User talk:ViriiK/Archive 2

Our mutual friend

Guy like that are just the cost of doing business at Wikipedia. Once his talkpage fills up with enough warnings and blocks someone will take him to ANI. He'll get a second chance, then a mentor, then another chance, then some kind of voluntary sanctions, then a topic ban, and when he finally realizes he won't be able to push his POV he'll disappear. Going by his edit frequency, this process will take a couple months. Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Lionel, I'm glad you're here. You guys will both appreciate the irony to be found in this diff. Note what he says he is not interested in. I think the lady doth protest too much. Belchfire-TALK 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that before and it made me laugh as well when I checked out his entire history. I try to be open to everything on Wikipedia just as you both have been. Right now, keeping these edits in check is just a big headache but I'm still motivated anyways. ViriiK (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

[1] The both of you might be interested in this which he's removed his warnings as with our discussion as the reason for blanking out his talk page. He's aware of this conversation now. Hello Still! ViriiK (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please leave his talk page alone. His talk page history is the first place admins will look for red flags. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This comment didn't go in. I realized that when I found the Wikipedia discussing the blanking of warnings where they said that his warnings will be archived anyways. ViriiK (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that. Found it quite humorous. Lionel explains how he's going to screw himself, by himself, and he thinks it's a nefarious conspiracy to "get rid of him". You can't make stuff like this up. Lionel's absolutely correct, we should template him when it's called for, ignore his B.S., and go about our business, but avoid going out of our way to interact with him. Belchfire-TALK 09:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And now they'll find one. Have a great day! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, to any future admin that notices this page, these discussions took place after warnings were implemented against the user. I merely opened the conversations regarding the problem with this user given his declination to work with other users to push POV issues. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain that Wikipedia administrators can see for themselves that you were actively encouraging people to fill my talk page with warnings as the first step to getting me kicked off. Thanks for being so blatant; I'd hate to have any ambiguity about this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Before? Good luck with that argument. ViriiK (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I realized that when I looked up the policy of blanking warnings which pointed out those warnings are archived anyways. ViriiK (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A sammie for you

	Hello ViriiK, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for for your commitment to a WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV encyclopedia! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy!

NICE! I'll bet Pass a Method would like one of those. Belchfire-TALK 07:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh

[sigh] What's the over/under on how many more times we'll see drive-by's try to plop the dog thing into the Romney articles without bothering to check the Talk archives? It's not like they have hot new information to share. And by the way, have you looked at any of the Obama articles lately? I was in Political positions of Barack Obama last night, and it's like a ghost town. Full of stuff from 2007-2010, but very little at all has been done to it since the election season started. It's almost like... like... he's not very popular any more. [shrug] Belchfire-TALK 23:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've avoided that side because it's not exactly new information to keep up on since it's the same old same old again whereas the current BLP is a lot more active and fairly new. Anyways should we close the haicut conversation brought up by you-know-who using the archive templates? It's a dumb topic to dredge up again and without any basis. The idea that BRD should be used in this case was absurd. ViriiK (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting idea. I was just looking at the dog guy's discussion attempt on a different article, and I noticed that somebody shut him down pretty quickly. That seems to be an under-utilized tool in many of the articles I've been frequenting, and it deserves a look. I would fully expect some push-back, though. By the way, if you want to reach me privately, take my full name from here and put Gmail behind it. Belchfire-TALK 00:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope I wasn't going too far in representing the other users on that topic since there is an obvious consensus based on previous discussion not to include it particularly the homosexual part which had no bearing on the story whatsoever. It was just a untasteful tactic by the writers of that WAPO story to imply some kind of connection between the two when the writers knew that wasn't the case at all. I assume without the space by the way? Let me know if it worked. ViriiK (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:Mitt Romney? No, your last change appears to be just a comment. Belchfire-TALK 01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about edit

Could you please explain this edit, which reverted this one?

