Jump to content

User talk:Viriditas/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Reply to your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project

Posting this here since I don't think it's directly relevant to the NNU project:

NPP does have its issues, but on the other hand, I feel that the current methods of operation largely stem from a need to be pragmatic. If I just speedy / PROD / tag the right articles, each article would take a couple of minutes. If I try to do all the work (referencing, rewriting) myself, each article would take at least half an hour, and we simply don't have enough people to work that way.

I think it's a matter of perspective: To me, NPP is not part of the collaborative editing process, but rather something that aims to identify fundamental issues quickly so they don't simply go unnoticed (which would be very damaging to Wikipedia's reliability). Blaming patrollers for not taking the time to work with each new editor is unfair, considering the circumstances. We desperately need to work with new editors—all the studies done have indicated it should be a top priority—but that really isn't NPP's purpose, IMO. wctaiwan (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Having done page patrol, I know that I can patrol ~50 pages a day, clean them up, categorize them, and make them presentable, as well as welcome and establish a line of communication with new editors. Maintenance tags are useful only when it requires too much work for one editor. I also think we should add a new feature that allows maintenance tags to "time out" after a certain time. The priority is not to tag articles, it's to fix them, and this idea has been lost over time. I think the priorities of NPP are simply misguided. Quality over quantity is preferred. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Then you work a lot more efficiently than I do. :) Having said that, I think the burden to fix an article shouldn't lie on the patroller—my mentality is that I tag articles, so people would notice that there is a problem and be given the chance to fix it if they like. I do article improvement / new editor assistance work too—I just don't feel that it should be a mandatory part of NPP. We should all do what we feel like doing to improve the encyclopedia. Editors who do things that need doing should be applauded, but I see that as a positive quality, not a requirement.
On the matter of maintenance tags: Aside from alerting editors, they also alert readers that the content has issues. For that reason, I think they should stay until the issues are addressed. wctaiwan (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The whole "let the next guy deal with" or "it's not my job" mentality is to blame. The buck needs to stop here, not there. The burden of fixing an article is always on the editor who creates it or edits it, but the patrolling process isn't helping it is hurting, and I believe it is responsible for driving new editors away. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest raising this issue at a more public venue—at the very least, it would lead like-minded people to work on NPP, thus balancing the current trend. Two last points:
  • I was aware that deletions drive away new editors, but I wasn't aware that tagging does as well. I would definitely be interested in seeing whether it actually has a pronounced effect. If so, much reform is needed and I would definitely reduce my use.
  • This issue is related to the very serious problem with the proliferation of template notifications (a lot of new editors' talk pages are nothing but CSD notifications, resulting from the deletion attitude you talked about). I avoid them where I can, but I don't see a clear solution to this problem either.
Thanks for the thoughts. wctaiwan (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
One thing that might help is an article/editor rating queue that allows a patroller to identify constructive editors vs. vandals and trolls, and to "push" them into another editor retention queue where groups of editors focus solely on meeting and greeting. Something simple like that could help a great deal. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

I've been going over articles I started, looking for close paraphrasing. I found verbatim in this: Ctenomorphodes chronus.

Mine: "...The abdomen is spotted with black at the tip of each segment, which is somewhat dilated. The leaflets are quite long and dentated..."

The source: "...the abdomen is spotted with black at the tip of each segment, which is also somewhat dilated, while the leaflets are rather long and dentated..."

Needless to say, a cold chill ran up my spine. Now, although I haven't found more like this, it is possible, and even likely. Please understand that I would never knowingly do this.

I am trying to figure out how I did this. I have used different methods at different times. I might have copied the text to a notepad, and then rearranged the text, and swapped in different words, but missed doing that line entirely.

Also, in one method, I found another problem. I've copied the text to a notepad, then, below, rewritten it. Later, when working on tweaking the new paragraph, before starting the article, I've accidentally reworded it back toward its original form, because that was the best wording. In fact, I've noticed that when others improve the prose of what I've written. They swap it back to how the source says it without knowing it. There is, after all, a primary syntax for describing something. We don't say "blue windows on a red house". We say it the other way around.

It's very hard for me, with species descriptions, to completely avoid close paraphrasing. Often I've just rearranged exact wording. There are only so many ways you can say "green mantle with yellow spots". Often I've just said "It has yellow coloured spots on a green mantle." I've been at a loss for anything better.

Now, I've gone through dozens, and haven't found anything even close to Ctenomorphodes chronus, but naturally, I'm terrified, and rather close to tears. Please advise. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to worry about. Everyone, even the most seasoned editor, makes this mistake at some point, which is why it is so important to go back and check your work. This recently happened to me, and I caught it, and rewrote several passages. So, you are not alone. A long time ago, WikiProjects were in the process of creating topic templates that would allow editors to create each article based on a standard structure. This eventually morphed into the project-oriented Manual of Style pages, and the topic structure pages were either deprecated or forgotten about. This is unfortunate because having a topic template might eliminate close paraphrasing and allow editors to cover a subject in a more uniform fashion. As a result, close paraphrasing would appear more obvious and less likely to happen. If you like, you may want to contact Moonriddengirl (she recently contacted you and asked you to comment about slugs. Her name is "Maggie") She will personally point you in the right direction and maybe share some tips. Every day is a learning experience, and you have good days and bad days. If you want, I would be happy to help out with any articles you want me take a look at in this regard. Put a smile on your face and enjoy your day. Life is too short to let the little things upset you. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you thank you thank you. I was freaking out. I remembered the Graham Bould thing and was horrified. That's how I know Moonriddengirl. I helped with that copyvio cleanup, as you may recall.
I don't want to bug her because she is super busy always. She can help with IDing copyvios, as can I. My concern is whether or not my stuff is full of them. Wormthatturned said he will check lots of my articles. I will check too.
Thanks for calming me down. I panicked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There are several ways to avoid this in the future. I will often create a user page about a topic while I'm doing research and store quotes and sources there. Then, I can go back and check against the content I've written. On a more practical matter, getting in the habit of using inline notes and the author date system will help you and the reader keep track of an idea. When in doubt, quote, then go back later and see if you can rewrite it in your own words. Sometimes you can't, which is OK as long as it is quoted and attributed to the author. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project: Raw list of all students' subpages

