreator (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Was the protection put in place just so Hunkster could revert the article to his own personal preference? He likes iTunes, but not YouTube?! I'm, frankly, quite disgusted. This isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, and he certainly doesn't need any enablers (that would be you, apparently). We have a chance to show people Wikipedia at its best, and you two want to play control-freak. Brilliant move. Now all the bloggers will be gleefully writing how hypocritical Wikipedia really is. Flatterworld (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Request article change to semi-protection. Full protection was/is not needed and damages Wikipedia. IP75 (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see [16] and my notes there. Semi protection is not appropriate here; logged in users do not get extra weight to their edits over IP users in a good-faith content dispute. rootology (C)(T) 06:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What Rootology said. And Flatterworld, I have no idea what you are talking about. Viridae^Talk 07:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Virade: One small editing dispute is not enough of a reason to fully protect a page which is being updated at a strong pace. I noticed that you made little contributions to Wikipedia recently outside of this page protection. I would suggest you be more in tune with what is going on at Wikipedia in general before you take extreme measures, like fully protecting a page. Thanks, --Anewpester (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One edit war, paticuarly one involving personal details of a BLP, is enough to have a page protected at any time. With all due respect, I have been an admin longer than you have been an editor, so am perfectly able to judge whether protection is appropriate. Viridae^Talk 12:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I also thought you're more able to judge on the merits of fully protection until I saw the huge consensus to the contrary at this page, the article talk page, and the RPP page.--Anewpester (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

and there's no BLP problems. Everything is sourced; it's only a question of the importance and emphasis of a particular factoid. A regular silly editing dispute.--Anewpester (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I have unprotected the article and started discussions about the two points in dispute on the article talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[17] rootology (C)(T) 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated. Viridae^Talk 07:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the log says expires 3:25 June 17. Didn't know if you wanted to update that. — Ched :  ?  15:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your close of the delisting request for newenergytimes.com

Thanks, Viridae. I see that you removed the site from the blacklist. However, I didn't see a note to this effect in the discussion, would you mind adding a formal close there? MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#newenergytimes.com Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how you assessed that consensus was for delisting. Verbal chat 07:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

weight of arguments along with weight of numbers (no, not vote counting), the usual way consensus is determined on WP. Viridae^Talk 07:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that. I felt some explanation as to how you weighed the arguments may be helpful and useful. Verbal chat 08:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of any evidence the site is being used for spam bfore blacklisting, lack of any evidence of any harm in the site (malware): the reasons the spam blacklist is used. Combined with policy dictating that editorial decisions (usefulness/reliability of the information being contained on the site) should be made by the community, not be circumvented by administrators. Those arguments were not refuted at all by any of the participants disagreeing with the removal. The default position of the spam blacklist is to not have website on it until such time as sufficient evidence of harm being done to wikipedia is provided. Viridae^Talk 08:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! Verbal chat 08:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Are you still bound by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Viridae? Hipocrite (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That was never binding in the first place. Viridae^Talk 02:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're reverting JzG's adminstrative actions again? Hipocrite (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed a blacklist entry based on the consensus displayed. I am a functionary not the decision maker. Viridae^Talk 03:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my request dropped you into this hornet's nest, Viridae. I do disagree with you on one thing, though. You made the decision, as informed by the community, you are not merely a "functionary"; however, decisions on the blacklist page are like decisions in XfDs. Reversing an admin's decision on an XfD, directly, would be wheel-warring, but closing a new XfD or DRV with a different decision than previously made would not. JzG's original blacklisting could have been directly reversed by any admin as out-of-process, though, since there was no prior discussion and it was not logged; the log page specifically states that unlogged blacklist additions may be removed. It was a huge can of worms, and you've helped clean up some of it. Thanks again.

The acting admin on the blacklisting, i.e., the most recent closer, wasn't JzG, though, it was Beetstra. And he'd recused in any case. --Abd (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of this and have to say I'm disappointed. Verbal chat 07:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? it didnt impact on the consensus or the policy in the slightest? Viridae^Talk 07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that it was appropriate for you to close this particular, rather contentious (un)blacklist request. My concerns are based on both your previous history of conflict with JzG, and on your lack of significant previous experience with blacklist issues. I fear that the perception of possible bias on your part coupled with your limited track record on blacklist issues may inflame rather than resolve the question at hand.

I am not trying to open a debate, pick a fight, or harangue you on this point; I am just here to inform you that I've expressed my opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence#Evidence presented by TenOfAllTrades. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have filed an enforcement request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Viridae. I wish you could just agree not to ever revert JzG's adminstrative actions again. Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 Flu

Hello. My purpose to remove the use of antibiotics for "dual infection" is to reduce confusion and not foment the use of abtibiotics to treat viral infections. As a molecular biologist and medical technologist, I am aware that the "dual infection" mentioned implicitly referred to bacterial pneumoniae + flu virus, however, one can not expect a casual reader to know that or to understand that the word pneumoniae could be a pathology or a bacteria, especially without the article explaining that and while focused on viral treatments. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4

Thank you for the feedback. If there is anything I can do to alleviate any concerns you may have, please let me know. Other than that, have a pleasant evening/day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You cited civility issues. Would you mind showing me a few diffs? (As civility issues concern me.) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 03:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Comment

Yeah, total sarcasm. But I'm bound to be blocked for it aren't I? The imbalance of power is rediculous. "Who watches the watchmen?"Drew Smith What I've done 02:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just checking. Apparently Jimbo watches the watchmen. Occasionally. Viridae^Talk 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki something

I don't know if you tried to post a response to this heading over at ANI. If you did, it didn't show up. Only your Wiki signature showed up. Ti-30X (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...