User talk:Viriditas/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 20


Contents

Re: Ancient Hawaii

Every section heading should be a potential article name? Not really... The difference between a section heading and an article name is that the former belongs in the context of a particular article. My FA Durian has "Uses" section, and an article named "Uses" won't make much sense.

Having said that, I know the section heading "Pre-contact Hawaii (AD 300-1778)" is not exactly an ideal one. Nor is "Ancient Hawaii", since it would be categorizing the 17th century as a segment in ancient times. Isn't "ancient history" about the period from the beginning of history until the Early Middle Ages (meaning approx. 5th century)? You are welcome to suggest better alternatives for the section heading. How about "Polynesian Hawaii"? --BorgQueen 13:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Milky Way article looks very disorganized. It shows what happens when we think that every section heading should be a potential article name. --BorgQueen 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I am missing your point here. I thought you asked the question about the section heading in Cuisine of Hawaii because you thought the heading wasn't a good one. --BorgQueen 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So, if that was your point, you are welcome to suggest alternatives. --BorgQueen 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


External Links

There used to be an external link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil leading to a article on the Health Benefits of Olive Oil. I was not the one to originally add the link, but I see that it is gone, and when I attempted to re-add it, it is quickly removed by a moderator.

This was the original link http://www.whatsfordinner.net/article-olive-oil.html

This is the new one http://www.foodasfood.com/health-benefits-of-olive-oil/

The first article is more informative than the 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetiddlywinks (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIX - December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Choke

First official still from Choke (film). :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Charles Mingus USPS.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Charles Mingus USPS.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please advise

Dear Viriditas,

As a previous editor of the Jeff Rosenbaum article, and having shown an interest in Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium, I was hoping you could look into a situation concerning them. An editor (Kathryn NicDhàna) who I have had conflict with in the past has begun peppering the articles with "citation needed" tags, and reverting any input I have, including citations to satisfy those tags. Another, Mattisse, who started much of my previous woes via multiple sock-puppets, has begun doing the same on articles I created or regularly edit (like M. Macha Nightmare and Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart). I am afraid this is an attempt to sucker me into "aggressive editing" and get me in trouble, when all I have done is reorganized some material under more appropriate headings and provide one new citation. Even a link from an article in a bibliography to an online site for that article has been deleted. You can see my arguments on the talk pages; the editor in question is NOT discussing these things with me, just posting scolds in the edit summaries. I don't consider the edits controversial, and most are public knowledge.

I'm not sure what to do about some of this stuff. How do you provide a citation for a college degree, for instance? Kathryn challenges the ACE website which has a bio of Jeff Rosenbaum as a speaker, claiming that it's not a "3rd party source", even though I am not the webmaster of that site nor have ever inputted anything to it, and this fact is not controversial. However, the CWRU Alumni records and the Registrar's files for 1978 are not available to the public nor posted on a website. Also, I know there are no rules forbidding me to add information with proper citations, like the Mid-West Materials info, to the article, nor forbidding me to reorganize the material, but Kathryn insists on acting like there are such rules, and simply wholesale reverting whatever I do.

She suggests that others can add the material. This is obviously not about the data, but a problem she has with me about such issues as POV and COI, issues that were put to bed long ago (I thought) with the assurance that I was free to edit as long as I did not do so "aggressivly" or edit war. Might you be able to look into these edits and judge for yourself, and perhaps act and/or advise?Rosencomet (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there's a so-called "Retired" editor (according to his user page) named JzG (formerly Guy) who I remember being involved in the old controversies on these articles, who deleted the entire section on past speakers and entertainers from the WinterStar Symposium article along with an article in the reference section. Within the last two days he has made over 200 edits, almost all what he calls "inappropriate references", with no explanation as to what makes them inappropriate. He changed the Church of the SubGenius article to call it a spoof religion, ignoring the extensive discussions on the talk page. What's up with him? Is he just looking for fights, while posting a "Retired" sign and claiming "I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases."? And what does his user page mean when it says it has been "protected to prevent creation"?Rosencomet (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Clinton Buddy 120597.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Clinton Buddy 120597.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Mr Senseless (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Rosenbaum article

Actually, all the books are there so far. If they insist that the articles published in The Free Press are inappropriate, I won't fight over it. I don't understand why everything has been taken out of the "reference" section and renamed other things under "Miscellanea". The books all refer to the subject and help support both the notability of the subject and the facts in the text, like "He serves as Executive Director of the organization, which has organized the Starwood Festival each year since 1981 and the WinterStar Symposium each winter since 1984."