this seems to have something to do with it. I'm looking for a raw list to add to my watchlist. Is there a way? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple ways. The one you are probably referring to is Changes related to "Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project" In order to just display the articles, they would have to either be in their own category (like the user pages) or on a separate page. The WP 1.0 bot request requires a separate category, so that's probably going to happen soon. Once the category is created for the bot, you'll have your own watchlist and an assessment log showing the progress by article class. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
My brain just imploded.
I think your link was broken. This works: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?namespace=&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+China%2FNNU+Class+Project&tagfilter=&title=Special%3ARecentChangesLinked
I will wait until someone actually makes the list, and then bug them for a copy. Path of least effort. :) Thanks!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The list is created on the fly from a category containing the articles. At least I think that's how it works. You can also use AWB to make lists. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
AWB is blocked for me. wctaiwan just gave me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=NNU&namespace=2 It seems to work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So just take that list and dump it in a subpage and then click "Related changes". You're done. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. I'm so sorry. My head is busting. I need to rest. Will pick it up again soon. Thanks again for all your help with the whole project. :) nitey nite. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying at the project talk. I'm not sure how useful the list is. I will update it from time to time. Is such a list needed? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It's useful as a watchlist, and if you use it as a watchlist, there's no need to update it. That's what User:Femto Bot does, automatically. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Lebowski

This has nothing to do with improving the article so I figured I'd drop it here. So I'm a huge theatre geek and I did theatre in the Sacramento area for like 20 years (which sounds ridiculous because I'm only 35 but there it is). I'm so annoyed that show opened just after I moved away from California. I recognize a couple of the actors in the pictures from doing shows together and if I'd known anything about it at all I would have hitchhiked to the bay to see it if I'd had to. OK maybe not. But man... I really miss doing theatre.

In actual helpful on wiki terms, I think there's a couple of good things in those reviews to mention in the article. I need a nap though so I'll specify later when I'm less rambly and random. Millahnna (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Where do you live now? Can you join a theatre group there? Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Portland, OR area but on the Washington side. Lots of theatre to do in Oregon (transportation is a bit tricky because of how the buses work in WA) but job stuff has to come first until I get my poop in a group, as it were. I've got friends here in the local theatre scene so it'll come when real life finally lets up a bit. I'm just so tickled by the idea of that play that it made me all nostalgic. Millahnna (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You must love it up north. BTW, I've always thought that The Machine Stops (1909) would make the most fantastic musical, or even an opera. Playwright Eric Coble adapted it for the radio in 2007, but I never heard his version. Have you read it? The full version of the story is available on Wikisource. I see you did some work on Daybreakers (2010). I must have missed that when it came out. Is it any good? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Loved Portland the first time I saw it but I do miss the sunshine (like a lot). I'm totally a hot weather type of person (not as much as when I was a bit younger but still). I'm from Illinois originally so you can't get me far enough away from snow. Lived in Hawaii when I was a little kid for a bit (military mama) and would love to go back there, even if the humidity would give me an afro (I'm not black so that always looks interesting). I'll totally check out Machine Shops. I'm always reading books and stories I think would make great plays; one of these days I'll have to give my hand a try at writing one. I really liked Daybreakers myself, but when it comes to genre stuff I'm fairly easy to please. I can overlook a lot of flaws that really bug other people. So I can't objectively judge it. Good cast, pretty interesting take on vampires, solid dialogue. I seem to recall thinking there were a few scenes that felt a little rushed; like maybe the writing didn't flesh out a few ideas as well as it could have? But overall I really liked it. I don't buy dvds very often but I bought that one. I love me some Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, and Sam Neil though. Millahnna (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
You know, we haven't had that kind of humidity in Hawaii (at least on Maui) for several years now. In fact, we barely had a winter or a summer this year. The wind, however, was just out of control. I can't recall it ever being this windy in the past. Because of your fine review, I've got Daybreakers queued up, and I'm going to watch it in the next 48-72 hours. Just finished watching Touch the Sound (2004) again and I hope to work on that article soon. There are around seven negative reviews of TTS on Rotten Tomatoes, and I'm trying to wrap my mind around them. It's like they saw an entirely different film. Have you noticed how there are some film critics who bring their own agenda to the film? I'm not upset by too much, but when I see that I get a bit flustered. It's one thing to criticize a film for actual flaws, and I applaud that kind of analysis. But to make things up that just aren't there really gets my goat. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah...didn't realize you lived in Hawaii. I has a jealous. I watch the Hawaii 5-0 remake almost entirely for the scenery. I rarely recognize anything because I moved away when I six in 1982 but it's still fun to try and spot stuff (I miss Castle Park). Were you visiting Cali when you took the picture of the Lebowksi playbill? You aren't Navy by any chance are you?

Totally know what you mean about film reviews. For me, Sucker Punch is my current example. I wouldn't exactly say I liked the film but I did like it more than the critics did. But with some of them, I'm wondering if they saw the same movie. They harp on flaws it doesn't actually have and I'm thinking "jeebus, criticize the film's actual problems (which are abundant) don't make crap up. Never seen TTS. Will have to check it out. And you just reminded me that I'm procrastinating on a reception project of my own. Millahnna (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was visiting when I took the photo (but I haven't uploaded it yet; the one I showed you was the official photo). No, I'm not in the military. Maui was used for training by the Fourth Marine Division during WWII, but only the National Guard and Air Force personnel are here now. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh I only asked because I thought you might have been in SF for fleet week. My mom was Air Force (thus us being at Hickam) and I was Navy (very briefly, medical problems). Did Pearl Harbor get shut down then? I know they were still using it for decomming old subs for a while (a friend from boot camp was there in the late 90s doing that). Shows you how well I keep up. Millahnna (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Arg nevermind...you said Maui not Oahu. I'm an idiot. :D Millahnna (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for heading off the deletion. I'd been waiting for a student to do it, but it never happened. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

HAPPY [to] HELP. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice. Did I go overboard a bit? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. I was just having fun. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I know you were. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mixed bag

That automatic notice

Actually, I think that's a good idea. I do keep forgetting to add and remove it. Could you please tell me how to do it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it, I just know that it is possible, like a status changer that shows if you are on or offline. I'll look into it. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

CUCAS

You've probably noticed that CUCAS has been deleted. I posted here about it. I thought it relevant, albeit a tad unfair. It could be seen as canvassing a biased crowd. Then I realized I'd mixed up bestcolleges and CUCAS. Oops. I've been a bit burned-out lately. Off-wiki stuff has been making me nuts. Usually Wikipedia is a great escape. But it's been busy here too, with much the same sort of disorder. I just the world to stop so that I can make some frog articles. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Be spacious, take it slow, and enjoy the silence in between the notes. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Typhoon Nesat (2011)

