User talk:Viridae/Archive6

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

Archived

Page archived. The most recent discussions are in archive 5. Viridae^Talk 08:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Robnubis

I have not vandilised any pages, well I vandilised User Talk L's page after he vandilised mine (he spammed DESU), over a disagreement about editing. I hope he's been warned aswell. He did start this...Sorry and all. But i never did anything wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnubis (talk • contribs)

    Thats fine, to be honest i should'nt have responded to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnubis (talk • contribs) 

Mistake AIV report on W k chiang

That wasn't my final warning, but duly noted. I had mistakenly presumed this editor may have removed any other prior warnings as he had been reverted twice before for unconstructive edits. --健次(derumi)^talk 08:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By final warning, I meant you gave him a final warning straight off, rather than one of the ealier ones in the series that isaall. I am uninclined to block if that is the case. Viridae^Talk 09:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was another editor's final warning, and I had missed the fact that there were no other related warnings given. Anyhow, I appreciated your clear decline reason and hope to be more careful in the future. I went back and gave the editor a lvl3 and some welcome links; I agree that this editor should not be blocked as he hadn't been given much of a chance to read up on anything. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Questioning your support of biased (politically motivated) deletion of Wikipedia entries

RE: The wiki on Charlene Downes' murder which was deleted at the behest of a gaggle of partisans wishing to make a political point, the original deletion debate made this very clear which was why Wikipedia succumbed to the desire to cover their ass and delete the whole thing i.e. deliberately trying to make the deletion decision itself difficult to challenge. Your further actions could also be regarded as supporting the rather corrupt (for want of a better word) actions of Wikipedia who are supposed to share information not keep it hidden to appease a few partisans. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.44.146 (talk • contribs)

I say, please stop modifying other peoples comments. If you wish to challenege the validity of the deletion, go to WP:DRV. Viridae^Talk 11:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Division_Titles

Why was this page deleted? Cableguytk 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Expired prod. Would you like it to be undeleted? Its took you a long time to notice... so it can't be too important. Viridae^Talk 06:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Betacommand

I have unblocked Betacommand per his request. He said he had accidentally set the bot to run from his account, and this has been fixed and won't happen again. In addition, Betacommand is no longer a sysop, so the risk of an adminbot is not possible. Hope this is ok with you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to do so myself, having seen his post on his talk page. When I originally blocked, I wasn't sure wether he was an admin or not, so I blocked him and went in search of the user rights log, which is surprisingly hard to find. Viridae^Talk 04:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:List of administrators may be useful should a similar situation come up again sometime. Newyorkbrad 04:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I eventually found m:Special:Log/rights but couldnt find any evidence of de-sysopping. Had to go through our users list logs in the end to see if he was marked as an admin. Viridae^Talk 04:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[1] also works ^∆ 05:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I used in the end, but thanks. I can never find the rights log when I need it, and for some reason I can never get it to work? Can you point out in the stewards actions log on meta where your bit was removed so I'm not going mad? Viridae^Talk 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Its here you have to specify the Wiki when searching- i.e. User:Betacommand@enwiki, it won't find it if you just look for User:Betacommand. WjBscribe 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks. I didn't specify the User: part at the start, thinking the software could figure that out itself. Obviously not. Viridae^Talk 05:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hi, Viridae. This is a good picture,[2] I recently moved an image out of the taxobox, perhaps that one should go there. I must try and expand the article one day. Regards, Fred ☻ 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of cropping it, to highlight the subject. It is a good pic of a RBB snake. Viridae^Talk 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD R3 expansion

Hi; regarding this revert, would care to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD R3 expansion, and maybe leave a rationale there? I do not understand what makes it non-redundant, or what it's supposed to add to the original version. —Piet Delport 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert on JzG's Talk Page

My apologies. I thought you had restored the text he deleted and I thought I was re-deleting it. It's late at night and I'm clearly more asleep than I am awake. Nonetheless, my advice to you is to let this one go. My prediction is that you will get no mileage from this quixotic quest and waste much energy in the process.

--Richard 07:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

I did notify the uploader of those nonnude photos per IFD rules, and added the notification template to all of the captions. One of the people who had it on their protected userpage, I notified on his talk page. ←Ben^B4 08:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To make it absolutely and completely plain, Viridae, you are completely and utterly out of order in your false and damaging accusation that BenB4 by contacting me for my opinion is engaging in canvassing or engaging in any way in unacceptable conduct. Talk pages are intended for communication. That is what they're for. --Tony Sidaway 08:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Contacting an unnvolved party about a deletion debate when that party is almost guaranteed to support your side of the issue and when you haven't contacted people on the other side of the debate (short of the mandatory articles creator and major contributors) is quite clearly canvasing for support of a postion in the debate. Viridae^Talk 23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not, had never been, and will never be, wrong to contact another editor for an opinion. Even if you think he'll agree with you. --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't for an opinion, i have no objections to contacting someone for an opinion, but contacting someone to support your side n a deletion debate s clear canvassing. Viridae 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read what BenB4 wrote? He wanted me to do something about the use of Wikipedia to post an image of dubious provenance that depicted possible minors in sexually suggestive poses. I got somebody to delete them, some misguided individual undeleted on some petty bureaucratic excuse, and then finally Jimbo deleted. Do you seriously think BenB4 did anything wrong in drawing my attention to thise abuse of Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He was drawing your attention to an IfD discussion on a subject in which you had not directly interacted before, but on which your views were clear, hence canvasing for support of his position from someone guaranteed to support it. That Jimbo deleted the images is irrelevant. Viridae^Talk 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction "creep"?

I'm sorry, have we met? (Mind meal 11:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Viridae^Talk 11:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, how does a sentence in a paragraph reach the point of becoming unmanagable? I know you. You are definitely a deletionist, defending the right to nominate articles for deletion without specific rationale. Makes me sick.(Mind meal 11:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Yikes. I mean, ... Wow. Deiz talk 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For gods sake assume good faith. I do nothing of the sort. Instruction creep means adding more and more instructions on what the user must and must not do to the point of it becoming unmanagable. I did not say that that sentance was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I did say it complicates matters and is largely unecessary. Your changes to a policy page have been objected to, so please remove them and discuss the matter on the talk page, attempting to get some consensus before you make the change again. Read the policy tag at the top of the page. Viridae^Talk 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Please see WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion paragraph two, sentence one. Nothing controversial, as consensus already exist that voters should refer to policy. Just saying delete per WP:NOT is not enough, for WP:NOT has a lot of information on it. Users need to demonstrate they know specifically what part of WP:NOT it violates, otherwise it becomes nothing more than a canned response deletionists use. Self explanatory addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind meal (talk • contribs)

• If somebody wants to lecture me they know they'll get a response. If I walk up to a grown ass man and tell him to sit down, I'm gonna be ready for a punch. This place makes me so frustrated, and don't say wikibreak time. People start out editing in good faith, and then they get some articles they spent hours and hours on nominated for deletion by some self-professed 20 something year old with a "deletionist" box on their user page like its a badge of honor to destroy the hard work of another. Then their rationale is some essay they like, "incomplete list" or "not encyclopediac". You know the drill. I defended mine, but it was hard. I spent days defending perfectly legit lists because of these little kids who don't add content, don't do anything....nothing but raise our blood pressure and attempt to undermine the site. What next? Is the next article I make going to be nominated for deletion? Should I even bother anymore? That is all that goes through your head. So you begin your time at Wikipedia as an editor and creator of articles, and end up spending your time defending your work at AFD. Work that violated NOTHING but someones whim. I'm tired of that shit. Its time something gets done about it already. if someone votes incorrectly, they should be told about it and it should be tallied. If they keep doing it, they shall be banned from voting. Otherwise, why have WP:POINT#Refusal to 'get the point'? Anyway, I'm typing to the wall anymore. People with a few extra control options often think alike. I expected no different. (Mind meal 13:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Not sure I'm supposed to respond to that. All I can say is thank you for your time and effort. I'm not much of an article writer myself - partly because in my area, anything I know about is already written (Science/biotechnology) and I don't have the vast amounts of energy required for me to write at the moment (honours student, 3 months to go). However I do respect people's hard work and judging by your user page you are a prolific article writer. Viridae^Talk 13:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing of Ψ-113μ's RFC/N

Thanks for closing this, but I didnt really get a consensus on whether the user would be able to have a latin userpage redirect to his - ie: have user:B-113m redirect to user:Ψ-113μ, sort of like user:Jimbo does to user:Jimbo Wales. Is this something that can be allowed, because i am about to send the user a message, but i'm not sure whether to advise him to do the preceding. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, that is allowed. Viridae^Talk 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

Thanks for reverting this little diadem. It was intended for a user talk page and even there it was pretty off-topic. --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Thought you had gone nuts there for a sec. Viridae^Talk 02:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFC

If you don't mind, could you please give me some advice on how to deal with what you said is a warrantless RFC, and the larger issues? --NE2 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say ask them to provide some evidence of actual disputed conduct, as the evidence they have provided is pretty damn thin. If they can't, ignore it. I'm pretty sure arbcom won't take on the RfArb though so you will probobly be back there all too soon. Viridae^Talk 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See his first RFC, but I'll try to squeeze in some information on his disputed behavior. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything paticuarly bad there either. Certainly nothing to warrant an arbcom case. And there was no evidence in the second RfC that the disputed behaviour had not changed. Viridae^Talk 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Viridae, I was going through your archives when I noticed you told someone you liked Invader Zim, when I thought to myself "Wow, someone actually likes something I like". I'm amazed...

but...

To business. I want to become an administrator (they get all kinds of cool abilities!). I was thinking of how I could when I remembered that you were an administrator. If you could tell me how or at least tell me how you became one, I would be forever in your debt. Also, do you think of me as a friend or as an enemy. If you could respond to me on my talk page (so I'm alarmed when you respond), that would be great. P.S. What is my "rank" in Wikipedia?

 --TimySmidge 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

lolcats.

Everyone I've ever heard say "lol" out loud says it as 'el oh el', so it would follow that it's an ElOhElCat, not a Lullcat. Wikipedia should assume it's a combination of lol and cat, and lol is widely pronounced as an acronym (which it is) and not a word (which it probably will be within this decade.), and An would be the correct prefix in front of lol (the acronym). I'm gonna take a look through WP:LAME, this has to have come up somewhere before --L^ie! 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I came by for something else, but here's my data point: I do hear people pronounce "lol" as "ell oh ell". But I always hear "lolcat" as just two syllables, rhyming with "wall cat". As evidence, I'll add this MetaFilter discussion and this comment from LiveJournal's founder. I also note mutant forms like "lolrus" and "lolbrarian", which seem to be based on the "lahlcat" pronunciation.

Deletion logs appearing at page creation

Hi! I just saw your comments on the JOG arbitration, and I wanted confirm that the deletion log did not appear when you recreated his page. Here's the bugzilla entry for the fix, which wasn't committed until June 2nd, and it looks like it went live somewhere on or before June 3rd. You can see some on-wiki timestamps about it here on my talk page. Hope that helps! William Pietri 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Golf Australia

Hey mate. Just a quick note of thanks for your help in resurrecting the Golf Australia wiki. Here's hoping the moderator in question heeds your comment. I'm more than happy to provide further justification for why it should exist and/or edit the page so it is appropriate for inclusion.

Cheers!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair85 (talk • contribs)

Re: What the hell?