Before answering, you might want to refer to:
Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings
Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments
Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments
--Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I already took the advice of another user to leave it alone after the first revert. However he was properly warned unlike his 3RR warning against me. Can you take a look at my page history? I was warned for edit-warring despite the fact I was at 1RR. He's already lied to me twice now accusing me of requesting page protection and accusing me of edit-warring. ViriiK (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec-Still's post removed) Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are wrong Still. You have a right to 3RR to remove unsourced content from a BLP. So when you said "nobody does" you were wrong. Editors enforcing BLP have the "right." Can I help you with anything else, Still?– Lionel ^(talk) 08:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the above refers to a removed post, not the post directly above it. For the record, ViriiK's answer was The Right Thing, essentially saying "I didn't know that policy then, I know it now, and I will follow it in the future" I wish more Wikipedia editors had that good attitude. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone...

...agrees. Arcandam (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bold edit!

Hiya! I made a bold edit, I assumed you wouldn't mind. Arcandam (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. ViriiK (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to voice your opinion about whether or not the opinion of the president of PETA is a notable POV? We can easily get a consensus on the talkpage. 108 agrees with me. Arcandam (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Templates

I've noticed there's a dispute going on between User:101.161.38.174 and you on Template:Steve Jobs, which is on my watchlist. Personally, I support your reversion because I'm against adding pictures in navboxes, especially without discussion or consensus. It clutters up the template and is unnecessary for navigation. But I'm wondering if you can clue me in on the dispute? I've noticed similar edits by the IP on other templates.--SGCM (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So V you're against pics in templates? Just when I was becoming fond of you. Have you tried a pic in a template? Once you start, you can't stop, hahahaha! If you haven't noticed, I put pics everywhere... – Lionel ^(talk) 07:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Amusing but it depends to me honestly. Steve Jobs template is pretty small and the focus at least to me should be on the categories within. Whereas Barack Obama (his picture is too huge in it and holy crap so many articles), George W. Bush, etc have pictures mostly because the picture isn't distracting away from the content and they're quite notable. I'm not saying Steve Jobs isn't notable but honestly I don't know what though. Maybe it has to do with my mood? ViriiK (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! If the user isn't responding, then that's problematic. The consensus is that, as per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Be helpful: explain, editors must explain their edits, especially if disputed or controversial. I'd recommend bringing the issue to the attention of administrators and editors. I would advise against following another user's edits. It's against etiquette, and policy warns against it. If the user is unresponsive and disruptive, discuss him directly on the noticeboards. Have you tried WP:AN/I yet? --SGCM (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm aware that it isn't polite to follow him around since it's a form of hounding. I've found a lot of questionable edits by him which I've had to revert although I'm sure other users would have reverted his actions anyways. I've added a lot of pages to my watch list so sometimes I see him once in a while and I dig through his contribution history which a lot were just bad. I honestly didn't think to discuss him at ANI because I don't really have a good reason to make a report at least in my opinion. Most of his contributions centers around categorizing so it's hard to suggest users to submit an explanation on that basis in the edit summaries. However he has the habit of modifying or submitting political templates such as Nazism which did not help. He would also modify templates such as the Libertarian template to add people who didn't contribute to the theory. ViriiK (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If the user is persistently unresponsive, while continuing to make controversial edits, concern likely is warranted. I hope you manage to find a way to resolve the issue. Cheers, and good luck!--SGCM (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. – Lionel (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey why don't you join project conservatism if Sir Lionel our grand Poobah offered you the invitation then you would be a great addition; only together through the project can we be successful in defending and propagating the truth throughout wikipedia not just on some articles. Please join it is really fun project to be a member of, look who the leader is, Sir Lionel, the defination of fun John D. Rockerduck (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no need to join any group though. Thanks for the thoughts. ViriiK (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a shame you would have made a great addition to the posse John D. Rockerduck (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:

I don't know if you're watching my user talk, but I've replied to your message there. Tiderolls 00:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalsim

(accidently posted this to another editor) If the amount of vandalsim is bothering you I will support semi protection should you feel the need to request it. So sad that people take advantage of the opening to just be jerks.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection has already been requested by Joj anyways. I'm sure the process is taking its time. ViriiK (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For fighting liberal bias an a number of articles John D. Rockerduck (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I'm surprisingly liberal though but also moderate. I guess you can call me a Blue Dog Democrat or RINO. Either labels I don't care for. It's funny I've been labeled a zealot though [2] which is amusing to me. "What amuses me are the desperately amateur attempts at cloak and dagger work by unpaid zealots." Ladies, I'm a ninja! Watch this cloak and dagger stuff at work! Besides how do you do cloak and dagger on Wikipedia? Is he saying that I'm supposedly part of the Romney Campaign or some religious wacko group in real life? Inquiring minds would like to know. ViriiK (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Vague much?