An now this, which is expected to come this way, and make a giant circle of unpleasantness, turning umbrellas into modern art, and blowing chickens into the sea. The Hawaii chart shows it green, but I think it will be yellow/red by the time it gets here. Dear oh dear. It's always something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it might be a good idea to get out of Haikou for a few days. Or you could stay and report on the typhoon for Wikinews. Either way, stay safe. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

In this refdesk question you signature changes from "Viriditas (talk)" to "Mr. Green (talk)" and back again. That is confusing and could look like your 2nd comment on that question is from a different editor. As a longstanding editor here, I'm sure you are aware WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE says something about not making your signature appear to be someone elses. Would you consider changing it to remove the confusion? Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I changed it from "Viriditas" to "Mr. Purple" (the color of the drink in question) to "Mr. Green" (referring to Viriditas). As the edit summary indicated, the name change was a homage to Reservoir Dogs (1992), as a self-deprecating reference to the kind of discussion my silly question might spawn ("do you tip? if so, how much? etc.) If someone is confused by this, it's probably not the end of the world. Mr. Green (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your patience and understanding, my posts on the Faces of Meth talk weren't exactly examples of clarity, I have to admit. DS Belgium (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It took me a while to understand what you were getting at, and I'm glad it is resolved for now. Good work! Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Note on jokes

Heya, from what I have seen, I think people usually put jokes or light coments in tags like so: <small>Priest , a rabbi and and Armenian walk into a bar...</small>. Helps prevent confusion unless dudes are noobs. :p In the event of noobs, sadly not much can be done here, but elsewhere... Also, I thought your quote up top was from Dr. King. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 6 Tishrei 5772 04:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Good tip. Will do the next time I get the urge. About the quote, there are many variations on it, but the popular King quote on Wikiquote is:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

I believe King was referring to Christianity, not Buddhism. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take your ball and go home!

I'm sorry. This article has been frustrating. At times it is difficult to keep up and at times it's hard to get a post in without several tries because it gets so busy. The article needs good editors like you. I will read your suggestions. I'm sure we can all work together and have a good article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoom interface

The interface helps patrollers tag etc, and that's good. But looking at the NNU group of articles, what we needed was some sort of zoom interface that helps put articles through an assembly line. Not just tagging and preliminary checks like notability, etc.

I was thinking of a zoom thing with checkboxes to actually knock the article into shape, like cats, navboxes, cleanup, etc. The way it is now, the articles get tagged for, let's say "inline citations needed", and then it gets added to a list somewhere on the other side of Wikipedia. Editors there see the list and fix up those articles. That's right, isn't it? But I think more is needed for NNU-type projects, where a taskforce improves them in the assembly line method. Is this a dumb plan? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I said we need a project version. Could you put something together showing the limitations of what zoom can do and your proposed features for article improvement? I believe you might have a better idea as to what is needed than I do, since you can see it visually in your head. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Can I paste this at NNU project talk and include links to zoom interface etc? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You probably know about this, but FYI. I wonder how many of these programs there are? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There used to be a bunch. That one looks similar to AWB, sorta "old skool". Way back in the day I used to use a live recent changes feed to patrol. Do they still have those on IRC? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen that on IRC. I wonder if they can just modify one of those basic programs to include checkboxes of things that need doing, and dump the results as cats or a table somewhere. (Okay. I just confused myself.) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You know there's an active discussion (liquid threads?) about the features on Meta. Have you thought about participating? You might get more of a response. <fortune cookie>You have good ideas and a patient temperament. You will get what you ask for.</fortune cookie> Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well thank you, although I don't agree. :) Do you have a link to the Meta discussion? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You don't agree with what? Pick another cookie and see what it says! The discussion is over here. If you aren't familiar with the format, first read Wikipedia:LiquidThreads. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page

I would use that cool blue box people use to give a response heads up, but I'm too lazy to look it up Sloggerbum (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"poor images" is subjective. The default picture is better than the one you put up, which is from 10 year ago. You can remove the one with the hand in the face if you want. thanks. Jiyangc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyangc (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


I only reverted your changes, but the picture that I want remain doesn't block her face and is the most current one available. JIyangc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyangc (talk • contribs) 13:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The arm covers her jaw partially, but it's a much newer and flattering picture. It's not like you can't tell it's her. You can take out the rest if you want, but leave the portrait.

That's not a very good reason to add it. I understand you took the photo yourself, but that is not a good reason to add it. We can't see her face in the photo. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but in my opinion we can see her face. You should post on the Uma talk page, since you have an objection to it. I have others but this is the only one where she flirts with the camera. I just don't think it covers that much of the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyangc (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. As the person adding a photograph you've uploaded, you need to use the talk page to defend it. You've also been told by many editors in multiple articles to 'stop spamming your name to Wikipedia articles per MOS:CAPTION. If you continue, I will file an administrative report. Use the article talk page—not my talk page—to discuss why we should add a photograph of a celebrity with her arm blocking her face. Please think about this. We don't add photographs just because you took them. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Read again what I said. "I took the picture" is not the reason why I want the picture up there. Do you honestly think she looks better in the picture you like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyangc (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you read. Use the article talk page to discuss your edits. Don't use my talk page. On Wikipedia, if you upload a photograph that you took and it is challenged, you need to use the article talk page. What I think is that we don't add or replace photographs of anybody with a replacement photograph that blocks their face. You evidently don't understand this because you are using Wikipedia to spam your name. You need to stop immediately. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
My name is in the description and filename, not in the caption. I'm not trying to put my name back on the captions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyangc (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad, but you're still trying to upload the image you took, an image of Uma Thurman with her arm blocking her face. Please use the article talk page like you've been asked, to discuss this issue. Do not continue to use my talk page. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, discuss on the talk page. But let the people reach a consensus before removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyangc (talk • contribs) 14:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. You have to argue for inclusion. Further, you have COI as the photographer who has been trying to promote his name. You need to use the talk page to reach a consensus before adding it. You have it backwards. Please start using the talk page, now and wait for discussion to end before adding the image. In fact, you should not add your own image to this article at all since it has been challenged. Your COI demands that you resign yourself to the talk page and await for further discussion. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images: No customers :(

I keep a list, so I thought I'd make it available to others. Few visitors. No takers. Don't people want to make species articles? Or is it in the wrong place? What gives? Then again, I click random article, and soooo many are people. People really think highly of people. Don't they know how impressive it is to be a deep sea fish? They are much cooler than people. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard. Anthropocentrism rules the day. Empathy for people is hard enough as it is, try empathy for animals! Most people want to eat them. I'll come up with something for the images problem. Give me a day. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, the first thing that comes to mind is, shouldn't this be dealt with on a project by project basis? Most projects, for example, have requested article/images queues. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. But newcomers don't visit project pages that much. Then again, probably more than my link. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you want to really think outside the box, for years, there have been editors who have proposed that editors facing sanctions should work on articles like these to get out of a block. Heh. What do you think of that? Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW, have you read or seen The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill? You would really enjoy it. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm downloading it now. Why does Bittner ring a bell? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you know of him through Judy Irving? Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
She rings a bell too. Hmmmm. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I like how the birds are listed as cast members on the film poster. :) Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I will see it too....in "6 days and 12 hrs". (probably 2 days or it will run out of seeds.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks !

Thanks for your push and pruning of the section Media coverage. Good one ! ; ) Yug (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Is there a way to add Ustream footage? Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely no idea. Try talk:Ustream. Cheer Yug (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I was asking if you knew what the official Ustream channel for OWS was and if it could be added. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Excellent edits on the Occupy Wall Street article!

Charbon (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I am not an administrator, would you mind adding to the subject of Fiscal Impact that the NYPD is being funded by JP Morgan, one of the large corporations that the movement is specifically targeting? Source: http://theintelhub.com/2011/10/01/jp-morgan-funded-nypd-mass-arrests-over-700-peaceful-occupy-wall-street-protesters/ and http://www.infowars.com/jp-morgan-funded-nypd-mass-arrests-over-700-peaceful-occupy-wall-street-protesters (more user comments) SgtPyroman (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I will look into it, but if consensus is against adding it, there is nothing I can do. Keep in mind what is really going on with the cops at the protest. They are suffering as well, as their working conditions are poor and they are having difficulty negotiating for better pay and benefits. In order for this movement to be successful it needs to move beyond the confines of left-right politics and recognize that you will gain the greatest strength in numbers and legitimacy by bringing the cops over to your side and acknowledging them as your brothers and sisters. I realize this sounds crazy, but it is the key to success. When you truly realize this truth, you will have unlocked the door to victory, because the real war is not fought in the streets, but in the mind. In order to change the world, we have to change ourselves. The us vs. them game is a trap, don't fall for it. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please correct this problem ASAP

You left the following edit on my Talk page:

The New American is not a RS for anything on Wikipedia except for information about the John Birch Society. Please do not continue to add it into Occupy Wall Street. If you would like clarification on this matter, feel free to start a noticeboard request over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that I used this source. Exactly when did I use it? Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I find it hard to believe that I would repeatedly add, or even accidentally use even once as far as that goes, a John birch Society reference. Since there is no way for me to point out that you are not correct, this information remains on my talk page for anyone that visits it to read and assume I must be some sort of a nut job. Please supply the editing I have done using this reference. Perhaps I returned information that was deleted but was not aware of the reference that was used, but it was not mentioned in an edit summary or on the talk page. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not a nut job, but you are fond of making multiple blanket reverts that restores content previously brought to your attention. I'm sure I've done this once or twice myself in the past, but I usually remove poorly sourced content en masse rather than restore it. It was mentioned several times, both in the edit summary and the talk page, and you restored it. All I ask is that you edit incrementally in the future. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
So now you have changed your mind and I do not use John Birch for my sources but rather I am "fond of making multiple blanket reverts"? As a matter of fact, I am very careful to never make multiple blanket edits because I don't like it when other editors do it. I can only guess, since it seems that you are unwilling to be specific, that you are referring to the incident on the talk page under the heading "Request for Comments: rewritten Media section" of the OWS article. If you review the talk page you will see that there was an ongoing discussion of that section and I was only asking that sections not be deleted till other editors had a chance to comment. Also note that the edit war involved an editor who had yet to make a comment about anything on the talk page and in fact had never even made an edit summary for any of his numerous edits. I can't understand your reasoning when you advise me to edit incrementally in the future when I was only restoring a section that had been extensively edited. Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have not changed my mind at all, Gandydancer. I've been very specific about your blanket reverts which restored bad sources, and you were not "careful". In fact, you explicitly declared you were restoring the material, even after it was explained why it was removed on both the talk page and in the edit summary. For some reason, you don't appear to understand what you have read and are still acting very confused. Your claim that the issue "was not mentioned in an edit summary or on the talk page" is purely false, as it was mentioned in both places and you were fully aware of it. I first informed you that the source was not reliable at 12:17, 4 October 2011, and you responded at 12:42, acknowledging my comment.[1] I then removed the fringe source at 12:21 and acknowledged it in the edit summary.[2] So I had informed you about it on the talk page and in the edit summary. Knowing all this, and even though you participated in a discussion about it, you went ahead and blanket reverted several times over the next few days,[3][4] finally restoring the disputed fringe source at 10:37, 6 October 2011, with the false edit summary, "the editor that continues to remove large parts of this section has not joined the ongoing discussion and has yet to even make edit summaries in his edits for this article. see talk page".[5] These series of edits indicates you either do not understand what is being said or you are deliberately lying. I will choose to AGF and chock it up to WP:OWN issues which make you say things in a hasty manner. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

On the 4th you deleted about 2/3 of the media section. It's interesting that you have complained that I have make "multiple blanket edits" without mentioning that the edits restored large blocks of information that you had deleted. I did not restore the John Birch info at that time.

I restored a section that was under discussion on the 6th. The John Birch info was not included at that time. I asked that it be returned long enough for other editors to have a look at it while we decided what to do with it.

As you know, my critical remarks were not addressed to you but to editor Somedifferentstuff, who to that time had not only never joined in any discussion on the talk page but had never even written an edit summary for his frequent edits.

I am done with this discussion and will not return to it. I would have preferred to believe that it was a misunderstanding between two good, hard-working editors rather than one good editor arguing with an editor that is either utterly confused or outright lying. Gandydancer (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark Bittner and Judy Irving

I got the parrot documentary, and will watch it. I scanned it. Lovely birds. So cute. I will email both Irving and Bittner to bug them for images. :) It usually works, but not always.

So, next fortune cookie could read "Help. I'm being held prisoner at a wiki project with no hope of escape. Please contact the outside world asking for images to satisfy our overlords, who block and trout us when we don't obey. Oh, and airdrop some Toblerones to tide us over. We survive on Barnstars, a sort of Lambas bread. Satisfying, in a somewhat unhealthy way. We really long for restaurant fare, and a social life. Ohhhhh, restaurant fare...the memories."