It's an in-joke. I'm surprised someone who has knowledge of lolcats doesn't know about desu or pools closing due to aids. Have you considered lurking moar? --Longing.... 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The desu bit rang a bell but I had no idea what. The AIDS stuff just looked offensive. I'm not a 4chan lacky, the closest i got was b0g.org. I guess I had better remove the vandal warning from the other editors page then. Viridae^Talk 12:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

4chan has no lackies. Anonymous is legion, etc. Anyway, I already removed the tag, but I figure by the time you read this you'll have seen that, come back to change your comment, and made an edit conflict that someone ends with my accidentally moving the page to User talk:Viridahey dude what's goin on, I just wanted to let you know that everything's been kinda chaoti --Longing.... 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Viridae^Talk 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cuba tourism AfD

Hi. You must have closed the recently, thanks. Your closing remarks included: "one condition of this article being kept is that a more neutral title is rapidly agreed upon, and the article moved per the suggestions of several of the people participating in this discussion." I assume that I am one of these people. BTW, are you allowed to say any more about your judgment. For instance, whether you found persuasive this argument (1) "The Title may be POV because naming guidelines call for article titles to reflect the self-identification of entities like Cuba or the Cuban government." Or this (2) "In addition, 'apartheid' and/or 'allegations' may be loaded, biased terms." Thanks for your time on this. Please reply to my talk if you don't mind. HG | Talk 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm wondering if you could make the Tourism in Cuba template a bit clearer for future readers. Specifically, would you consider something like: ""This article, under the name "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba", was nominated for deletion on Auguest 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep, but rename." I realize this info is found in the link, but I'm not sure how many Users would go there. As is, the template may be confusing. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but no promises because it is templated. I will reply to your question in a bit :). Viridae^Talk 10:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don Schrader

Hey--why did you delete the Don Schrader page? Don Schrader is a local celebrity in Albuquerque, NM known for his public access TV show and frequent letters to the editors of the Daily Lobo and Weekly Alibi. Seriously, he's a local institution. I used that page whenever I wanted friends in other parts of the country and the world to know about Don, as I know many other people did.

How can we get our Don article back?

I'm not quite sure how to sign this but I'll give it a shot:Tochariana 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I do it right? Melissa/tochariana

You signed it correctly. The page was deleted as an expired PROD. If you believe it should be undeleted, let me know and I will do so. Viridae^Talk 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the page should be undeleted. Google Don Schrader and you'll get a sense of how renowned this guy is. He's just part of our identity. Thanks!Tochariana 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFCN post

I went ahead and placed a notice on the two users, but I guess my question would be, if the user contributes, ignoring the request for a shorter name, what action would be taken? And, am I supposed to remove the report, or does the monitoring Admin for RFCN do it? I don't want to overstep my bounds. Thanks for your help letting me know it is okay for an editor to let a user know about policy violations with regards to usernames. ^Ariel♥Gold 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will archive the report. If they don't respond, gimme a yell and I will block that account, forcing a username change or a new account. Viridae^Talk 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Doh, thanks for fixing my notice, I didn't remember it defaulted to their userpage, not the talk page, lol. ~*Smacks head*~ Thanks for fixing it for me! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe no problems. Viridae^Talk 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD on article you deleted/restored

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schrader. - Crockspot 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You like to debate

You and your kind are cowards that hide like soulless roaches...Wikipeida is a lie farm where orwell's words ..all Animals are equal, but the pigs are more equal are no truer words said.

Now you can debate me here or I will fine other forums to continue the fight...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.187.189 (talk • contribs)

You aren't

You aren't replying to my above question (Hey). Answer it please. --TimySmidge 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

Sorry, forgot. See WP:RFA - that will explain the process. Viridae^Talk 11:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Run that by me again??????

....it didn't need admin attention in the first place.

So what you're saying is that a biased editor, who repeatedly restores a POV link, and who does his damned to hide that fact when caught, is not a problem???

Sounds like this whole site needs to be wiped clean and started over with fresh people as admins.

Psycho Samurai 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an editing dispute, sort it out among yourselves. Try to come to an agreement on the talk page or if that fails try dispute resolution. Admins are not mediators or arbitrators and since there has been no great policy violation that requires a block or deletion then it is not an admin issue. Viridae^Talk 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Viridae (talk · contribs) is absolutely right and I'd add that you may want to step away and calm down a bit Psycho Samurai (talk · contribs) before pursuing dispute resolution. You just got off a block which appears to stem from personal attacks over the same content edit warring. You might want to back off a bit.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Closure of "Jimbojonesisgod" on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Bearing in mind that closures are supposed to be grounded in relevant policy, or indirectly in relevant policy by way of policy-based arguments in the debate itself, perhaps you can elaborate for me why the debate was closed on the issue I presented when no policy based counterarguments had been given in the debate, and there were none in the closure. If "cultural references" and things that are "hardly supposed to be serious" are excepted from the user name policy, perhaps you can instruct me where I am to find those exceptions. I fancy I can find "cultural references" and joke user names aplenty that would be blocked nonetheless. Deranged bulbasaur 11:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply this: Not a name of a well known/widely worshipped god. The "is god" part is a widely used phrase and as the username policy DOESNT seek to block accounts/put off good faith users for the slightest perceived policy violation I have chosen to allow the username. It comes down to this:is this expression on faith going to be disruptive in an editing environment? I believe it will not and nothing in RFCN convinced me otherwise. Viridae^Talk 12:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU/N

Hey I noticed you seem to be the most common closer there so I thought I'd ask you. Are the dicussions archived? There is an archive page, and it says it's updated by a bot, but it has not updated since May. I was wondering if they are archived, and where. Thanks! i ^said 04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just did a bit more looking, and the bot that archived, User:HBC archive builderbot, has not edited since May, which was when the archive was last updated. We can't ask the bot owner why, or if it can start again, because it was H. So, your opinions on archiving are asked. i ^said 04:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think archiving that sort of stuff is a bloody nuisance if it has to be done by hand. I would be happy for you to put in a bot request for a bot to do the archiving if you thought it might be useful, but most of these discussions need not be archived in my opinion - they are still available in the history, but the format is just not as inviting. Viridae^Talk 05:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

few edits?

I saw your name then looked at your edits. You have many edits but they are nearly all administrative edits. You must have made editorial edits (mainspace) in order to become administrator. Have you exhausted all your knowledge? This isn't an insult but I'm curious if people transform and change personalities upon becoming administrator. I have been on WP only 3 months so I'm learning about the culture here.

About another topic, I have visited Australia twice. I enjoyed Melbourne very much ! Polounit 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I never did much editing in the first place, my enjoyment here has always been with the repetitive stuff like vandal fighting anyway. These days all that holds my interest is admin stuff - I don't have the time for anything else, and as I am about to start writing a 20000 word thesis - i certainly dont have the motivation to write. Viridae^Talk 11:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCN archive

Since you close a good number of the RFCN discussions, I thought you might be interested in this. Per some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Questions, I have started to alphabetically archive recent RFCN reports at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Index. I have also put a link to the archive on the main RFCN page. Feel free to comment either on the archive talk page or at WT:RFCN. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving RFCN

I'd be more than willing to help with this, if you can give me a couple tips, such as how to know when to "end" a discussion, and any special tags or procedures that need to be done to get the archive done correctly. Let me know if you'd like to teach me! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother with the closing of the discussion - I'll do that - its supposed to be an admin anyway. It would be helpful if you would remove them and stick the appropriate permanent link inot the new archives page though :) Viridae^Talk 01:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, if I run across any that have been closed, I promise I'll do that! (Runs off feeling useful) ^Ariel♥Gold 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, big help :) I HATE doing it. Viridae^Talk 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no real problem with leaving closed reports on the page for a couple of days and then archiving 2 or 3 at once. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm i know. Viridae^Talk 03:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. Thanks for the offer. because of the lengthy reply, I will send you an email, if you have no objections. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Viridae^Talk 02:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sent. I hope it is ok :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And I will let you know when it "goes live". Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case for SevenOfDiamonds

As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of Arbcom case?

Why did you blank Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser ? --Golden Wattle ^talk 10:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Its is a courtesy blanking, as the page states. The user in question requested it via email. The content is still accesible in the history but is not available for indexing by search engines Viridae^Talk 10:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. You may wish to be aware of User talk:123.2.168.215 --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Attach site link

Viridae, posting a link to an attack site can be reverted by anyone, and repeated posting is blockable. Any valid WP evidence can be posted, in principle, but not external links to attack sites. Thanks, Crum375 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Aactually the no attack sites policy went down in flames. That link is necessary for the discussion so stop removing it. Viridae^Talk 01:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Any posting of an external link to an attack on a Wikiopedia editor can be removed, with no 3RR limit. This is clearly such a case. Crum375 01:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As pointed otu by someone else, this is link is not being linked to to attack someone, it is being used as evidence in a discussion about thier behaviour. That is not a personal attack, and therefore does not fall under WP:NPA. Viridae^Talk 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A link to an attack of a Wikipedian on an external site is clearly an attack. Per multiple ArbCom decisions it can be removed with no 3RR limits. Crum375 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It quote clearly is not an attack in the context it is in and arbcom does not make policy. I support the rmoval of attack sites where they are being used to attack and editor, but the editors behaviour is under discussion and that link is being used as evidence. You have way blown 3RR. Stop now. Viridae^Talk 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Be advised that WP:NPA#External links is a core policy. - Crockspot 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Be advised that it is not in the context of a personal attack, so therefore doesn't apply. Viridae^Talk 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mario Party

Question 1:Where do you go to see someone for an article review?

Question 2:Can you tell if there's something wrong with the article in the headline? AR Argon 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Article review? Not sure what you mean? And I can't see anything wrong. There is characters my browser can't display - but that is the name in japanese. Viridae^Talk 08:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean to check and see if it's FA-worthy. Oh, by the way, where do people delete articles? AR Argon 09:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the first one - maybe need to put it though a peer review - but I don't know how. Deletion is done at WP:AFD, WP:PROD and WP:CSD - they are the three types of deletion. Viridae^Talk 09:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you support or oppose deletions? AR Argon 09:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Figured it out. AR Argon 09:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCN

I want to just thank you for reminding me, at least, that RFCN isn't a "vote" page. (And, okay my ignorance may be showing here, but what does it mean when people put exclamation points in front of things, like !vote?) I will admit that when I began taking part in the RFCN process, that just happened to be the way people were formatting things, (similar to AfD, RfA, etc) so I followed along assuming (without researching, my mistake) that was how things should be done. Now that I have read your comments, I'll change my methods. I do think that I brought at least a little bit of clarity to the Handiarts issue, so I'll stand by my contributing there, but I will be sure not to make it appear as if I'm "voting" in the future. Again, thank you for that advice! ^Ariel♥Gold 09:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The exclamation point means "not" - its programming. Don't worry about the comment - you actually made some constructive input so it wasn't directed at you. Viridae^Talk 11:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I'm used to seeing it as ≠ (does not equal), so that's where I got confused, lol. Thanks again! ^Ariel♥Gold 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your archive box

Would you mind using 4 digit years? It's somewhat confusing for me to look at now. I'm not going to ask you to use ISO 8601, but at least having "20XX" would be appreciated. Looking at your box right now is like a tongue twister for my eyes :)--lucid 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot and see if it stretches it too much. 07:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Here. You told me you wanted to know when it begun, so it has. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Omg, I just went to your userpage to grab a link for something I wanted (and knew you had), and I saw the gray banner ad at the top. I sat through the whole thing, lol. That's too cute! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

restored thanks. deleted again.