If the article is left alone at this point, I'd be OK with it, except for the unnecessary "Miscellanea" heading. But I expect more cutting. These folks have a habit of insisting I document things in ways I've never seen others do, like the "notability" of the articles, or expecting the appearances on radio and TV to have "3rd-party citations", as if there needs to be a newspaper reporter who wrote an article about the radio interview. If they doubt the appearance on Jeff & Christie, they can contact the TV station; otherwise, why don't they assume good faith? I do NOT have a record of adding false information to articles.

What worries me more, is that Kathryn, Pigman and Mattisse, who have caused me a great deal of trouble and edit warred with me for months (while I NEVER touched a single article they wrote or regularly edited in a way they disagreed with, or pretty much at all), have in the past few days deleted chunks from WinterStar Symposium, tagged seven articles I've written, marked one for deletion, and helped delete another. I feel like they are targetting my work, and will do more of the same soon. I also firmly believe that the list on the WinterStar article is NOT a "laundry list" (and I HAVE read that guideline), and really contributes to the article and says a lot about the event, and is very much in keeping with similar lists in articles about other events, as I've said and documented on the talk page extensively.Rosencomet (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought adding a citation where one was being requested would be an acceptable edit, as opposed to reverting an edit, which you notice I did not do on WinterStar Symposium. I didn't put back the deleted articles or change the strange headings, but I thought that if they said a citation was needed to support a stated fact, and I had one, that could only be viewed as a constructive edit.
I really do appreciate your help and patience, and will refrain from edit warring. I just hope some good news comes my way. The only arbitrator I've approached on this has remained silent.Rosencomet (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Matthew Abelson

In a word, WOW! Kudos for the great material on Matthew. And many thanks.Rosencomet (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

yikes it's 230

I am going to go to bed and try to wind down. It would be lovely if we could solve the problem that all the other warring editors have failed for months to solve. I'm certain a solution is possible, so perhaps simply having people who don't feel hostile toward one another work on it will turn something up. My (perhaps naive) take is that the core problem on this policy has been that peer-reviewed literature cites are challenged inappropriately, either because the PSTS distinction is too complex and discipline-variant, and it should be ditched (my very favorite choice) or because the use language needs to written more clearly (what I'm trying to work with on WP:EVALUTE). I believe that every editor wants to make it very clear that syntheses are original research and are verboten, and that we recognize that editors may have a particular tendency to string together cited material to create new syntheses. That needs to be clearly prohibited. But it needs to be done so in a way that does not cause editors to think that secondary source cites are required when a primary source cite is actually completely appropriate. Good night, and good luck. --Lquilter (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sirius

Hey Viriditas, I am working up Sirius to FAC and there's some cool polynesian stuff it would be great to expand. You'll see what's there if you scan down the page. Any folklore/mythology input much appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All the refs with Holberg p.x relate to this one:
  • Holberg, JB (2007). Sirius:Brightest Diamond in the Night Sky. Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing, p. 214. ISBN 0-387-48941-X. 
In other FACs, I'd put this as a cited text at the bottom of the refs in a separate subheading but the preferred way was to have it withn the refs (in this case #44 currently) and all the others alongside with just page number as it is the only book by Holberg on the list (and a great read). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually prefer listing the book at the bottom (incase I swap all the material around and the ref which lists the book in its entirety is then not first on the ref list), but I was outvoted at FAC, and as I didn't hold a particularly strong preference I acceded. (Hey, anything to get the article through) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you wanna see it get really tricky, a few of us are working up vampire for FAC...(groan) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR question

Regarding your question yesterday on the NOR talk page. I know my answer seemed flippant. At first I was had a nice long explanation about several things involved in this (from my biased perspective), like ownership, cliqueishness, etc. SlimVirgin is a major contributor to this policy and seems to be having some serious ownership issues with the policy, like no changes can be made to the policy without her explicit (from those outside her clique) or implicit (from those inside her clique) approval. Therefore, if someone outside her clique makes a change, either she or one of those in the clique usually revert and claim no consensus, even after weeks of discussions and compromise by those proposing the change and those 'around' her clique (though not neccessarily in it) who see areas for improvement or refinement. On the other hand, she and her clique seem to be able to make changes whenever they want without any discussions or announcements. I actually had quite a bit more to say as well. So, as you can see, before I clicked the 'Save' button, I decided that stating this there wouldn't really improve anything, and instead just aggravate the situation after we finally look like we might finally be making some progress on issues we have been suggesting for months now, but since 'they' propose it this time its possible, where as when 'we' proposed, it was just absurd and a nefarious attempt to derail policy. Get the idea now on why my answer seemed so flippant? I'm sorry for that, but it was the most PC way I thought I could say anything without aggravating the situation. Since SV has such serious ownership issues, this way since she's the one proposing changes (extremely similar to what we first suggested about 3 months ago), she can go ahead and take the credit for a good idea (hopefully), and try to continue to impress Jimbo and others about her great ideas and flexibility, and tireless dedication to the Wiki project, yada, yada, yada. I don't really care as long as progress is getting made. I'm still trying to think of a PC way of defending Vassyana and blasting SV, but my mind is still drawing a blank. wbfergus Talk 13:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on Rosencomet's talk page.