Might want to give more detail.... -- Avanu (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Same opinion as anyone else. So, hope that helps. -- Avanu (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say it needs to be discussed in a manner that is open to scrutiny unless there is some overriding reason not to do so. -- Avanu (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OPSec "Social welfare"

ViriiK: I'm not sure what you are not understanding, but you have to provide a footnote that is RS and NPOV. Wikipedia pages (and the one you cited doesn't agree with your statement anyway) and the organization's own site don't meet the standards -- read a little about them if that's the confusion. It's an absolute requirement. If you do, then I'll go along with it. Otherwise, it has to be removed. guanxi (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

By United States law, all 501 organizations MUST declare what organizations they are. It is not optional. ViriiK (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Family Institute of Connecticut

Art Pope

Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#501.28c.29.284.29_organizations "501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."

Americans Elect

J Street

The point is none of these require what you are demanding. For example, the information on J Street's status was used based off themselves, not other sources. ViriiK (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The way it works is, the info remains unless someone challenges it; then it needs an NPVO RS cite. I challenged 'social welfare', which I had only seen the organization refer to itself as. Anyway, you found the cite, so it's irrelevant. Thanks for providing it. guanxi (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Now expect Still to fight tooth and nail to discredit every source possible. It's only natural of him since he is an tendentious editor (See One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources). Afterall, he's here to "fix" Wikipedia, not build an encyclopedia. ViriiK (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that stuff is a waste of time and makes everyone else contentious too. Another editor accused me on the Edit Warring noticeboard. I actually though that "social welfare" was the group's own description (to look less political), which was why I challenged it. You'll appreciate these edits: [3] [4]. Have a great night! guanxi (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what Belch's contention is but you'll have to deal with that yourself. Meanwhile I have a life to attend to however it's good that we resolved it. It got a little heated but that's to be expected at times. ViriiK (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The method to my madness

Okay, if you look at the schedule, the actual business of the convention is over by tuesday at six PM. Every single vote, whether or not it's actually contested is on Tuesday afternoon, and thus the convention is over. This is unprecedented. All the speeches, or rather most of them, are for the purpose of informing the delegates about the merits of the candidates before the convention's consideration. The Format goes back to the Days of Jackson and Van Buren. I want to make things in chronological order. So the Nomination goes first.Ericl (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand how the method works. However I rather have the results at the bottom of the page with the list of speakers above. So that way there is an order to chaos. ViriiK (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Award for you

	Silly Season Bumper Sticker
	You are one of the top contributors to 2012 Republican National Convention and it shows in the quality of the article. Keep up the great work! Here's a bumper sticker in recognition of your efforts. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 11:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Explanation for temporary break

Hi there. I merely wanted to paste the following material into the Romney 2012 Campaign article:

“ According to The New York Times, when the Obama camp put material on television that "makes no effort to put any of Mr. Romney’s statements into context", the Romney campaign responded by saying that Obama was trying to distract Americans from real issues such as high unemployment. ”

This was discussed at the article talk page, and no one objected. The reason why I created a temporary break is because I am on an iPhone, and therefore cannot paste material unless I am pasting it into a completely empty section; inserting a temporary break creates an empty section, then I paste the material, and then I remove the temporary break. No one has ever objected when I've done thus in the past. Perhaps you were unaware of the reason for it. I admire your editing, and did not mean to tick you off. May I go ahead with the edit? Cheers.24.181.178.235 (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Restless?