am i banned from having a wikipedia entry for life because i was unaware that a "banned" user made an entry for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.196.195 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I will need more information as to who you are exactly? Viridae^Talk 13:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OH I think I know. No. Just the article as it was written apparently. I may have a go at writing one myself but I am very busy. Viridae^Talk 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Liz Cohen article

Viridae, do you have the ability to show what the article about "Liz Cohen" said, before it was deleted (for a second time)? I am curious if this is about the performance artist Liz Cohen or the autism author Liz Cohen (BBB AUTISM GUIDES: Strategies for Parents by Parents). --Form990 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the performance artist. Viridae^Talk 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it permissible to write a new article about Liz Cohen, or would it just get deleted? I'm guessing that she's notable enough, being that she has 19,000 hits on Google, and articles in Wired magazine and Fast Company magazine. There's already an extensive biography about Cohen at another wiki, but it doesn't appear to be GFDL licensed. --Form990 16:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No you can write another article and it won't get deleted as it will not have been written by a banned member. Might i as whats with all the new interest? This thread and the one above it are about the same article and came within 10 minutes of each other...? Viridae^Talk 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand... the thread above this was also about the same article? Anyway Mister Z has rewritten the article, so all is well. I was reading an old copy of Fast Company at my dentist's office a couple of days ago, and the story of Liz Cohen stuck in my head. --Form990 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the thread above this seems to have been started by Liz herself. Viridae^Talk 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, Viridae/Archive6, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

 Socks 01  23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :D Viridae^Talk 23:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Viridae!! “It takes a long time to grow young.” -Oscar Wilde Ariel♥Gold

^Ariel♥Gold 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:05, 07 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Viridae/Archive6, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Pat^{Politics rule!} 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry for not identifying myself

...i'm new to this. yes, i, liz cohen, asked the question about banned users. thanks for the responses and support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.196.195 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Viridae^Talk 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Viridae. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Meatpuppets

Ah, sorry, I hadn't noticed it was you who protected. Makes sense, and fair enough. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though; only someone scratching the surface might not realise I think, really... Anyone taking a look at the history would see it's pretty obvious. Cheers. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

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

-WarthogDemon 20:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link on the Lolcat page

Hello.

On http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolcat I recently added a link to http://lolcatz.net, a site which contains over a thousand categorized and searchable lolcats. However, you removed the link again. Would you care to tell me why?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasse Houmøller (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because there are thousands of lolcat pages amd wikipedia isn't a collection of external links. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet you don't mind having a link to http://www.macrocats.com which is inferior to the other sites linked. Could you elaborate on this logic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.2.209 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because its there doesn't mean I like it. Feel free to remove that, I'm supposed to be writing a thesis. Viridae^Talk 12:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

[3] - huh? -- Cat ^chi? 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was self explanatory. Considering the arbitration case is about annoying each other, it is asking for trouble to modify his section. It doesn't need to be wikilinked, there is no imperative that it is so I would suggest leaving it alone. Viridae^Talk 11:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Help desk goof

Yeah, well, that's what I get for subst-ing a template I've never used before. Harrumph. Don't you have a thesis you should be working on or something? :P GlassCobra (Review) 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Shh its open and kind of being worked on :( Viridae^Talk 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey. I was just wondering if you still remembered me. You know, you were the first user I ever talked to. --TimySmidge 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hI, i REMEMBER YOU. i HOPE YOU ARE WELL. Viridae^Talk 21:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your advice on complaint about Fred Bauder

I did ask Fred Bauder on his talk page at the time, even though it upset the other parties of the case because they feared retribution from Fred Bauder. Fred Bauder's answer was that his vote in the AFD to Keep was perfectly appropriate as he thought the article by Rosencomet on himself should be kept. I guess what you are saying is that Arbitrators can do what they want and there is no recourse. --Mattisse 13:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You need not bother to answer as your talkpage is not on my watchlist. --Mattisse 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UB

I think you're right that the shortcut should be redirected. That said, in order to reduce confusion, Wp:ub and WP:ub should also be redirected.

See also [this list of shortcuts]. - jc37 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I kept those oens the smae because they were in heavier use. Fell free to change it though. Viridae^Talk 21:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Netmonger (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock but since I have no idea how you came to the conclusion of sockpuppetry, I can't answer it. Can you either direct me to the evidence or checkuser or point the unblock request out to someone who does know what is going on? Viridae^Talk 05:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viridae. These are the conclusions and the math:

• 222.165.157.129 (talk · contribs) is User:Mystic
• Mystìc (talk · contribs) was a confirmed sockpuppet of Lahiru k (talk · contribs) as well as Snsudharsan (talk · contribs), Psivapalan (talk · contribs), Sri119 (talk · contribs), Mama007 (talk · contribs) and Ajgoonewardene (talk · contribs). All of the accounts were confirmed to be socks of Lahiru k back on 2006.
• 222.165.157.129 (talk · contribs) is also NetMonger
• So Netmonger is Lahiru k.
• Lahiru k is also 203.115.31.180 (talk · contribs) who happens to be Kaushini (talk · contribs)

For further info please have a look at the ANI thread and the RFCU case. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, looks pretty solid to me. Viridae^Talk 11:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

My summaries always refer to the vandalism itself, not the person committing it. Are they blunt? Yes. Are they true? Yes. Am I going to stop doing them because HIEV styles him/herself the edit summary police? No. If that gets me banned, more the worse for the project. I'm not going to be pushed around by HIEV on this one, though.K. Scott Bailey 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pettifoggery

I am relatively certain that all concerned save one (the unnamed pettifogger) would have agreed that the AnI in question was a PRIME example of pettifoggery. Why remove it from my userpage as a "personal attack", when I left the pettifogger in question unnamed?K. Scott Bailey 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it was quite clear who you were referring to, and while the edit summaries were mildy uncivil, and pretty much unnecessary, calling someone names is definitely unnecessary and definitely uncivil. Just drop the issue. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only clear to those who were involved in the AnI and have put my userpage on their watchlist for some reason. I'd say that figures up to about 0.00000000001% of all Wikipedians. I put "unnamed" for a reason. It was meant only to describe why I received the Barnstar, which was, in fact, given in part for standing up for myself against a pretty clear example of pettifoggery. The issue is over now, as far as I'm concerned. K. Scott Bailey 01:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is over, stop reigniting it with material like that. If you agree to no re-add it in any way shape or form, then I will unprotect your userpage. Viridae^Talk 01:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a clear case of abusing the tools to enforce your view of how I should keep my OWN FRIGGIN' USERPAGE! Good grief. I add ONE LINE, that clearly does NOT identify the pettifogger, and you find it necessary to protect my userpage? Are you kidding me?!?K. Scott Bailey 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my actions, WP:DR is open to you. I posted at ANI so they are up for review. However I did not protect your userpage because you added it, I protected your userpage because you re-added it, despite knowing it had been removed as a personal attack. You do not have a right to a userpage, and if it is misused, then any admin can protect it, as has been done in this case. Viridae^Talk 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are abusing the tools to enforce your view that what I put was a personal attack. As such, I have asked another admin to look into said abuse. You are now making this a personal vendetta, and you're using the fact that you have access to tools that I do not to bully me into an unnecessary userpage change.K. Scott Bailey 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a personal vendetta... Viridae^Talk 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then remove it forthwith, as the only person that views this as a "personal attack" (which it can not be, as the pettifogger was intentionally unnamed) is you. If you do not, there is no other conclusion that you are making this a personal thing, and abusing the tools in doing so.K. Scott Bailey 02:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and it is already up for review by any one of the thousand admins who might look at ANI. Viridae^Talk 02:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So that's how it's going to be, huh? You decide something's a "personal attack", when it was not. You abuse the tools to enforce your view on my userpage, then you start another pointless AnI in support of your cause. This is a textbook definition of pettifoggery. I have been distracted from doing what I normally do all friggin' day by this crap. Your continuation of it is not helpful at all, and is completely unbecoming of an admin.K. Scott Bailey 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you threaten me with blocking if I don't conform with what you call a "personal attack", though it is not one? No, definitely not personal, is it? You DO realize that all of this pettifoggery is distracting a good editor from doing what he normally does, right? Do you even care? Or are you more interested in making your own WP:POINT?K. Scott Bailey 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On behalf of the rest of Wikipedia, would you please shut up, Scott? HalfShadow 03:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize "the rest of Wikipedia" read Viridae's talk page. He's more famous than I thought. And as to your question, the answer is no.K. Scott Bailey 03:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It is quite clearly an attack on another editor, regardless of whether you name them or not. When it was removed, rather than just leave the issue alone, you continually re-add it. That is disruptive. Viridae^Talk 03:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not "clearly a personal attack" as I've explained numerous times. It was intentionally vague, and was added only to explain why the Barnstar was given to me. You perceive it as a "personal attack" which it was not. You abuse the tools to enforce your view on a personal userpage. You claim an edit to a PERSONAL page is "disruptive" when it is not. The only thing "disruptive" about this situation is the fact that I've spent the last several hours dealing with this BS instead of editing. Good grief!K. Scott Bailey 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer: Don't re-add it promise not to re-add it (and hold that promise) and you userpage will immediately be unprotected and you can do what you like. Stop arguing now and you userpage will remain protected for a while but you can still do what you like. This option was given to you at the start. continue to argue and you waste your own time. Continue to argue and re-add it and you will be blocked for a short time. The choice is entirely yours. Viridae^Talk 03:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I love how you present me with "options" that all lead to "doing things Viridae's way." I will make you no promises. I will wait until an admin whose judgment I actually trust and respect comments on the entire situation before I make any "promises", and even then they will be to HIM and not YOU. You have earned neither my trust nor my respect in threatening blocks, protecting my userpage, and generally making a nuisance of yourself, while pestering me with ludicrously inane issues, and in the process distracting me from work on the project. Before this horse crap subject began, probably 99% of my edits were made in the mainspace. In the last 4-6 hours, probably 90% of my edits have been defending myself from you and HIEV's petty junk. Who exactly is "disrupting the project" here?K. Scott Bailey 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that he not only put it back, but now he's added a whole section on "Pettifoggery" too. This taunting is obviously directed at me and probably you as well. (sigh) -- HiEv 01:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Karnoff

After blasting me on my page about a whole host of bullshit, you were totally wrong about this loser, per this edit. A much better admin, indefinitely blocked him. Get real dude. So, let's see, you accuse me of a whole host of nonsensical issues, and yet you fail to support a block of an anti-semitic pedophile. Hmmmmmm. What are we going to do here? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

Could you please take a look at the comments I left at [[4]]? Thanks. I doubt FM will be taking up any of my complaints.Tstrobaugh 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is all a giant mess. Viridae^Talk 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Heres a better one. Your recent edits have shown a clear lack of equality when warning people about civility. Who appointed you the arbitrator of civility? You warn all or you warn none. Since I noticed you and Crock share a common interest, I am hardly surprised by your actions. Stay off my talk page unless you have something relevant.