Hi Viriditas, I just wanted to clarify my involvement in the AfD nomination of Grey School of Wizadry in light of your comments here [1]. I am by no means involved in any harassment and did not know who Rosencomet was before I nominated the article he wrote for deletion (nor would it have made any difference if I knew the editor). I seem to have stumbled upon a controversial editor and I by no means wish to add to the controversy. The article had been deleted previously, but I nominated it for deletion (rather than tagging it under CSD#G4) to give the user a chance to respond and/or tidy up the article. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding. I would also respectfully request that you be careful when responding to others' comments in the future, as your reply to my notice could have been inferred to be suggesting impropriety on my part where there was none. :-) Happy Editing and Cheers! --SimpleParadox 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

I urge you to read the Q & A of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salix alba, currently open, for another view of the Starwood situation. He uses some of his interventions into the Starwood situation as reasons why he should be elected:

I was involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood and related RfC's, checkuser requests, etc. This was indeed the ugly side of wikipedia which lots of accusations of sockpuppetry, harassment. A prime example of a ForestFire a small dispute spreading out of control. A lot of people left wikiedia as a result. One of the most worrying parts was that a users past mistakes can hang over them and be used as a Scarlet Letter. Another problem was in how long the dispute took to resolve, nearly a year. Swifter action from someone with sufficient authority could have averted a lot of problems. My role in the case was somewhat less than successful attempt to resolve the conflict. I tried to get a mediation cable case going, wrote a well supported outside view on an RfC. In the end the RfA managed to more or less managed to preserve the community.

One of the issues he addresses is the use of a Scarlet Letter. This is a direct reference to me and the continuous allegations that I was using sock puppets by Rosencoment and his supporters: User:999, Hanuman Das, and User:Ekajati who, ironically, turned out to be sock puppets themselves, along with User:Tunnels of Set, User:Frater Xyzzy. User:Khabs and others. Recently User:Essittam (who has been doing a lot of Starwood editing recently) has been added to the sock puppet list: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati. Salix alba started a mediation on the issue, but while that was opening Hanuman Das filed an Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse, the result of which should have put an end to the matter regarding my sock puppets. However, the allegations continued so during the Starwood Arbitration, an arbitrator recused himself and chased down the sock puppets supporting Rosencomet. Now Rosencomet is continuing this practice of using allegations as a Scarlet Letter. I urge you to try to get him to discontinue personal attacks on editors and concentrate on the content of articles so that action against him will not be necessary. Regards, Mattisse 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Goblin

No, that image was used on Spider-Man 3, and it's bounced around since. I looked at where they were now and grunted -- didn't want to expend the effort to fix so that they could fit or remove them only to have them restored. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Evaluating sources

Actually, I was thinking of helping out there. Since getting the admin mop and bucket, I've been spending too high a percentage of my WP time doing janitorial duties rather than constructive editing. If I don't start doing regular work, I will undoubtedly burn out. We'll see whether I actually do so. BTW, I've withdrawn my AfD nom for Matthew Abelson. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Urgh! Going over the Wikipedia talk:Evaluating sources is numbing my brain. While I believe I have a fairly good grasp of evaluating sources, the technical details of differentiating primary and secondary sources in different fields seems to require more intellectual power than I can bring to bear at the moment. However, I can probably help with editing, simplifying and clarifying it when it's near a final state. I use "editing" here in the more formal sense of correcting punctuation, smoothing out the logical flow of the piece and unifying the voice. Sorry I can't seem to help with the nuts and bolts process going on now. I suspect I would be more a hindrance than a help. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
... "My bwain hurts...." Anyway, sorry to make you nuts, V! I'm really, earnestly, trying to understand and make sure we're all on the same page. Sorry that it involves me being so painfully particular. But as you know there are a lot of people and a lot of different ideas and I think it's better to be absolutely certain we all know what we mean we know we want to say, if you know what I mean. --Lquilter (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

PSTS

Viriditas, I think you'll find that I haven't been trying to redefine anything the last couple of days. Since you added in all the tables & references I've simply been trying to digest & think through the language in those. I took out the one phrase from the sandbox guideline because I felt it was unambiguously placed in PS but I didn't move it anywhere. I wish you wouldn't leave the discussion, because you have a lot to contribute, but I also wish you would accept that people may be arguing not out of bad faith or simply to be argumentative, but because we have different frames of reference and what may seem clear to one person may be ambiguous to another. If you need to stay away, though, I understand. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse

I will try not to respond to Mattisse. But it's hard to sit back when three editors are triple-teaming you.