So, could that all fit on a single strip of paper?  :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'll write to Willard Wigan while I'm at it. :) By the way, one of my hamsters had 5 babies (2 weeks ago). They are all little pigs. Momma carries them back to headquarters even though they are way too fat and their eyes are open and they object with squeals because they want to explore. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I once melted a small Toblerone into a hot cup of coffee. It wasn't bad but it wasn't great. Still haven't tried the white one. I just don't "get" white chocolate; what's the point? Some really interesting things going on with restaurants in the states. Check out what Next is doing with their menu in Chicago. They take a thematic approach to their menu and change it often to reflect a region and time. Currently they are doing a Tour of Thailand. How cool is that? It is really curious to me that more restaurants don't do this. Finally, people are starting to experiment more and get creative with cuisine. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW, whatever happened to "Viriditas" the hamster? Is he OK? Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • White chocolate is good, but it really reminds me that I'm just eating fat.
  • Is it okay to write to people to bug them for images? Is there a rule against it?
  • Next is a great idea. It would never fly here. People here only eat what they've eaten before. If you offer them something new, they say "bu chi", meaning "no eat", meaning "I don't usually/I won't/I didn't/I don't want/Not part of my diet/Not interested in trying". This applies to music, games, etc. A traditional culture. It took me ten minutes to get a friend to try smoked salmon. When he finally tried it, he said it was the most delicious thing he'd ever eaten. The next day, I offered him dijon mustard. He said "Bu chi".
  • Trivia: KFC is big here. McDonalds is struggling.
  • More trivia: A street full of restaurants here will be Hunan cuisine, Sichuan, Hainan, etc. Chinese people think it's the same in Canada: BC cuisine, Ontario, etc. I tell them it's Chinese, Italian, African, Spanish, etc., and they are quite surprised.
  • I have officially named one of the adult hamsters "Viriditas". I can't give the babies names because they are all identical. I don't know the fate of the last one named for you. They are hard to keep track of and have quite short lifespans. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the message

Septima2011 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Blanche on the Lam

Thanks so much for picking up on C'Nedra's Blanche page! I've laid the assignment out on my talk page and students have been practicing mediawiki editing, article conventions etc. on our digital anthology of literature, a mediawiki installation, Democratic Vistas. I'm now in touch with Anna and look forward to collaborating on how best to integrate this class project into the Wikipedia community. Again - - gracias! Profhanley (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied to "Need your help"

See: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Need your help and search "At the moment, none that I know of". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Way to take the initiative, Anna. You're a born leader. :) Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Born leader or bored lemur? Ahhhhh very zen.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Purpose

Why did you redirect the Purpose article? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. The question is, why should the article not be redirected to a parent topic? Since its inception from the early days of Wikipedia, this article has been floundering as a stubby dictionary definition. Then, within the last several years, someone decided to expand it by adding unsourced OR. Do you think the redirect is incorrect?Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Err, purpose is ahead of teleology and the redirect is not needed. See this source [6]. Purpose requires it's own superior main article. Please undo your active teleological action and let us properly incorporate the soruce, so that other readers may benefit from the sources as opposed to the OR. Thank you. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Err, did you just cite a source from 1943? Find me a current source that treats it separately from teleology and I would be happy to take a look. The pre-redirect article is 90% unsourced original research, and was a stub for most of the time it's been here. Further, someone tried to pad the topic by adding bits of pieces from other articles and adding tables to make it look like it had substance. That just won't fly. Find current sources apart from it's use in teleology, or admit you are dealing with nothing but a dictionary definition. Better yet, show me how other encyclopedias treat the subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess we have a reliable source dispute as date is irrelevant, will you reconsider, or would you agree to take it to a notice board? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
We don't write articles based on a single paper from 1943, a paper which for all intents is considered out of date and irrelevant. Now, if you like, you could create an article about the paper if it is considered notable and has secondary sources supporting it. But that is not what we are talking about. Is there a reason you have ignored my request for other sources? And, why do you object to the current redirect? Please answer those simple questions. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You can provide sources to improve the article after restoring. It would be better faith, to work on improving the article with sources. The redirect isn't supported by the sources. I don't see a good reason to support the redirect. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me help you [7] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Surely you've been here long enough to know that's not how it works. The person adding content has the burden to add sources, and a link to Google search results is not a "source". You know all this, so I don't know what the problem is for you. You above response still doesn't provide any answers. Tell you what, provide at least one good current source I can take a look at. Just one? Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
In this case the person adding the redirect has the burden ... as you added the redirect, which should be removed as not verifiable. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the unsourced dictionary definition, chock full of unsourced original reseach, was appropriately redirected to it's closest parent article teleology, the study of purpose. Now, what single reason can you offer showing that this redirect was inappropriate? Teleology is the study of purpose, so it can't get clearer than that. Otherwise, you are arguing for the creation of a disambiguation page, since you are arguing that your definition of purpose is something altogether different. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at [Wikipedia:Redirect] I don't see a valid reason for your redirect and you should remove it. That is what I am supporting, you removing the redirect. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop wikilawyering and start doing research, beginning with finding current sources that support the material you want to restore. Feel free to work in your user space by restoring the material to a user subpage. I have explained the reason for the redirect here in this discussion. I have also tagged the redirect as a "R from subtopic", indicating that when you finish creating a reliably sourced article about the topic that is neither a dictionary definition nor unsourced original research, you may consider using the title for a new article. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements was escalated to due provocation and PA. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very simple: this is an article which has remained unsourced for eight years or so, and during most of that time, it was an unsourced stub. Within the last several years, somebody decided to expand it with original research. When you remove all of the fluff and OR, all we are left with is an unsourced stub which reads like a dictionary definition. Short, stubby articles which have had almost a decade to be expanded with sources but have not, get deleted or redirected. We don't try to find sources to support your OR, it is the other way around. We fond sources about a topic which we then base our article content upon. This was explained to you but you don't seem to understand the process. You have been asked to find sources supporting the material and you have refused. You were asked to explain why the redirect doesn't work and you refused. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Without going in circles with you, I found source(s) which don't support your redirect. Now, how can I work on a redirected article? Just simply remove the redirect. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you did not find such sources. Your argument amounts to, "Look, I found a source from 1950 that says Pluto is a planet!" That isn't helpful, and you were asked to find current sources. Your question about how you can work on redirected articles is quite strange, as 1) I explained it to you above, telling you to work on it in your user space, and 2) your user space already has 6 articles in it, so it sounds like you are asking questions you already know the answer to in the first place. To help you, you may find the content of the redirected article over at User:ZuluPapa5/Purpose. I look forward to your contributions. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Your redirect activity and user space violation is approaching vandalism, I suggest you cool off a bit. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Redirecting an article that is composed of 90% unsourced original research to a more developed target is best practice. And moving that content to the user space of a user at their indirect request ("how can I work on a redirected article?") is also best practice. You seem to use terms like "provocation", "personal attack", "violation", and "vandalism" very loosely, without understanding what they mean. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I might feel better, if you would work on improving the content with sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
As you have been repeatedly informed, the burden of proof is on the editor adding content, not removing it. You need to find sources for the content that you want in the article, not me. Is this making sense to you yet, or would you like me to rephrase it another way? Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, you added the unjustified redirect and you can deescalate this in good faith to article improvement. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
ZuluPapa5, I explained to you why the article was redirected. It is unsourced original research and has been in that state for eight or more years. When you remove the OR all you are left with is a stub. Short stubs are redirected to larger articles. You are the one responsible for article improvement, and moving an article to user space is not a personal attack as you have claimed here. It is a helpful way of researching a topic when it isn't ready for article space. Since you asked how you could work on a redirected article, I moved it there for you. However, you have now requested that it be deleted, so I have created a duplicate for you over at User:Viriditas/Purpose for you to work on as time permits. I will make notes showing you how much work needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Coming from WP:30