In addition to this, you have shown that you are willing to allow yourself to be manipulated by someone who is obviously canvassing for support (see above section). Get off your high horse. If you want to be the arbitrator of civility, lets use some common sense. Baegis 21:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I am not omnipresent I can only warn people for what I see. Just heed the warning and you wont see me on your talk page again. Viridae^Talk 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My Page

What the heck? Why did you close my page? I said I might come back, you retard! God, why doesn't anyone ever pay attention? User:HyperSonicBoom04:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the page history and don't call names. If you wish to come back at some point then ask for the page to be unprotected at WP:RFPP Viridae^Talk 04:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't have to go and protect it like that when you clearly saw I might come back! ^{God, some people are ignorant...} 24.121.73.22 05:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (HyperSonicBoom, not logged in)

All I saw was you insulting people on your user page and claiming you have left. Viridae^Talk 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple times at that. Which is why the protection was there. Thankyou for reminding me that that IP was yours. Viridae^Talk 05:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

~*Giggle*~ You're way quick!

Thanks for deleting that talk page, and for the fast block of that name. I can't figure out how that name got by UAA since September, lol. What do you think of this edit, should that be removed? And this one? Thanks again for the lightning fast reflexes! Ariel♥Gold 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointless keeping any of that, rolled it back. Viridae^Talk 05:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Kinda figured, lol. Thanks again! Ariel♥Gold 06:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Is a virtue. Turtlescrubber 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

huh? Viridae^Talk 05:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you don't have to be so rude when some when is asking a good faith question. Sorry, I find the user name racist and condescending. If you don't, well that's fine. But you don't have to be rude about it. Just say no and move on. Didn't your mom teach you proper manners? Turtlescrubber 06:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing at all uncivil about my response (or at least my first one). I said "already removed once (which means it won't be blocked), please take it to RFCN if you still feel there is a problem". RFCN is where you can invite comment from other members of the community if you believe it may be borderline - which is why I directed you there in my removal edit summary. I fail to see what is at all uncivil about that? Viridae^Talk 06:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Or at least the first one? You're not worth my time. Get some sleep. Turtlescrubber 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Its 4 in the afternoon... Viridae^Talk 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia

He seems to have been encouraged by your remark, and has reverted again, as well as his incivil remark on ANI. I'm taking a wiki break, you're welcome to his wonderful editing style. - Crockspot 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jimbo has now shown this user the door, so I feel somewhat justified in being miffed with you the other day. Since the stone has now been removed from my shoe, I am willing to drop it and move on. No hard feelings? - Crockspot 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

You have mail. - auburnpilot talk 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Username(s)

Hi Viridae, I'm retired, but I am just dropping by to let you know that it may be a good idea to delete the talk page of FullOfRabies and KKK LLS. I am the only contributor of their talk pages, and I left to each of them because I was concerned their username may borderline with the username policy. But neither of them edited(the last I checked), and nor are blatant violations to warrent an immediate block at WP:UAA(correct me if I'm wrong).--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but I think I may as well just leave them - havent edited in ages and therefore unlikely to do so. Hope you are well though :) Viridae^Talk 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and by the way, I think your signature isn't complete. It looks like to me that it has the date, but not your name.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that sigs have to include the name, of course.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I hit five tiles instead of 4 - it gives a date stamp only. ie 3 tildes: Viridae^Talk 4 tildes: Viridae^Talk 23:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 5 tildes: 23:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Standards

you aren't exactly being sugar and spice yourself. If you calm down and cool the language I am sure you will get a better response.

Really. You actually believe that "cool[ing] the language" will have the slightest effect on someone who told me (pay attention now, it was right there on the page) "fuck off, you wikipedia nazi", who has a multiple block log demonstrating his impulse-control problems, and who has had a long-term history of looking for excuses to get me banned? You might just as well wish for that and a pony, too.

Speaking of which, I'm sending you a full copy of his latest message to me, via e-mail. Some redacted highlights:

I know who you are....a[n] ... arrogant bitter angry fucktard whose alcoholic father raped a ... woman and had the misfortune of fathering YOU...piece of shit who uses the fact that he was taunted all his life ... to bring misery and bitterness to Wikipedia. You're the worst example of a wikipedia editor and a human being in general.

...you come across as a bitter 15 year old emo kid. You will never amount to anything except a lonely old english teacher (which means you are also probably a pedophile). The best thing for you to do would be to blow your fucking brains out.

Lemme know how that lollipops-and-rainbow philosophy works out for you. Meanwhile, a good dose of common sense would work out better here on Wikipedia instead of carrying water for trolls. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not talking about your interactions with the troll, I was talking about your interactions with krimpet. I am sorry if this wasn't clearer. Viridae^Talk 13:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to wonder what sorts of action and behaviors executed by a user like Calton causes so much evil hostility to be generated against him. Could it be something he said? - Applyabout 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinzilla?

Thank you little user! Er... Chinzilla? Kawaii! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Hi

And because my attention was drawn to it :) There is a reason my early edits looked a little advanced and you'll find it here. Equally I would now look on those early edits with great suspicion, indeed I have drawn attention to new editors for very similar reasons on other wikis. A new en wq editor created a template, suggested an IP was editing incorrectly, put the template on the IP page and reported it to the admin board - a "new" editor..... Hopefully you are ok with me now - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep all good :) Love the name too. Viridae^Talk 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FOF

Viridae---I've got no problem with you deleting my draft because of a lack of references. I noted this deficiency in the dicussion page. So a question to a novice. What is the appropriate forum to work with drafts --- read not a final -- where the focus can be on content and not form? This seems especially crucial in an article that is contentious.

Make a draft as a sub page of your user page. Viridae^Talk 06:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I put some extra work in the edits, added a bunch of references, and gave it another shot. Hopefully it is good enough to pass your muster. A different thought. Have you noticed how the Wiki-mechanics of editing by replacement can contribute to an impression of contention as opposed to suggestion? Or perhaps it is my novice status that makes me think so. StillWorking 07:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That can be the impression, yes. Assume good faith is policy for exactly that reason. Viridae^Talk 07:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Vondort

I looked at Vondort (talk · contribs) and didn't find a single good-faith edit in over a year here. That is quite literally a vandalism-only account. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You can go ahead an block them as such if you wish, the reason i chose the block length was the edits I looked at were playing with buttons style - inserting sig or an example image. Viridae^Talk 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it's the same person that has been adding "polly want a craker" and other childish nonsense with every edit. Highly unlikely they will suddenly reverse themselves and start contributing verifiable information about Roman architecture and the like.  :) I'll leave it up to you but I would've blocked with extreme prejudice. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look - but assuming you are correct (which I do) then I will indef. Viridae^Talk 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

I noticed you edited the Fellowship of Friends article in the past. There is an issue with Conflict of Interest (COI) at the moment and the article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 05:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope for Wikipedia

You give hope to Wikipedia's future. A crippling virus that disables the typing hands of a specific crew of about 40 admins is the only additional ingredient needed. - Applyabout 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova and Greg

You stated "It's rather a rock and a hard place being stuck between a self proclaimed "wikipedia investigator" who has shown herself to be rather vindictive at times and a banned user". Durova is acting in ways that benefit Wikipedia both here at this site and in real life lectures/columns (whether or not she is paid). Greg has bragged that he was paid to give a lecture on Wikipedia's COI policy and I believe he is trying to take out someone he sees as a commercial rival by harassing her until she leaves the market to him. Any "new" Wikipedian or IP harassing Durova with innuendo needs to be dealt with. Durova has a long history of helping Wikipedia. Greg has a long history at wikipedia of caring about nothing but money. I dealt with Greg from the time of his first announcement in online news about his wiki-business. I tried to find a way that he could usefully contribute. I fought for his right to create user subpages that other wikipedians could then do with as they saw fit. Greg repeatedly mis-characterized (in on-Wikipedia discussions) what Jimbo said (in on-Wikipedia discussions) until he had no more credibility and we were forced to exile him from Wikipedia. His word is worthless. He does not outright lie so far as I have seen, but he misrepresents and misleads and tells half-truths. I told him that I could no more believe him than I could believe Essjay. He seemed ok with that comparison. WAS 4.250 21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion. Mine is that Durova is damaging wikipedia with her self proclaimed investigator status. I dislike her warlike attitude intensely, and would rather take my chances with Greg than Lise. No apology was ever made for accusing Greg of lying to the new york times and no evidence produced to substantiate that claim to my knowledge. Her behaviour off wiki on the SEO forums is also nothing short of ridiculous. Trumpeting her involvement as a wikipedia investigator then chucking hissy fits left right and centre is also damaging to wikipedia. So yeah, you have your opinion, I have mine. Viridae^Talk 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Different people are motivated by different things. I don't have a problem with Durova being motivated by being proud of her investigative skills. I don't see how that damages Wikipedia. The warlike attitude of a dozen or so admins is damaging wikipedia, but take away our warriors and the only warriors at wikipedia will be anti-wikipedia warriors; so we would be even more damaged if they all went away. E-mail her for an explanation of the New York Times thing and see what happens. Can you link to "Her behaviour off wiki on the SEO forums" and identify exactly what you found "ridiculous"? The only ridiculous thing I know about it is that she didn't get paid for it. WAS 4.250 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

Page protections

I see you have protected (albeit on an self admitted "wrong version") Wikipedia:Sock puppetry after commenting on the matter previously...[5]...and editng that page as well [6]...you also did this on WP:NPA...protecting that policy not long after now indefinitely banned editor Miltopia had edited it [7] on a version you had argued in favor of previously...[8]. I'll be offline most of this day, but will check back here later to see what your response it. I believe that anytime someone has been involved in an article or policy discussion or has edited said pages, they should ask a completely neutral party to protect pages via WP:RFPP.--MONGO 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did it on the version I did not like on purpose and announced that. Noone who was actually involved has taken exception, so why should you? Viridae^Talk 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, had tha NPA page not been protected, you would have got a 48 hour 3rr block for the massive edit warring going on - I really don't see why you are complaining. Viridae^Talk 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just see persistant misuse of your admin tools, threats that are unbecoming an admin, and other issues. Is is possible to get you to relinquish your tools voluntarily?--MONGO 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, please stop harassing Viridae. Nothing he has done amounts to a misuse of the admin tools. Also, reminding somebody to follow policy, and that they will be blocked if they don't, is not a threat. - auburnpilot talk 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, but the evidence I am able to put together indicates we have a very problematic administrator. I just thought it would be best if he surrendered his sysop tools voluntarily.--MONGO 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No thanks MONGO, had the call for resignation from someone whose opinion I valued, then I would certainly have considered it. But frankly you do not meet that criteria. Viridae^Talk 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way.--MONGO 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Morelia spilota