I'm not in a hurry to revert you or anything because I don't have an opinion on the rest of the edit, but do you really think "Romney was restless for a company" is the best way to write that? "Restless" seems like a WP:Euphemism, it seems like that should be worded in a more precise way. - SudoGhost 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue I had to revert. There was two weasel statements that I reverted that the user wrote and I removed them based on WP:WEASEL. ViriiK (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I do see the "some sources" and "others claim" part lower below; that doesn't belong in the article either, but I just wanted to bring up the "Romney was restless" part since it reads very awkwardly to me, and see if you had any objection to changing that specific wording. - SudoGhost 02:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It can be modified. Be my guest. Just discuss in the talk page before going ahead like that Newyork guy did without inquiring into it. ViriiK (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN Christian Right

You weren't specifically mentioned in the DRN, but you've had some input on the article so I thought it pertinent to inform you: [[5]] Naapple (Talk) 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! The discussion concerns the Christian right. Psalm84 (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Washington State Politician Residences

This is an ongoing problem where newspapers recite what Senate and House staffs tell them. This is an email exchange I had with Melissa Santos at The (Tacoma) News Tribune on Friday over this article

Melissa Santos,

Sen. Maralyn Chase lives in Esperance, not Seattle as the print version of today's paper stated and not Shoreline, which the online version currently states. Esperance is an unincorporated enclave surrounded by the city of Edmonds. I get this information from the state voter rolls, which states, among other things, that she resides in the HOLLY precinct in Snohomish County, found here. It'd be reasonable to cite her as being from Edmonds in the newspaper, given that's the city used on her voting address and most people aren't aware of the names of unincorporated census-designated places, but its misleading to cite her as being "from Seattle" or being a "Shoreline Democrat" given she doesn't even live in King County.

Her Reply:

Thanks for the note.

Your point on her not being from Shoreline is well taken. We have this issue with several legislators because it is hard to say "unincorporated Snohomish County" or "unincorporated Thurston County" and have people know where we are talking about.

The stuff we get from the Senate Dems always says she's from Shoreline too. Anyway, I will talk to my colleagues about whether we or not we should start saying she's from Esperance.

Thanks,

Melissa

Also, you're changing correct information to incorrect information when it doesn't even match what the politicians cite. Jay Rodne cites his residence as being North Bend on his official House website, not Issaquah as you changed it to. North Bend is a city by the way, not a CDP. Also, Seattle politicians do cite their residence by neighborhood, like Bob Hasegawa, Eileen Cody, and Frank Chopp. Also, its untrue to state that politicians don't state their residence as being a CDP, because Tim Sheldon and Brandon Vick (which you changed his residence from Felida to Vancouver) do.

I'm interested in accuracy, not what the staffs of politicians say. My own State Senator, Tracey Eide, lists her residence on her official Senate website as Federal Way, despite her residence being in the Redondo neighborhood of Des Moines in precinct: Des Moines 30-0954. If you want to accurately list someone's residence, order a copy of the voter rolls. It'll only cost you $7 - though its free for just King County - and you'll know the name, DOB, voting address, mailing address, precinct, and voting frequency of every voter in the state of Washington - including elected officials.Champ68 (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations however you are automatically reverting all the changes I've made. Especially you've ignored the discussion on Don Benton which he is from Vancouver, period. Follow the revert rules of Wikipedia. You may be new here but you aren't immune to the rules. Especially I've made changes in good decision. Even the http://www.senatedemocrats.wa.gov%7C Even the website democrats identify those. I'm not paying $7 just to satisfy your demand. When sources those juridictions they preside over, then we must use them. Paying $7 to get private sources is not a good source of information and thus becomes original research. ViriiK (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Now per your discussion with the newspaper, I can understand where you are citing actual sources like the website of the Representative but when I find news sources for other representatives that states their general region they represent, I must use those. When you want to use neighborhoods to be more exact where they live that aren't CDP's nor cities, it's another issue. You want to be extremely accurate but when we want Wikipedia to be helpful to people and adding confusing info doesn't help users which is why we have a Confusing template. Don Benton for example is my representative but he still hails from Vancouver even the people who live in Salmon Creek, Brush Prairie, Hazel Dell, etc all say Vancouver, WA. The local Columbian recognizes him to be from Vancouver Washington and he's been in Vancouver politics since 1996. ViriiK (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. So I guess someone has to put a lot of unnecessary effort into thwarting your quest for inaccuracy. If I were to put the date of birth on every state legislator, then you can use their name and DOB to freely accessing their voting address and precinct info (WA SoS MyVote). Does that satisfy your original research complaint? Or are you going to change it back to what some lazy or overstretched reporter put in a newspaper? Okay, so the PI says Rodney Tom lives in Medina (link), but then you change it back to Bellevue - as you just did on the Majority Coalition Caucus wiki page - because the Seattle Times cites him as being from there (link). What are we to do? If only there were some reliable source to find out where people actually live, not just where their staff says they're from. I guess using the Washington Secretary of State's website for "Rodney Tom" born on "July 25, 1963" that shows him as living in the Medina 48-0750 precinct wouldn't be a good resource, would it? I guess we should ignore that information, even though occasionally newspapers, such as the Seattle Times, will run corrections after they blindly parrot what some politician or their staffer feeds them. And its hardly just Rodney Tom.