I have undone the redirect. Viriditas can nominate it for deltion if he feels it should be redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you restored an article that is composed of 90% unsourced original research and synthesis of primary source material. Evidence provided here. Why would you restore such a thing as opposed to redirect? And why would I have to take it to AfD? Do you always restore unsourced material and original research? If so, I should probably inform you of our policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". So, why have you restored it? Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, as a supporter of 1RR, why don't you try to reach consensus on the talk page of the article? Why don't we try to work on the article first? Cheers, Racconish Tk 04:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I like your style, Racconish. See you on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I made a proposal on the article's talk page. Could you kindly comment? Cheers, Racconish Tk 08:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That warning is poor form because I was reverting the page and mostly just asking you to take the page to WP:AFD where a decision to redirect the article can be decided. Do not do this again as the warning was not even relevant.Curb Chain (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

SFSU Class Project: Checkbox improvement

Hello, and thanks for adding that info. You may have noticed a problem. Only one entry for each article is required, otherwise, we can't keep track of the checkmarks. Others are adding the same article name multiple times. What's needed is for me to remove the creator bar, and just make a list of articles, with perhaps a last column for the creator or major contributor's name. I will do that. Ideal would be for a checkbox thingy like at the bottom of each article where you can rate it. This way, helpers needn't click edit, hunt down the right article, and get the ticks in the right place. Do you know who made that article review box? Where is the "Wikipedia Corps of Engineers" who can put together a simple box for the page? Any suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead and change the table. The simplest solution at this time is to add multiple student names to the student entry line. Can I go ahead and do that? Also, asking the students to add their article names here is a bit redundant, since they are already listed on the prof's page. So maybe change that to "please check that your name matches the article" instead. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Another thing that might help coordinate the effort is to add an entry to the table for Wikipedia editors willing to help out on the talk page. For example, Cloveapple (talk · contribs) was helping out on Talk:Blood on the Forge (maybe you could contact them and ask them to sign up as an editor willing to help?) and L.tak (talk · contribs) was helping out on Talk:What Work Is. If there is at least one editor signed up for each talk page, that might provide extra eyes. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Good plan. I will do those things right after the weekend. Now, what about the "Wikipedia Corps of Engineers"? Any guidance on that? I have no idea who programs. A million thanks for the help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it OK if I finish updating the list by consolidating the names in one place and adding the articles? That way, when you do the update, it will be ready for you. Getting the developers to make something takes a really long time. I don't know how long that rating box took, but if I had to guess, I bet it was a year. I'm not sure where you would make feature requests, maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests, but keep in mind, what you are really asking for only requires a bot that would update a table based on flags we set in a project banner, not a feature. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "flags we set in a project banner". As you can see, I simplified the table. Now it's clear and sortable. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Instead of making a feature request, you can create a generic class project banner with parameters that represent each flagged component (for example SFSU Class Project|class=stub|gng=yes|copyvio=no|refs=yes) and have a bot update the list. It's the same idea you had but can be implemented in a matter of hours to days rather than weeks to months. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, what a clever bunny you are! Very nice! Now, two things: How does one make the template, and how does one have a bot do stuff? This sounds like those bot-generated article tables with the coloured boxes showing how many stubs, A class, B class, in a given project. Same thing right? Can it generate/update the table, or only produce a summary? Looking at this, I don't think I could make one. Who can? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, the easiest way to proceed is to make use of the infrastructure already in place. Since you are working with WikiProject Classroom coordination, it might make sense to look at the templates in use by the project. Would it be easier to modify {{Educational assignment}} or to create an entirely new template? What would be the best way to add parameters to that template in such a way that would allow a bot to use them to update the table? Maybe check with your IRC friends, or contact some bot owners to find out. You could try contacting User:Rich Farmbrough and ask him. He has helped me with Femto Bot in the past, and he might be able to point you in the right direction. Just tell him very simply, what you want to do with the flags on the educational assignment template and how you want a bot to update a list. Keep it simple, and he might just do it for you. You might even want to share your original idea with him. It occurs to me that you might also want to add additional parameters, such as the assessment class and, because the class is going for GA (I think?) why not go whole hog and add GA criterion flags as a preparation for a review, such that when the flags are checked, the class will know when to submit the article for an official review. I think that could be very helpful. Unfortunately, I don't think they realize how much work this will take. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I can sort of make sense of the Educational assignment template. I was just on IRC but didn't get very far. Again, can a bot actually update the table with ticks? Also, a dead simple banner might be best. Other banners can be added for other things, but I think a single-purpose would be good for this. Easier to get into service right away, and modular. I will contact Rich Farmbrough, and have also posted at the SFSU talk. Thanks again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been following the discussions on how to handle student projects more effectively. The ideal solution will be to design a toolserver based "Student Management System". Some thing in the lines of this. The system will allow a new class to be added, the teacher and a list of students. The system will then keep track of all the contributions and report them. This will save a lot of time for human editors. I don't have any experience on the toolserver, may be other devs can help. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes! That's it. I was bugging people on IRC to make something, and they said an in-wiki thing would be difficult, but a toolserver thing would be possible. This would be perfect.....but. The but is, I've been trying understand which is the path of least resistance. Basically, a helper picks a list of articles, adds, say, categories to each, for example, and then must record the fact that that step is done. He can either do it but updating each talk page banner, or simply go to the project page table, click edit, and paste in a checkY to each entry. I'm starting to think that the latter might be best. Ideally, what I wanted was a table like on the project page, that you don't need to click edit on. You just click the little boxes like the article evaluation box at the bottom of each article. If that's impossible, then it's a choice between the talk banner system, and manual table edit. The latter actually seems like it might be easiest. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Inviting you to comment on a naming issue