Hi Viridae! I'm sorry, but I've had to revert your changes to Morelia spilota and Morelia spilota spilota. Allow me to explain. When the first new subspecies is added to a species, a subspecies for the original form is created automatically: the nominate subspecies. This name is used to distinguish between the original form and the new subspecies. Therefore, the convention here at Wikipedia is to use the species page, in this case Morelia spilota, to describe the nominate subspecies, M. s. spilota, which includes the characteristics common to all of the subspecies. Separate articles are created only for the subspecies that were described subsequently. Ideally, the subspecies articles should describe only how these forms differ from the nominate subspecies (in the main article), lest we start repeating (and contradicting) ourselves. (PS -- You can answer here if you like, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You might like to point me in the direction of this convention (WP:MOS would be a good start). It is ridiculous to use the species page to describe one of the sub species which isn't actually representative, and not the species as a whole. The Diamond is a subspecies, not the species itself, so it makes for incredibly confusing reading to have only one of the six described, especially when half the page IS describing the species as a whole. The carpets ranges and colours are different enough to warrant separate articles on each of the six subspecies, with a species page that describes them as a whole (size, diet, general range etc). An interested reader can then look at each one. As it is currently set up, someone searching for a diamond python actually gets a description of six subspecies, not the single one they were looking for. Viridae^Talk 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not described in WP:MOS, but I thought it was self-evident. You see, before M. s. variegata was described by Gray in 1842, for almost 40 years there was only one form: M. spilota, commonly referred to today as the diamond python. That's what the species description was first based on, and is still based on today, now that it is the nominate subspecies, or typical form. That means it's not just any old subspecies, no matter what you, or I, or anyone else thinks. This is simply the way the taxonomy works. Of course, an article for a species as a whole should not ignore the various subspecies (if there are any). For example, in articles like Bitis gabonica or Vipera aspis, other subspecies are also mentioned in the text for comparison. Nevertheless, these articles still mainly describe the nominates. Your suggestion to create separate articles for every nominate subspecies is therefore rather unusual in my experience and would require that countless other snake articles be modified/created to conform. Somehow, I don't see that happening, so in the mean time I suggest that, instead, you try to understand and appreciate other people's efforts (the exiting format) first. --Jwinius 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another way to look at this concept. When a proposal is made to add a new subspecies to an existing species, its various morphological characters (and nowadays mitochondrial DNA) and other factors, such as geographic range (reproductive isolation), are compared to the nominate to show that it deserves to be considered as a separate subspecies and not just a superficial variation. The principle is described in more detail in our very own article on subspecies: "... a subspecies always has the nominate form or primary species as its common ancestor, i.e. it always originates from a common ancestral stock." In this way, M. s. spilota (diamond python) is the common ancestral stock for all the other M. spilota subspecies, which is why it should be the focus of the article, perhaps showing a little of how all the other subspecies are related to it. I hope this clears things up for you. Cheers, --Jwinius 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that a diamond is the common ancestral stock? Has there been genetic of morphological evidence to prove that one? Or simply just the first described. It comes down to this: it is very confusing for a first time reader to identify information on the diamond when that is included in the article for the species as a whole. Split off into the subspecies, with the common name redirecting to the appropriate article. The argument that other articles would have to be changed doesn't hold water - for a start, if the other articles are very representative of the species as a whole (what I am trying to achieve here) then there is no problem. But even if they are not, that argument is still pointless, being very similar to the AfD argument WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As it stands, an article about a species, that describes in part one sub species and partly the species as a whole, is confusing for both people who seek information about the species AND the subspecies, which negates the point of the encyclopaedia articles on either of them.

According to the ITIS taxonomy we currently use (and even the NRDB's bleeding-edge taxonomy), the "diamond" is still supposed to represent the common ancestral stock for the species. In other words, the species is litterally based on its description; not on some common set of characteristics (see also: Holotype). Of course, it could be that in reality things are different: according to this conversation they should be, so you're not the only one who thinks the current construction looks weird. However, until the experts can agree on a better solution, it's not for us to second-guess them. I'm all for mentioning these new developments in the taxonomy section, but in general we should be conservative and follow ITIS (for snakes, this was decided in WP:AAR last year). After all, if we start making these decisions on our own, very few people at all will take these articles seriously. --Jwinius 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not necessarily follow the scientific method for description, which would seem logical in this case where is it archaic and confusing. Can you show me a good reason why we should follow that method that improves the functionality, readability and ability to provide information to readers? I am going to add that Morelia spilota spilota is the nominate subspecies to the top of the article, thereby imparting that information, but allowing a separate description (and photo when I get someone to release one) on the page Morelia spilota spilota, which will define the diamond as a subspecies. Viridae^Talk 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, Morelia spilota spilota is not just any old subspecies, but the form that currently represents the species. I can't do anything about that, and nor can you, but it's not your responsibility either to decide for other people whether that is reasonable or not and to simply reorganize and redescribe things as you see fit. It doesn't matter what you think: nobody is interested in your personal views. And why am I supposed to defend myself? It looks to me like you hardly have any experience with this subject, let alone with writing and organizing these articles, yet here you are, already acting as though you're our highest authority with the final say in these matters. Of two things I am certain: with this attitude of yours, you are not going to learn anything and you are definitely not going to make any friends. --Jwinius 03:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Diamond is NOT representitive of the species either visually or range and habitat. Just because it is the nominate subspecies (apparently because it was first described) does not mean it is the correct way to impart the knowledge about the species as a whole, using that as an example. What exactly is wrong with having the species page describe the species, indicate that the diamond is the nominate subspecies and then link to each of the six subspecies articles. That allows the wikipedia reader to correctly understand the species as a whole and the delv further into the subspecies as they wish. Wikipedia is NOT a scientific journal or a field guide. As it currently stands, the article was a hodge podge of information about the diamond and the rest of the species, making for very confusing reading. Hell, the only photo was of a coastal, which completely conflicted with the description of their markings. Morelia spilota describes a species of carpet python with six subspecies. These have several characteristics in common, but there are some differences too. It is therefore misleading to describe one subspecies in the article about the species, regardless of its status as the nominate subspecies. It has a trinomial name for a reason, so it would be best to use it, to increase the understanding of the species. There is an easy way to get this correct while still maintaining readability - that is to describe the species characteristics (labile heat pits for instance) indicate that one of the subspecies is named the nominal one and then have separate articles where each of the subspecies, which have vastly different ranges and appearances for a start. This imparts all the necessary information without confusing the reader - which was where the article was before i changed it. I also suggest you calm down. Viridae^Talk 03:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Compare this to Canis lupus, which is the ancestral species from which multiple species are recognised: [9]. Whereas the diamond does not have that ancestral status: [10]. Viridae^Talk 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

G'Day!

Hey, I'm Abbott75 from APS. I used to be a keen Wikipedian, but don't have too much time for it these days. Anyway, just thought I'd say hi, good luck with your pictures. Abbott75 ღ 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

G'day and thanks :) Viridae^Talk 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Am I permitted to add two more names to parties on that case you filed?--MONGO (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont see why not. I am only looking for resolution, and if you think that will help. Viridae^Talk 06:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It might...will decide in a day or two perhaps.--MONGO (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, who are you considering adding? Email me names if you don't want to reveal them on-wiki. Viridae^Talk 08:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO 2 RfC

Hi Viridae. How would you feel about adding the second MONGO RFC to the list of other steps in the dispute resolution process? The more I look at it, the more this looks like a continuation of the same sort of behaviour. Adding me as an involved party would extend the issue well beyond the NPA dispute.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Too long ago. You could make a statement about a history of such behaviour, but unless the arbitration committee wants to expand this to cover general behaviour, not just that related to NPA that RfC is too old. Viridae^Talk 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my gut feeling too. MONGO, however, has for some reason himself now listed me as "involved". I have absolutely no objection to being removed from that list. I have already added an addendum to my statement along the lines you suggest in response to MONGO's addition.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ack! I already added Mongo 2 based on Thomas's also being listed as a party. I also went ahead and added three other arbcom cases where MONGO's civility was at issue, just to show that this is NOT just about the NPA policy dispute, this is about a pattern of behavior MONGO's had in many different venues. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Being mistaken for a content dispute may be a problem. Viridae^Talk 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony deleted Grue's post

I reverted here with explanation. I'm telling you about it because Tony seems not to have taken the seven-removals point of objection at Tony's Oct 4 RFCU #4.
I don't know Grue. He joined the spoiler notice debate fairly recently.
User:Grue/howto subpage lines #4 and #7 have some charges that are probably too metaphorical to prove, but if he gathers proof or adequately softens them, his page would have improved chances of retention. His page does fairly reflect the substantial to outrageous abuses of process that the pro-spoiler editors have repeatedly faced over the past six months, such as manufacturing consensus with circular reasoning (45,000 mass-removals by willfully uninvestigated misuse of AWB [11]; WP:Owning the spoiler guide; deleting spoiler template additions by many more editors; then claiming that the template was unused as proof of consensus; and most recently getting the spoiler template deleted for supposed disuse). This was perpetrated by a group of six-some known as the spoiler police, of which Tony is the chief (see User:Tony Sidaway/spoiler bot). The six month debate over this hijack of consensus and process has reached 1,850,000 bytes and is still growing at WP:Talk Spoiler.
If you are not already aware, you may be unsurprised to learn that Phil Sandifer was the architect of the May 2007 mass-spoilers removal without wiki-wide advance consensus for a wiki-wide irreversible change.
In COI disclosure, Tony deleted one of my posts Nov 5, Nydas reverted it, Marc Shepherd deleted it again, Nydas reverted it again, Farix took it to ANI, where Tony apologized, and I accepted his apology. Milo 04:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

List OF Nairs

See here, and herefor all the List of Nairs discussions. I will say this once and want to make this absolutely clear. Now you can tell me there is biased edits and worksTn pillai 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore him. See how far people have taken this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Durova

Hello! Obviously a bit o a delicate situation going on there, so I would like to proceed and actually help people, rather than give the impression that there is some kind of cabal. I've requested an admin to unprotect the page for me, and I've already emailed Slimvirgin about her edits. When I tell people that wikipedia is an open system, and that we discuss things and share information and keep as little secrets as possible, please don't make a liar of me ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No reflection on your reversion. The protection was because while logged in a couple of times between doing stuff at work, I noticed several reversions on a talk page (ie edit warring). I protected for an hour only because 1. its a talk page and 2. the protection was just to break the cycle of reversions. Viridae^Talk 04:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you just misuse your admin tools again? Haven't you been opposed to Durova's actions as of late?--MONGO (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes MONGO, I protected a talk page for an hour to break up a edit war (see said talk pages history), flagrant missuse of my tools. I also timed the Northern I was doing just so I could come back here with my 10 minutes to spare, check wikipedia and protect it on the version of my choice. Viridae^Talk 04:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, that's at least 3 admin mistakes you have made. We can't have our administrators abusing their tools as you do repeatedly.--MONGO (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, put up or shut up. (though preferably when I have internet access at home again) Viridae^Talk 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be back online in a couple of hours.--MONGO (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You will get little or no response from me if you start one now. I have a new job and am in a new house without internet access at the moment. It just happens that I have a break between setting up my northen and running a gel/purification so I am at my desk writing up my days work. Viridae^Talk 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll need decent access of course and it would be unfair of me to take advantage of your lack of access if you have to explain your actions. How long do you anticipate you'll be before you get better service?--MONGO (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Several weeks. I am not sure. I will let you know. Let it be known that I find it funny that you were adonishing me for my efforts to stop an edit war (which I might add, worked) at the same time as you were repeatedly re-adding a speedy deletion notice... Viridae^Talk 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your abuse of admin tools can wait to be discussed by arbcom for another three weeks. I was trying to be fair in light your move, but three weeks is a long time and there is too much prospect you will continue to abuse your position and act abusively in the meantime...frankly, I think you should have desysopped long ago...but that would be up to the committee. As far as my adding a speedy tag to that article...yeah, it was an obvious speedy and at afd, was deleted and salted in only a few hours. Guess I was right to begin with, eh.--MONGO (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Going straight to arbcom without dispute resolution beyond you coming to my talk page and accusing me of abuse every time I do something you dont agree with, yeah that works. Especially when I have no chance whatsoever to mount a defence because only have brief access at work until I have time to get the net connected at home (I have better things to do than spend my time research sips - like work and buy furniture). Have fun with the arbcom case request, I hope the committee has the decency to reject any request until such time as you have actually tried dispute resolution (here is a helpful link: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viridae) and untill I have enough access to mount a defence. Viridae^Talk 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

you sure are quick to respond considering you don't have decent access. I think I have plenty of diffs showing that we have discussed, as have at least one other, about your misuse of tools. I think an Rfc would be a waste of time since what we are dealing with here needs resolution not discussion at this point.--MONGO (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I have access at work, not at home. The brower may be open while I am working at my desk, but that doesn't mean I have the time required to mount a proper defence. Viridae^Talk 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, we're working on a solution. It's much more important that everyone is trying to solve the problem in good faith, we can worry about mistakes (if any) later. I think Viridae took an obvious step, and as long as we're all talking with each other, not much can go wrong. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement regarding Durova/!! matter

FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting an explanation of your (overturned) year-long ban of me from Wikipedia

I'm only just now noticing that it was you who banned me for a year from editing at Wikipedia.[12] We know how that turned out. ;) Just a couple of questions. Tell me, what exactly was your basis/justification for doing so? In hindsight, would you have made the same decision today that you made then? If not, then why not? deeceevoice (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically acted too fast, and overstepped the mark. I saw your overly long block log for incivility but didnt notice the length of time since the last one (I think I misread it), read the abrcom decision which allowed up to a years block to be placed with the agreement of three admins, suggested that on ani, got cautious assent from two admins and acted on that. No it wouldnt happen again, and shouldnt have happened then. I was being too hasty. Sorry about that. Viridae^Talk 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is simply a lie (again) to assert (again) that you got assent. You didn't get any assent at all for a year long block, assent which was absolutely necessary for such a block. It was a flagrant abuse of your powers which you let stand, defended, and debated even after this lack of assent was pointed out to you.

It speaks volumes about you that the user in question had to come here, rather than you going to her to apologize for this. Likewise that you abandoned deeceevoice to her fate rather than admit any mistake on the AN/I thread.

You really should consider stepping down from admin-ing. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

lol Ditto, 86.42.83.73. I don't know who the hell you are, but I like you! ;) deeceevoice (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good you recognize and admit your appalling lapse in judgment. You're absolutely right it shouldn't have happened: a one-year ban for nothing -- and nothing said in the way of even a reprimand to the offending party at all. But, of course, he's an admin. Your apology might have meant something had it come earlier -- and had I not come to your talk page with this question first. Is it any wonder there is so little respect or regard for admins on the site? No hard feelings, Viridae, but just damn. deeceevoice (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I dropped out of the issue when I realised I had made the mistake, as I didnt want it to blow out into a drama fest. I can't remember what the issues were that brought it to the attention of ani in the first place so can't comment on anyone elses behaviour apart from my own. However, if my inital reading of the circumstances had been correct (and the last block for incivility was more recent) then I think there would have been fair warning that something longer was coming, given that the year long block would not have been performed had it not been part of the arbcom remedy. Viridae^Talk 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It had already turned into a "drama fest" with me having been unjustly banned from Afrocentric. You just smacked me with a year's suspension and then left others to sort it out? Nice. I'm done here. deeceevoice (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodo. Viridae^Talk 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc's talk page

Cberlet just reverted your revert of Brandt's statement on Doc's user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest Viridae not revert it again. Brandt is banned, as you both well know. And when banned users avoid their block to post to Wikipedia, the correct response is to remove the comment, not encourage them. There's a limit to how much disruption via enabling such a banned troublemaker the community is willing to put up with. Consider this a warning against further disruption of that sort. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have seen enough...you are editing protected pages and now aiding banned editors...enough. Please stop misusing your admin position.--MONGO (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

...I actually REVERTED an edit to a protected page, not editied it myself.. get your facts straigh. Viridae^Talk 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My rational for reverting that was quite clear, it was very obvious that Doc was conversing with Brandt on the subject of BLP, and therefore it should be up to him (Doc not Daniel) to remove the post. People with BLP issues need to have some method of communicating with admins, and as that is the route Brandt chose, and Doc had not removed the post, but had instead carried on the conversation, it was up to Doc and Doc only to remove the post when he felt the issue had been dealt with. Viridae^Talk 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, my restoration rational was not as clear as it could have been, it got cut off. Viridae^Talk 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that again. Editing on behalf of a banned user is an immediate blocking sort of offense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not doing it again, because I have no doubt it would be quickly reverted, making the entire affair pointless. BLP is however greater than you wanting to revert contribs from a banned user. Like it or not, because we have a lot of material on here about Bradnt, he is still subject to BLP and may still have concerns, he chose to make those concerns know to Doc, who then chose to carry on the conversation by way of the talk page. I believe, since BLP is involved, this is a legitimate way of doing it, up untill the point that Doc (a trusted admin, who I more often than not disagree with) decides that the issue has been resolved. I was therefore NOT editing on the behalf of a banned user, as I made perfectly clear, and ask you to strike that part of it. Viridae^Talk 06:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Regardless of your intent, you were editing on behalf of Brandt. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's no real BLP concern being claimed. He isn't claiming that we have bad data about him or anything simply that he wants the redirect removed. And we all already knew that, so it isn't adding any new information. So the BLP reasoning fails anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are both right in your arguments and both wrong for creating drama. BLP concerns should be allowed to be aired; but Brandt does not have a legitimate BLP concern here in my opinion (he disagrees, obviously). Brandt's comments should not have been deleted mid-conversation as that creates pointless drama. But once deleted; they should not have been undeleted as that adds to the drama. You guys have got to learn to go slower. It is all this immediate gotta do it now attitude that creates the drama. Be cool, dudes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The only true power we have of banning people ( given that creating a new sock is easy) is to apply "revert, block, ignore" to all sockpuppet edits of the banned user as soon as they are made. Banned editors do not get to edit, end of story. Engaging them in a conversation is foolish and wheel warring an admin who rightly reverted is disruptive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

<<<<<An anyone can edit venue necessarily forces judgements to be based on content rather than authorship. Wikipedia is based on that. Deleting content based on who said it is unworkable and only causes problems. It has become a major source of disruption at wikipedia that outweighs any good it might theoretically do. Face it, the enemy has adopted and is using your strategy against you. Blindly following rules, instead of doing whatever is best for wikipedia, allows the enemy to out-strategize you because the enemy can know in advance the response of our side. The solution is IAR. It's there for a reason. Use it. And your mind. Mindless obedience to rules is a losing strategy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point. Part of the reason I removed Brandt's comment was due to its nature; it had no useful content other than yet another legal threat. They're might be circumstances where it would make sense to leave a comment in by banned user. This wasn't one of them. And certainly reverting to include the comment after it was removed served no useful purpose. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I woud not have re-added the comment, had Doc not already chosen to start the dialogue. There are better ways to air grievances, but since that way was already n progress, it was in my opinion better that it be kept on in that manner, solving the issue without the drama of blanking comments mid conversation. I have no doubt, that left alone, doc would have attempted a reasonable conversation with brandt, potentially help the issue a bit.

It's probably not a wise idea to develop a history of assisting banned users to edit on Wikipedia, for any reason whatsoever. This includes inserting or re-inserting postings and undeleting articles by said users. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for calm

I don't watchlist Viridae's talk page so I was surprised today to see the discussion that took place a week ago. Cautious about igniting further drama, I e-mailed him. He invited me to say a few words here. He made the right call in full protecting my user talk for one hour. There was a serious problem there and his solution worked. Things have become far too polarized. Let's remember we're doing our best here and try to come together. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I did something wrong.

I went back to that page that had that article that was talking about bad admins and someone asked me for the stuff that shows what I was talking about and I went to go get it and I started copying it and I went back and the discussion was not editable anymore... All I did was say I would go and get it, i didnt mean to break it. If they just read that stuff they could see. But it says don't edit anymore... I'm sooo sorryBenjamin Kenobe (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is ever truly broken on wikipedia, so don't worry. It is always in the history of the page. If you have stuffed somethign up, someone should notice and fix it. I have fairly inconsistent net access so if you want immediate help with editing stuff try WPHD. Viridae^Talk 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:HD unless a small radio station in Pennsylvania has all the answers on how to work with Wikipedia... spryde | talk 12:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe thanks. Viridae^Talk 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD

Protection is inappropriate. Please undo. Tony has made a single reversion. The other parties have had amicable discussions on the talk page. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There was revert warring as well as discussion, clearly inappropriate on a policy page and apologies for not replying sooner, was not here. Mostly unavailiable untill 2/1/08 (rest of world not american dates). Viridae^Talk 09:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Please explain why you reverted my edit; without bothering to give an explanation. I am not a party to that dispute and I do not want to be dragged into that dispute. I do not know what the dispute is about, nor do I want to know.

Please look at the log and you'll see for yourself that I'm not a party to that dispute. Itzse (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Other people disgaree, you were added as a party so it is now up to the arbs to decide wether that is valid or not. If you really arent, then when the case gets opened you will not be included'. You can also make a statement expressing the view that you are not a party, or ask the person that aded you to remove you. Viridae^Talk 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it that difficult to look at that articles log and see for yourself that I'm not a party to this dispute? One editor suggested that I'm a party here; but when notifying he didn't even bother notifying me that he included me as a party. What does it tell you?

Also I don't understand you undoing my correct edit. Notifying someone is not a confirmation that they are aware of it. Itzse (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not one article, it's the whole dispute regarding Palestine, Israel articles - you have edited (including edited warred) on articles under the scope of this case and that's why I added you as a party. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case then you will need to add in all editors who are members of project Israel and project Palestine.