So, Brandon Vick and Don Benton are both Washington politicians living in the unincorporated suburbs of Vancouver. One says he's from the CDP of Felida, while the other says Vancouver, but we accept both because that's how they describe themselves? Its like The Rolling Stones - if you claim to be the "World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band" long enough, people will start reporting it that way. Also, as to the issue of something that's accurate also being confusing, newspapers don't have the luxury (yet) of having clickable text, but on wikipedia if someone doesn't recognize Felida they can click it and find out where it is. How is that confusing? To someone from Boston, (usually) the only Vancouver they know is the one in B.C., so why persist with inaccurate information? Also, accurately describing someone as being from an unincorporated suburb is informative, because those areas are typically far more conservative than the urban incorporated cities they border. That way it makes much more sense to someone who knows this dynamic to say that Don Benton is from Mount Vista, WA or Brandon Vick is from Felida and Jim Moeller is from Vancouver, instead of saying they're all from Vancouver.Champ68 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are relying on Primary Sources which we cannot use but have to rely on Secondary Sources according to Wikipedia rules. See WP:PRIMARY. The media may not always be accurate but they are listing them as such within those respective districts. Vick and Benton are Vancouver politicians because the media labels them so, not what you or any original research finds them to be. Especially when original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. ViriiK (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Columbian lists Brandon Vick's residence as being both Felida(link) and Vancouver (link), though the latter links to his official House website, which lists his residence as Felida, so which it? I know, its the one you prefer, not the more informative one. Same goes for Maureen Walsh. The Walla Walla Union-Bulletin in the past four months has listed Maureen Walsh's residence as both College Place (link) and Walla Walla (link), but you prefer Walla Walla so I guess we should go with that, even if in reality she lives in College Place. Let's look at Tracey Eide. The (Tacoma) News Tribune cites her as living in Des Moines (link) and Federal Way (link), but you prefer Federal Way, so I guess we'll go with that even if she actually lives in Des Moines. The Seattle Times lists Karen Keiser's residence as both Des Moines (link) and Kent (link), but you prefer Kent, so I guess we'll go with that even if she actually lives in Des Moines. I'm so glad you're keeping me honest by referring to - but not citing of course - newspapers as reliable Secondary Sources when they fit your preferences. That's the purpose of wikipedia, right? To state things as facts, even if they're not true, as long as they fit ViriiK's preferences.