Hello Viriditas. I have just submitted a proposal to un-capitalize "dynasty" in the titles of all wikis on Chinese dynasties (Han Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, and the like). I don't know whether you will agree, but I would be interested to know what you, as a thoughtful and experienced editor who is both serious and flexible about policy, think about this issue. I have also invited other users whose judgment I trust: Anna Frodesiak, My76Strat, and CWH. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me. I will take a look a little later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion occurring for redirects to the Occupy Wall Street article

The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill

Thanks for the recommend. It was good. So sad about Picasso being eaten. Poor Sophie. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

THAT picture

As I read it, the RfC conclusion to move the nude pic was based largely on doubts about consent to use the image. I also understand that those doubts are no longer an issue. That removes the larger reason for moving the pic.

I still believe it was one of the worst and most confused RfCs I've ever seen, with some of the most illogical and dishonest posts, so it's understandable that you and I may have reached different conclusions (perhaps along with the closing admin).

The principle of least astonishment is just one of many policies that could be applied to this issue. I'm not astonished by the image. More conservative people may be, but hardly anybody in that RfC was willing to put such concerns in the first person, and say "I am astonished and offended by that image".

I don't think any consensus was reached, and the RfC conclusion was hardly a conclusion at all, and pleased nobody. Not sure where we go from here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict Niihau

I was editing the article before you did and now I don't know how my edit can fit. "Niʻihau was the second island to be visited by the crew of HMS Resolution on January 29, 1778 during Captain James Cook's third Pacific expedition, dropping anchor south of Kamalino Bay. Cook called the island Oneehow (O Niʻihau). Kaneoneo, a high chief of Kauaʻi, whom he called Teneooneoo, presented Cook with food and water and other items including a Niʻihau shell lei which is now in the British Museum, and Cook, in return, left goats and pigs, as well as seeds for melons, pumpkins, and onions for the people of Niʻihau. After Cook's death at Kealakekua Bay on the Big Island in 1779, his successor James King landed and provisioned Niʻihau before setting sail home; King anchored at Nonopapa Bay which later became known to foreign sailors as "Yam Bay" because of the high quality of yams grown there. The island was visited by other sailors including Captains Nathaniel Portlock and George Dixon." Can you tried including these info?

Also the situation in Kauai and Niihau has me really confused. According to Cook and Fornander, Kaneoneo was the chief to whom Niihau owed allegiance at the time, not Kaeo. Kaneoneo was also another husband of Kamakahelei.
Sorry, I was offline. Looks like you got it? Are you incorporating the history of Niihau material? Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Just only that. Are you planning to expand it or something or create an article for Elizabeth Sinclair?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you help me expand User:Viriditas/Elizabeth McHutcheson Sinclair with references? You'll get credit for a DYK. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm really busy right now. I have a lot of homework to finish, but I will help you provided that you can help with the organization and grammar. Also if possible could I give you the bare url links and you can make into orderly citation templates. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you start on the references cleaning. Also check David Kamehameha, see if you can add anything and help me reference this [8].--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? Which article needs referencing cleaning? Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth Sinclair's article. And the link on the David Kamehameha article which I mentioned above. This one--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll try and have it done in the next day or so. Thanks for letting me know. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott Tannas