It is nice to see that you have already labeled my involvement on another Palestinian page as having edit warred; which I totally object to. You're starting off on the wrong track. Itzse (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just adding people who are directly involved in disputed articles - You were edit warring here, here, here, here and here on a page that clearly comes under the locus of the dispute with other parties in the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In your rashness to label me as an edit warrior you gave the same diff twice. You actually have there 4 edits in 3 days (the third and the fourth are the same). As to the content of those edits; I object to you labeling them as edit warring. Those were meticulously explained with ryme and reason as to why those edits are being made. I wonder if you consider the real edit warriors pushing their point of view without explanation as edit warriors. Have you started looking for them? We'll soon find out. Itzse (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is really to Viridae; why did you come to Ryan's defense? Itzse (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You have been added as a party to a dispute that is subject to a request for arbitration. You have two choices if you still believe you should not be a party: 1. Make a statement as such within that request. 2. Ask the person who added you to remove you (presumably that is Ryan, so that choice is probobly done and dusted). If the arbitration committee finds that you are not a party to the dispute when the case is opened, you will be removed from the list of parties. I am not coming to anyones defence. Viridae^Talk 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Good move. That discussion was going nowhere. - auburnpilot talk 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

) my thoughts exactly. Viridae^Talk 04:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. S. Wenocur‎

Hello Viridae, would you mind investigating the AfD above please? There's a user removing tags and other people's comments from the AfD, and I've been reverting them; but I'm afraid that blocking them, if it came to a block, would be abuse of the admin tools on my part. I've warned the user, however, and they did create an attack page against another user. Can you please take a look? Thanks? Acalamari 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's being sorted. Thanks anyway Viridae! :) Acalamari 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oooh messy :( Viridae^Talk 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I know: it's quite a tough AfD this one. Acalamari 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I addressed your concerns but a bot wiped them out to the archive. And see User talk:Nakon. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked that. Its not the one block (and this is actually 2 blocks for different things not counting the one that was undone) its that it was recent and that it was for edit warring. Viridae^Talk 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the most recent block was because I replied to a personal attack where the user called me a pederast on my own talk page.. I was baited. I shouldn't have replied back to him, but I did. And I served my block. The only edit war block was in November and it was because I was trying to keep false info out of an article. I certainly don't have a record of vandalism/abuse on Wikipedia. -- ALLSTARecho 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How is the 3rr block relevant? Unless the reverts were made by abusing a rollback script or undo or something, I don't se how you can loically use it as a reason to deny rollback. This isn't adminship and it carries no weight with it. John Reaves 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it not relevant? 3 revert rule. Rollback is just a faster method of reverting. He has recently abused his editing privelages, while reverting so I am not comfortable giving rollback untill that is well in the past. Viridae^Talk 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback#User:Santa on Sleigh

I'm totally confused. Why did you think this user had need of a user right that enables them to revert vandalism more speedily? WjBscribe 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the rights. Even before granting, 2 admins had concerns over inexperience/lack of need. I was about to decline the request before the database lock but you beat me to it. I've also left a comment on the RFR request about this. Mr.Z-man 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you ever heard of the Grinch??? More seriously, my criteria is no evidence that they will misuse it, with enough edits to see a bit of editing history. My default position is giveing it, unless they fail either of those. Viridae^Talk 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Its an anti vandalism tool - I think users need to demonstrate they have some involvement in reverting vandalism. WjBscribe 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Its also No big deal^TM, it doesnt matter one iota wether they use it, as long as they don't misuse it. Viridae^Talk 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

my userpage

I noticed you have edited my userspace. If you are not aware, me and admin User:El C has a gentleman agreement to keep the header as long as there is no racist implication (note that political statement is allowed). [[13]] [[14]]. admin User:Nlu also supports the presence of the header [[15]] [[16]]. While admin User:Jiang himself have offensive content on his userpage and talkpage targeting Taiwanese and Dalai Lama. (he used to have a picture of Taiwan=shame on his talkpage) I am going to assume good faith here, but please refrain from editing my userspace in the future. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[17] see the image titled Taiwan=shame and on User:Jiang spreading Chinese expanionist propaganda and defaming Dalai Lama, Buddhism, and Tibet. Tell me if there is a parallel between Taiwan=shame and China=shame--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are justifying your use of China=shame with an image that isnt there any more? By the way - read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it applies. Viridae^Talk 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

copy from my talkpage...No I don’t know it. It’s not offensive at all. The supposedly offensive content was already removed after a lengthy discussion with El C (I already supplied with diff). There is absolutely nothing offensive about the China=shame header. Back In March, you actively patronized Ideogram in the past while deliberately persecuting me. Btw, Sumple is the main account of Palace (an abusive sock) who brought the issue to AN/I. He is Ideogram’s ally in the arbcom case. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm merely pointing out the fact that just because Jiang is an admin while I'm a powerless editor doesnt mean you can bully me about my userpage while turning a blind eye on Jiang.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I turn a blind eye to something that isnt there anymore? Viridae^Talk

I suggest you bow to the consensus established on AN/I and unprotect my userpage. So far only you and an abusive sockpuppet who had a history with me support protecting my userpage.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? Viridae^Talk 04:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You can say what you want, but judging from the AN/I thread Sumple's sock started, the opinion on this is highly divisive, which means you should unprotect my userpage until a consensus on this can be reached instead of unilaterally remove certain contents on my page and abusing our admin tool by protecting it so your preferred version can be kept. That's unacceptable and an example of admin abuse.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viridae. There is a risk that you will be thought to have misused the admin tools by reverting to your preferred version and then protecting that version. It doesn't seem a good idea to do that, especially when WP:DR and WP:RfC are still available; and especially especially when the consensus on the page as discussed at ANI isn't clear.

Please would you reverse yourself here? Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 08:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62 (PFF 1) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend (Alison 1). In both cases revert-protect action is cited as admin abuse. Viridae should unprotect immediately, then take the matter to dispute resolution and refrain from further use of admin tools in the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 10:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My userpage has been unprotected, but I want Viridae to revert himself. And an apology from him for the abuse and the time waste he has afflicted. Only after this when he is free to pursue dispute resolution if he is not satisfied with the outcome. As I cited on AN/I, this is not the 1st time Viridae persecuted me in this manner. If this doesn't improve, the community should reconsider the capability of this admin.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in recent memory that I have helped you. If you enjoy receiving help, be gracious. Mistakes happen. Viridae is a trusted member of the community who is entitled to an occasional mistake. Think about it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am gracious. I really appreciate your help, Jehochman. And for standing up for those who don't have admin power. But it is also the second time in recent memory that Viridae has abused me with his admin tool.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the preferred version because I was removing the offending comment. The protection was instated because CG had been taken to task about that several times and had always refused to remove it. Viridae^Talk 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken to task by who? Sumple, Sumple’s sock, and Sumple’s IP?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

that dude's userpage

I'm not exactly sure what all is going on, so I figured I'd just unprotect the page for the time being so that people quit shouting "admin abuse" and all that nonsense. If you want, I can re-add it, but I figure that if someone keeps adding the controversial comments/headers/whatever, we can just take it to WP:MFD and the issue will be over. :P Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking it to MFD would be more userspace harassment and Wikipedia:LAME. Admin abuse ain't no nonsense, it's real. The issue is far from over. Did you guys learn anything from this Wikipedia_talk:User_page/UI_spoofing? Maybe admins should be more concerned about the quality of articles instead of wasting time messing with userpages of established editors and accusing them of malicious intent.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MFD is not harassment if a legitimate editor has a genuine concern, which would seem to be the issue at hand. Either way, is it any worse than full protection of your user space? --slakr^\ talk / 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, everyone will realize this is a waste of time. Political views are allowed to be expressed on userpage (or why would we bother to have userpage anyway? Isn’t that a way to introduce ourselves to the wiki community about our belief and stands on important issue?) Something may be frowned upon, but not prohibited. We could be fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry, contributing in articles, maintaining NPOV, etc. Instead we’re wasting our precious time not building a comprehensive encyclopedia, but debating about userpage contents. --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney

Hi Viridae. I have removed a claim you have made from the the above discussion. While I am sure it was not malicious, we should not make claims of such a nature anywhere unless it is reliabably sourced and even then we should be careful. Note, there has not been confirmation that he himself has been charged with anything. As the person is a minor, his name may be not be released throughout the trial process and beyond. Once again, I sure it was not malicious but we need to be careful. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually although that article did not indicate it was him that was charged, at least one of the television news channels did. Viridae^Talk 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[18] Lawrence Cohen 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, see the section above. Need to find a source that specifiaally states it was him charged. Viridae^Talk 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for rollback. cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

no probs. Viridae^Talk 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Palace Guard

Palace Guard is a sockpuppet and you know it. Your revert seem very personal to me.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a sockpuppet when the original account is not editing concurrently with the new account. He has declared that the other account is not usable. It therefore should nto be tagged. Stop being disruptive and drop the issue. Viridae^Talk 01:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Other admins apparently don't agree with you. Accusing me of being disruptive isn't going to help your credibility.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, other admins that you have consulted DO agree with me: User talk:Nlu. Viridae^Talk 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#Past_account_sockpuppetry.3F Viridae^Talk 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Say what you want. You can't change fact. Justice would prevail.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Justice? Huh? Viridae^Talk 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, please don’t let our previous run-ins impede your judgments. We’re all here building this comprehensive encyclopedia, contributing to this great project. What you are attempting to do is set a dangerous precedent in the history of wikipedia. If PalaceGuard isn’t blocked, I’m going to “retire” from editing, change my mind the next day, exercise my “right to vanish”, and come back to stalk/haunt Sumple/PalaceGuard. See, you wouldn’t want that, would you? That’s exactly what PalaceGuard is doing right now: abusive sockpuppetry, stalking, and disruption.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand why I’m pissed off? The stake is high here. Please restore the sockpuppet tag and stop accusing me of disruption--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Palace guard, by the definition of sockpuppetry is NOT a sockpuppet, and frankly, given your attitude, the threat of leaving does not does not hold any weight. Viridae^Talk 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help and for letting me know - otherwise I might still be stuck on AN/I arguing with the air. This episode was a pretty valuable lesson for me - will do my best to keep out of C.G's way from now on. Thanks again, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No net access for the weekend

be back monday Viridae^Talk 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of WP:CON

I've unprotected WP:CON has both edit warring parties have agreed to behave appropriately. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No concerns, thats exactly what I had hoped would happenj. Thanks for the notification. Viridae^Talk 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We weren't even edit warring. *sigh* --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Alpaca

Sure! If you're uploading to Commons, the category is Category:Vicugna pacos. VanTucky 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Might take me a couple of days. But I'll get back to you. Viridae^Talk 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing information from my talk page

Hello, While I understand that canvasing is generally frowned upon, could you please explain why you deleted another editor's comments from my talk page? Thanks Hobit (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I rolled back all the canvassing, because it was a very blatant attempt to sway the DRV. Viridae^Talk 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Could I ask that you not do that to my talk page again please? Hobit (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to ever come across you again. Unlikely to remember you if I do, so no I can't promise anything. You werent singled out, you were one of about 20 people in a mass revert. Viridae^Talk 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but is it within policy to remove canvassing from a talk page? I've never even heard of it being done before. Any pointers would be welcome. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I ussually wouldnt but it was a blatant mass spamming so this time I did. Viridae^Talk 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I applaud the reversion, although I would have got the yellow bar anyway and checked the history. Thanks. --John (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself, thanks though, it's appreciated. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like other people removing content of any sort from my talk page either. I would feel justified in giving you a warning, or even seeing it as counter-canvassing. I do not need to be protected against canvassing, or for that matter spam or vandalism. I can protect myself. people who notify me about forthcoming discussions do not always get the result they expect. If someone violates the policy about canvassing, deal with them, not the audience. DGG (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The canvassing was dealt with, reverted the lot and gave them a severe warning. Viridae^Talk 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have done it with the best intentions, but I am not happy with the removal of amny content by other people from my user talk page. DGG (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV

Yes thank you. The user above you pointed that out as well. I've corrected it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohdarn. Iused the little + button and didnt see the post above. Viridae^Talk 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A touch of humanity, please

You might have a point, but Guy doesn't need this[19] given his present situation. It can wait for later, or if you think it pressing then bring it to ANI for review. Thanks. - Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would have laid off, but as Guy seems to be running full steam ahead in controversial situations at the moment (that account voted on the MONGO RfA and see also the piperdown thread on AN), he will just have to deal with it. Viridae^Talk 05:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been many touches of humanity - mine included. Guy is editing and is making decisions which should be and are open to scrutiny. IMO your first point Viridae on his talk page was fair, his return inappropriate and your points above just as fair. Just wanted to let you know my views.--VS ^talk 11:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well done - I support the unblocking. I trust you are aware that the character of a man is best displayed at the hardest of times and Guy is obviously caught in one of those. I commend you for staying calm - but that calmness should not last forever - if I can be of assistance please call.--VS ^talk 12:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help, I am very aware of Guy's circumstances, but equally aware that he shouldnt be editing in that frame of mind. Its a long weekend in australia, and I am very busy, so I may not be on for a few days (not sure - might be able to stop by quickly). I trust that if my action is reversed that it is done so with evidence or an inkling of who they are. Have a good weekend. Viridae^Talk 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes your point about Guy editing at this time of hardship (and the recent edit summaries which I hope are just out of character) was mine also - sorry if I was being too obscure. Evidence is the issue - guessing just won't do for a sockblock. I will watch as best as I can also. Happy Australia Day - from the Riverina.--VS ^talk 12:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Query