It's not a matter of preference but rather Wikipedia policy. It's what I've discovered and the residence were obviously due to Original Research. I went through one-by-one for each representative and senator and which was the most commonly used association for their district name under R-(City) or D-(City). Your email to the newspaper does not qualify as a secondary source unfortunately. If you want to send this to arbitration, by all means. Leave off the reference list. I do not need to see it on my talk page and since I removed it, it was at my own discretion and it is my talk page. ViriiK (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Siliguri

I noticed you reverted my edit. As Nepali language and Bengali language as they are official through out Darjeeling district and Siliguri falls there. The local language tags should be added. Why reverted? BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 07:06, 6 July 2013 (BST)/06:36, 6 July 2013 (IST)

I don't think a discussion is necessary based on the edit history. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Right but, For geographic articles, script of the primary official language of the area can be added and For biographical articles, only IPA and pronunciation should be added. So, I am re-inserting the Nepali script and Bengali script in this article then. I hope it is alright. Bijoy Chakrabarty (talk)

So link me the relevant information from Wiki policy on that first before doing that. Biographical are people, not cities. ViriiK (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see the page Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). Thank you. Bijoy Chakrabarty (talk)

Cloud

Hi....I wasn't trying to brush you off at all. My impression is that MilesMoney is a ban evader and is indeed Stillstanding-247. I also was being facetious about the whole cloud thing...it's a bogus argument that some conservative cloud is out to get him when folks like myself aren't even interested in political articles that much. Best wishes.--MONGO 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Right right. I've just been a silent observer until sticking my nose in ANI today. For the last year I've been too busy to care about sparing off with contentious editors. ViriiK (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Question for MilesMoney

Awww, MilesMoney didn't want to answer my question.

Okay, since we are done here, like I said, I didn't make any SPI claims. I made comparison and I already got my SPI question answered in ANI. Thanks for trying and remember to do what you preach. AGF. But in order to do that, you must also practice it too. Oh quick question if you are going to answer it. Am I one of the sockpuppet people you claim? Quack! ViriiK (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me know Miles. Am I one of the sockpuppets that you suspect of being someone else? I whole heartily endorse a SPI against me. Would you against yourself? If not, why not? ViriiK (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely hope against hope that MilesMoney has the sense not to respond to you ViriiK. As an observer here, I'd say your behavior has more of the signs to indicate you are an off-wiki meatpuppet recruit who's drunk the drink. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've been on a hiatus due to a career that I've got with a Fortune 500 company (if you can guess who). I do edits here and there. But the fact is I got burned out the last time by the last editor (StillStanding-247) back in 2012 who did the same contentious crap that MM does. But if people want to label me as a meatpuppet, then they can try. It's BS and I can form my own opinions. ViriiK (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Second, they'd be hard pressed to convince me that I started watching these articles after the fact when I've already had them watched for more than a year. When I see the same name popping up over and over in talk page, then something's up. Then yep it turns out that contentious behavior is taking place and it sucks to be involved in which I don't want to even get involved in. Real life concern takes priority over an internet fight on minor word changes. ViriiK (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, there are many many contentious and argumentative and confrontational editors on WP. Just as it's very unlikely I could name your company from the clue that it's one of the 500 Fortune elite, it is similarly unlikely that MilesMoney is the same bloke as Mr. Stillstanding, merely because they are both contentious. In fact it's a great deal more unlikely because the Fortune 500 is a closed set with various inherent similarities among its elements whereas the set of WP editors is open and more diverse. Good luck. Try not to let this stuff bother you. If you focus on your editing contributions, you will know you've done good work for WP. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, even if they're not the same, their actions is a cause for concern, no? ViriiK (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have serious concerns about any editor's behavior, that's legitimate. Invoking the name of some guy who was gone a year ago doesn't add anything to the description and evaluation of Miles' behavior. The question of MM being one and the same as SS has been litigated. What purpose does it serve to bring up the same charge? If you are concerned about MM, then describe and document your concern. There's nothing you can say that would make MM inherit the actions of the banished SS. That's already been tried and failed. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I wasn't aware of the thread in question until I linked it after a search. So I didn't know if it was brought up before or not. All I pointed out was that there's a similar pattern between the same styles and action is warranted to deter or prevent those behaviors. ViriiK (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The action in cases of such concern is represented by the thread you linked, which was resolved and closed. That should have been evident from the page you linked. It is orthogonal to the ANI issues raised by TFD. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ViriiK. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Hit me up on Twitter so we can discuss this. Just get rid of the "The" and you'll find me. I've been in contact with Chris Loesch over this. (Please delete this afterwards)