I approved this AfC. I'm not sure I should have. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be salvagable. It's connected to Desjardins Group and several other articles. I'll take a look when I get home later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, here is the issue: right now, Western Financial Group (as Western Financial Group Inc.) redirects to Bank West. Most of the Scott Tannas article concerns Western Financial Group, (which meets WP:CORP) so if we needed to merge the material into that topic, we would have to restore the redirect. The problem I see in the bio, is that we have an article on WFG and Tannas. Can the biography on Scott Tannas stand alone? As far as I can tell, he is known as the "Founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Western Financial Group", and he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
One other thing. The article was created by an account named ROICOM (talk · contribs), which appears to be the same name as the public relations company, ROICOM Consulting, LLC[9] which represents clients online. Since this account was created in August, I'm assuming the reason they used the AfC process was to avoid a COI, is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Your first paragraph: This is also what I found. The sources talked about Tannas enough to merit an article, so I couldn't refuse for lack of sources. If the article's content is stripped down to information only about the person, then that's no longer an issue. I know we're supposed to allow articles on the thing they're notable for, and not necessarily the person, but the sources talk about him in particular. It would be odd to merge a person into a company article, no? A bit of a pickle.
  • Your second paragraph: The "com" part of the name just didn't ring a bell for me. I should have immediately noticed it and googled it. A lesson learned there. Your COI avoidance assumption is likely correct. One thing is certain: the article was created to promote, and I don't like that one bit.
I'm going offline now, but I don't think we have a problem. Keep in mind, we would much rather prefer that PR companies use the AfC process rather than creating multiple accounts, so ROICOM did the right thing. One thing you might want to do right now, is remove all of the unsourced content from the biography article on Tannas. Then, take a look at how much is about Western Financial and how much is really about Tannas. To me, Tannas sounds notable, but so is WFG. Do we have enough sourced content to write about Tannas? If not, we could merge it into an article on WFG. Then again, we might have enough to keep the bio. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. At least he went via AfC.
I don't see a problem of having the company and person articles coexist, so long as the person article has content mostly about the subject.
I will zap all content having {{cn}}.
One of the reasons I approved against my better judgement was because I felt I was biased against it. I wrote at IRC:
  • 15[02:25] <+Anna_Frodesiak> roicom: i say yes, and i would like to hear another editor say yes too
  • 15[02:25] <+Anna_Frodesiak> the reason is that i'm biased...both ways.
  • 15[02:26] <+Anna_Frodesiak> i'm canadian and i'm not crazy about business people having encyclopedia articles
  • 15[02:26] <+Anna_Frodesiak> so i'm not very neutral
There was nobody else there to take over, so I made a decision. I should have walked away. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance, and for taking the time. I will make the {{cn}} removals, then self-clunk to induce amnesia. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you talk a little bit about why you don't like business people having articles? The problem, as I see it, is that the notability guideline doesn't discuss it, which makes our job much more difficult. They do discuss, on the other hand, entertainers, musicians, politicians, etc. Someone needs to add a section about business people. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, from an emotional standpoint, I don't much like business people, so I don't much like them having articles. But, I agree that they should have articles, just the same as musicians, etc. Don't worry about my bias getting in the way. I recognize it, and if anything, err on the side of inclusion. I don't like Matt Koehl (or his outfit) having an article, but agree that it should exist.
I agree that someone ought to add a section about business people. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever seen It's a Wonderful Life? I would say that George Bailey was a good businessman. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
George Bailey is fictional. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Scott Tannas sounds like a modern-day George Bailey, don't you think? :) What about Seth Goldman? What don't you like about him? Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I did say "...don't much like...". I guess some are okay. I did start Jehangir Wadia. The whole concentration of wealth thing just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe business people should visit some small African towns. Plus, I've got a soft spot for underdogs. (I just discovered that I'd put a coffee jar down on the bottom half of a gecko hours ago. He was still alive, and must have suffered so. I had to dispatch him. I adore geckos, and am totally gutted.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I might go a step further than "some" and say "most" are okay. If someone has a bad experience at a dentist who did a poor job on their teeth and decides that based on their bad experience all dentists are bad, you might think they were being silly. I think the same holds true for businesspeople, many of whom are just breaking even. The problem with doing business, as I see it, is that as a world, we are still stuck in 19th century practices, and worst of all, short-term thinking that places short-term profits over and above the long-term planning required to maintain and grow a stable society. And as you've likely seen with Inside Job, business schools aren't helping, and are in fact contributing to the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If they make something like bread, I can live with it. If they're suits out to concentrate wealth dilute the wealth of others, then I'm not. The externalities are just too great to have a "can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude. It forces the rest of the world to follow suit, pardon the pun, and causes people to starve.
  • I don't mind dentists. Except of course for the one who quickly sanded all the smooth enamel off the surface of two of my teeth after filling a cavity. "You just removed the enamel off the front of my teeth??? What the?" --> "Don't worry. It will be smooth in a couple of days." --> "You just filled cavities. Why did you do that???" --> "Don't worry. It will be smooth in a couple of days." --> "You did that so that in a few years I would have new cavities, didn't you?" --> "You had two cavities." --> "What are you talking about? Why did you do that?" --> "Don't worry. It will be smooth in a couple of days." It's still rough over here. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There is really little difference whether they make bread, cars, cell phones, or pet rocks, the problem is still the same. Why are people in business? They are in business primarily to make money. However, if you talk to the average business person, you will find that they enjoy their work, and very often enjoy serving the community in some capacity. That is really key here. When you've got large transnational corporations that have no connection to the community treating people like dollar signs rather than like human beings, then you've lost your connection with the customer. And when these behemoth corporations buy off politicians and end up running entire countries, you've got the facade of democracy and a new feudalism, where people on the bottom are "given" just enough freedom where they won't complain, but are basically forced to work harder and for less money. At the end of the day, this is a problem of perspective and when it comes down to it, psychology. We live in a world of abundance, yet we are told that scarcity rules the day. We have every resource at our disposal to create a paradise, where we spend our time working on the highest value known to human beings—contemplation—yet most struggle to survive just so that they can find fresh water or put food in their stomachs. We could, tomorrow, launch a network of space-based solar power satellites into orbit that would beam down enough power to provide enough energy for the needs of everyone. We could redesign cities in the spirit of Frank Lloyd Wright, and turn the world into a park where people work because they choose to work, in the spirit of improving humanity, not in bondage to those who would destroy it. These ideas, these concepts, have been discussed for centuries, even thousands of years. Some people have tried to implement them by forming small communities, only to be wiped out by the establishment as "heretics". Others have kept these ideas alive in the form of fiction, and have taken these nuggets off of the dusty, forgotten pages of ancient books and brought them into the realm of reality through the word of law, creating legislation and governments to further the dream. However, whenever these ideas have been corrupted by the minds of lesser men, they have been turned into ideologies, and those have only led to more suffering and less freedom, with petty tyrants rising up, one after the other to dominate and oppress that which cannot be constrained. Freedom demands responsibility, and that's the last thing that people want, so we have the system in the world today because humanity refuses to grow up and address problems with real solutions, answers that require changing our perspective on the problem, and seeing our place in the world anew. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I will respond! I just need to collect my thoughts. Plus, I'm only half way through Inside Job. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


I just read what you wrote again. You make a lot of sense. I'd like to email it to a couple of friends. Would that be okay?

I just finished Inside Job. I really didn't know that these monied institutions get so deeply into universites. Terrible.

There seems to be a nasty tendency for coalescence in this universe. I'm not sure if that's the right term. I'm referring to objects or people grouping together and sucking everything into its sphere of control.

Then again, maybe the root of all of this comes down to human nature, Maybe we're just naturally pack animals, and when the pack is too large, it malfunctions.

Anyway, I'm just happy to be alive somewhere between the early, savage times, when a king's henchmen bonked you on your lice-ridden head and took off with your stuff, and the future, where futuristic army-cops will bonk you on your lice-ridden head, and take off with your stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the stalking

I owe you a cord of celery. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Don't make me barf. :) Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Imagine being shipwrecked on an island where only celery grows. But, just over those shark-infested waters is Toblerone Island. We'd be building a celery raft in like two seconds. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just my luck, it's white chocolate Toblerone...I'm staying on Celery Island. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Fine. Maybe you'll be rescued by a ship from that other neighbouring agrarian island and live happily in the capital, Kalesville. That's waaaayyyy worse! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm partial to Fiddlehead Fernville, myself. Love me some fronds. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Mmmmmm. Quite a delicacy in Canada. Available here in Haikou. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Viriditas! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you please strike out "slink away with" and replace it with "come up with" or "end up with" or some other similar phrase? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See my comments on the discussion page. There's nothing wrong with the word ("walk stealthily") and as a supporter myself, it was clearly not used to denigrate. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw and accept your explanation. But if some editors can misinterpret what you said, then there's still value in rephrasing it so other editors don't make the same mistake. But it's up to you. I won't belabor the point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The point of what I wrote, is that there are supporters other than myself who refuse to compromise in the face of an underwhelming show of support. There is no consensus for the change in policy, that much is clear. That there are vocal supporters on the page saying we already have consensus, makes me think they need a kick in the pants. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've clarified, to the point of becoming self-deprecating. Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

Restored this[10]. If there's something to it that I'm not aware of, feel free to remove the comment, or let me know and I'll revert myself. Tom Harrison Talk 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned, since I wasn't online at the time, however, my iPhone was next to me so there's a chance I had the browser open and somehow swiped the screen. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Looking into this further, that appears to be the case. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_22&oldid=1143860218"