Hi, query for you here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Australia day long weekend and I have been extremely busy. I have read the archived thread and I would like to say that 1. I wasn't trolling Guy, as I said on my ANI post, but if he is going to make Admin actions he has to take responsibility for them - WP:THERAPY. 2. I didn't want someone to block him, that wasn't the point of the thread on ANI, I more wanted someone who he gets along with to go and calm him down. 3. despite claims to the contrary, dialogue WAS attempted with Guy before I unblocked, I questioned the block, asked for a little more evidence or a name of the sockmaster, both of which he refused to provide - instead just deleting my post with an incredibly uncivil edit summary. So, dialogue having been attempted and failed i went ahead and unblocked because vague accusations of sockpuppetry are never good enough in my opinion. 4. although i did read about the block on WR, there was never any request to overturn it, someone just mentioned the block and the vague accusations of sockpuppetry in the block log, which I always assert is not good enough, so I came and questioned guy about it. At no point, despite Guy's accusations to the contrary have I performed any admin actions at a direct request of someone on WR. Instead as frequently happens, things get brought to light on WR that I disagree with and therefore perform the actions becase I think it is the right thiung to do, not because someone has asked me to do it. Forinstance the CSD G5 I undeleted, that was alluded to by Guy - I think that is a frankly stupid reson to delete a perfectly good stub because anyone that happens to read the article will not care one iota wwho it was written by as long as it is aa good article. I pperformed the undeletion in the most basic spirit of IAR - if the rules stop yoou improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. When it was redeledted I did not wheel war. That it was later recreated by someone not banned, is a villification of the subject in my opinion. Viridae^Talk 01:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)cm

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

well...

Hi Viridae,

Of course my talk page can be a redirect, if I want it to be. I'm trying to avoid working on WP, because I need to work on my dissertation. I'm currently discussing one little issue regarding a map of Tibet, but I hope to drop out of sight after that. Thanks for your concern.. but I'm gonna change it back to a redirect. :-) Please don't revert me wishes about my own talk page. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, still should not be a redirect. Preiodically people want to please messages. It is not yours to control, you just have a certain artistic licence over it. Viridae^Talk 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're joking, right? Ling.Nut (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No actuallty I am not. Feel free to redirect your userpage to the talk page but not the other way around. There is a variety of reasons why your talk page should never be redirected. Viridae^Talk 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, first I'm gonna ask you to cite me the rule somewhere which says that's true, just so I'll have it for future rreference.. and then, regrettably, I'm gonna WP:IAR. But please do cite the rule first. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that would be pointless then. The user page is for the communities use for communicating with you. Viridae^Talk 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

there's an email link prominently displayed on my user page... Did you see my request for the relevant rule? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw it nd decided you can search for it yourself. It is unlikely to say "You should not redirect your user page" but that it is a longstanding prqctice that it should not be done for all users except perhaps permabanned ones. If you don't remove the redirect I will post AT ANI asking for the input of admins apart from myself. Viridae^Talk 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Please proceed to ANI, if you so desire.. But get replies from experienced admins rather than over-zealous newbies, OK? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Over zealous newbies? I have been an admin for over a year... Viridae^Talk 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See ANI. Viridae^Talk 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did as you have ordered. Is it the responsibility of admins to go around ordering people, esp. well-established editors, to comply to meaningless & pointless rules... or non-rules actually.. since the relevant rule does not even exist...? I know I'm supposed to be nice and all, but these are the kind of actions that add precisely no tangible (or intangible!) value to the encyclopedia.. and make editors want to quit.. I suggest that you rethink your role here, if you truly wish to benefit the encyclopedia. Go whack vandals. Far better, go edit articles. Do something useful. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Calton's hatred of MyWikiBiz

Seems to be overruling the consensus of three admins and a couple of other editors. -- Shelborne Concierge (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Virdae

I've been busy working on further evidence for the Samiharris/Mantanmoreland issue. Since you were interested in examining the evidence (and less focusing on the personality involved), could you take a look at The evidence I'm compiling to support a possible WP:DUCK test match and comment? SirFozzie (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for interjecting a bit of levity into the situation

Thank you for interjecting a bit of levity into the situation, to wit: random accusations of restaurant impropriety. It was much appreciated. --SSBohio 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Viridae^Talk 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Undelete

I wanted to give JzG a chance to correct his mistake, but thanks. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have very little patience where JzG is concerned. Viridae^Talk 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Good close

If anyone has the balls to close another DRV as trolling, I'm gonna give them a cookie. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

lol. Viridae^Talk 06:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Academics and Wikipedia

Hi Viridae. I noticed that you and Tony had a mini-discussion about biting of newbie academics in that ANI thread about Guy's blocks. So I thought you might be interested in the response I got from one of the blocked users (since unblocked). See here. Also see here. From that incident, I'm hopeful that three or four academics may hang around and become productive users. Of course, they might have done so anyway, and some might never have done so anyway. But I do feel strangely pleased at what I see as a really rather positive outcome. Even if some are too busy at the moment to contribute, they may do so in the future. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thansk for the notification. Viridae^Talk 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I started drafting an RfC on JzG here if you'd like to participate. Cla68 (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Already on my watchlist. Thanks. Viridae^Talk 10:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User:HANDSOME RUDY

Might I ask if you had any other reasons for deleting User:HANDSOME RUDY apart from NOTMYSPACE? After a review of the deleted edits, I don't believe the deletion was covered under any of the speedy deletion criteria, and NOTMYSPACE is not a reason for speedy deletion. Can you please clarify? Acalamari 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

you can undelete it if you like, but almost all if not all of that users edits were made to that page. Viridae^Talk 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't restore it, even after this discussion. I just wanted clarification. Thank you. Acalamari 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question for an admin

Hello. I have come across your name many, many times and you seem to be a fair guy who knows a lot about policy here, so I am intruding on your time to ask a question. Answer if you'd like, whenever you have the time. If I file a complaint at AN/I about user:whoever (made up name) is it then appropriate for user:whoever to mark the issue as resolved her/himself? Wouldn't that be a bad thing to do, or is anyone allowed to mark an issue resolved if they feel the issue has, in face, been resolved? I appreciate any answer you can give me. Thanks! 24.220.220.117 (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

well it really depends on the situation, though as a rule I would shy away from marking something as resolved when I was the person under dicssion. However there are rare cases where one might do that. (ussually if it ended good naturedly) Point me in the direction of the section and I can be more use. Viridae^Talk 05:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of how to do much here, but the case is on the administrators incident board, it is in archive 365 titled "incivility User:Calton" I do know how to show diffs, so here is the diff showing that he was the one who marked it as resolved after the person who brought the complaint was blocked. [20] To be totally honest, the reason I have seen your name many, many times is because I have been one of Calton's targets in the past and you have also been involved in some of his conflicts, so I will understand if you don't want to get involved here. I just wanted to know if it was something a little fishy, and if so then I can just file the diff away. Thanks alot for answering the first question, and thanks for any additional help. 24.220.220.117 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not much to do there I am afraid, there wasn't much going on and the IP wasn't blocked by calton (that would have raised more than a few eyebrows). Thanks for the diffs though. Viridae^Talk 05:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Alpaca

Feel free to shorten the protection as you see fit. To me it wasn't so much the amount of vandalism, but the fact that almost all of the edits in the last month have either been vandalism or reverts of vandalism, and also the vandalism was not blatant, and could possibly be hard to detect or take some time to notice. But like I said, if you feel that the protection is unwarranted than feel free to undo my edit. Cheers! – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG

I think it's reasonably clear that guy isn't interested in interacting with you, regardless of the civility of the question (or the level agreement between the two of you.) It seems that you should both do everything reasonably possible to avoid eachother. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Or he can just get over acting childishly and answer the perfectly reasonable question. Viridae^Talk 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the first step in WP:DR is to disengage. Let him disengage from you, please. Finally, comment on the content, not the contributor. Calling someones behavior "childish" is never appropriate. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It quite clearly IS childish behaviour - I can hardly comment on the content when this conversation is entirely about behaviour. Guy needs to learn to behave like an adult in a civil manner - there will be times where activities on wikipedia necessitate contacting him - at some point he will have to grow up and respond civilly. Viridae^Talk 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that your current behavior is dramatically incivil. Please disengage from JzG at best, and at least please do not call other editors childish. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well considering calling it like it is is Guy's trademark, he can hardly complain when the tables are turned. I am in no dispute with Guy, but occasionaly things come up that necessitate contacting him in an entirely civil manner (are you disagreeing that the contact was civil?) I simply wanted to know if he, as the nom of the afd, was going to DRV it or should I do so. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Instead he deletes perfectly civil communication without responding. Viridae^Talk 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I won't be contacting him over that paticular matter any more as heis behaviour doesn't warrant my time. Viridae^Talk 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque is a logical fallacy - and you are obviously one of Guy's most substantial critics re his "calling it like it is" behaviors - to imitate them is poor form. Regardless of dispute, the result of you contacting Guy is that he feels worse and nothing gets done, so why contact Guy? While your consistant comments on Guy's talk page are written civily, you are doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - if you write on his talk page, he will delete it. Thus, don't write on his talk page, and certainly don't revert someone else removing your text from his talk page. In the future, instead of attempting to contact guy directly, use an intermediary to assit you in choosing what to do - you could, for instance, contact newyorkbrad (to pick a random adminstrator), and ask him what would be acceptable. You should be aware, however, that it becomes more and more difficult to assume that your comments on guys talk page are merely you not understanding that he's just going to delete what you say unseen, and the more and more you continue to try to get him to discuss with you, the more and more outside observers will begin to question your motives. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec to the additional) That's good. You should probably avoid contacting him about anything. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I frankly don't care who questions my motives (frankly there are certain people who will question them whatever I do because I post to a BADSITE (OMGZ KILL THE UNBELIEVER STALKER ADMINZ)) - for those whose vision isn't obscured by such matters, it will be quite clear that all I am doing is conducting day to day business on wikipedia in a sane and civil manner - i don't really care that guy is having a hissy fit every time I post on his talk page - its him that is causing the problems, not me. On the occasions that I feel it is necessary to post on his talk page I will do so - but i hardly do so lightly and will always endeavour to do so civilly. Viridae^Talk 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's right there in the Principles of Wikipedia etiquette: Don't ignore questions. Dlabtot (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The kind of behaviour that you, Viridae, are displaying would have been more than enough to have sunk any RfA. Do you really believe that it's appropriate for you to hold regular editors to higher standards of behaviour than you hold yourself? Should administrators not rather be setting some kind of a good example to the plebs? The question is, of course rhetorical, as the answer is very plain to see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

what behaviour? Expecting a civil answer to a civil question about a subject that is not in disupte? Expecting another user to stop behaving like a child and actually respond to civil queries? Viridae^Talk 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, your present behaviour would have sunk any RfA. Think about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)