BTW, doesn't this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMatthew_Abelson indicate that User:Whpq is a sock-puppet? Rosencomet (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse and Rosencomet - a suggestion

Hi, Viriditas. I appreciate your efforts to informally mediate between these two. It's a contentious situation with a lot of history. However, having looked over your comments on Mattisse's page, I am a bit concerned. I think you need to look over the Starwood-related RfCs, Mediations, and Arbitration. A number of people (myself included) have posted the links in exchanges with you, so you should have them at hand. I think Mattisse is getting frustrated because you are asking her to explain things that have already been gone over extensively and repeatedly, and I don't think she should have to repeat herself again because you haven't read up on the history. Again, I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think asking people to restate the history for you will make people feel cooperative. I would also suggest that you don't tell one party in the discussion that you think they're being harrassed, and then expect the other editor to treat you as a neutral party. I thank you for trying to help with this, but I'd appreciate you taking these points into consideration. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this edit summary is very troubling: [2] It no longer looks like you are attempting mediation, rather it appears you are advocating for Rosencomet and making personal attacks on Mattisse, calling her a "troll" and a "fool". This is unacceptable. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Arcayne (cast a spell) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Arcayne/ECard}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re:Cuisine of Hawaii

Wow, thanks for your long post. You're welcome to remove/edit any paragraph or source you find inappropriate or irrelevant. After you complete your removal, I will let you know if I think the removal is too excessive. I think it is the fastest way to settle the issue. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, wait, I just found that another editor has been involved in this?! Perhaps you would need to contact this editor as well, or state your objections on the talk page of the article, if you think the sources are not the best. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I commented it out again. Please join the discussion on the talk page of the article, so Jeff could listen to what you have to say. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changing of Kava to Oceania, and I don't mean to quibble, but if Kava is still consumed by Melanesians in Vanuatu, could it really be considered a traditional Polynesian beverage? Not all of Polynesia had it, nor all of Melanesia. Again, I agree with the Oceania designation as most accurate historically and descriptively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmcneill (talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kauai photos

Hi, yes, I got your messages. It took me a while to figure out how to reply to you. Never had anyone ask me a question before in Wiki. It's fine that you moved my images to the Commons. I will look into posting images there in the future. Polihale (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, still on Kauai. I have a large stockpile of photos, many aerial photos, also of other islands. Anything in particular you're looking for? Here's a small sample... http://kauaiblue.com/kb/610200/2

Category Food Related Lists

What type of categorization are you referring to? As for arranging the list, there are still inconsistencies between the list articles that have been creating as none of us have come up with a template yet. The one consistancy is the regional lists that are in some of the other lists that have been created. I however do not know if any of the dishes listed are regional, or are they are dishes found throughout the entire state?--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm kinda taking a break over the next few days, going on vacation to Atlantic City, NJ. I'll consider what I think might be appropriate for a cuisine "dish" list article. To be appropriate I will have to submit it to the Food and Drink Project to get a consensus. I agree with many of the books that people use for historical research, they are badly researched, they are not confined to Hawaiian cuisine. The good thing that has been happening over the last 5 years is that there are people studying food history and gastronomy now which will add to food research, not just in the aspect of cooking. I should be back from Atlantic City around the 5th, I will get back to you then.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WinterStar Symposium Deletion

A nomination for deletion has opened on WinterStar Symposium. Since you commented on a previous one, I thought I would inform you about it.[3] Rosencomet (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Problem" at my talkpage

Replied there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kardashev Scale

Hi, recently the Kardashev scale entry has gone through some major reverts, I'd like to talk about the reinstatement of the material. I've looked around and have seen that you've made some major contributions to the article and are interested in it's progress. I feel we need to talk about the reverts and reinstatement and talk about whether either are justified. Talk:Kardashev scale If you could help or add your two cents I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

I am completely blown away by your assumption of bad faith.

You wrote:

"The unblock is relevant because SV has been engaged in a previous dispute with SandyGeorgia over the FAR process, and the unblock allowed Zeraeph to continue attacking SandyGeorgia."

You really think I would unblock someone so that they could continue to attack another editor? Please check through my block log and tell me whether you've seen anything remotely like that from me in the three years I've been an admin.

It's starting to look as though the only reason you got involved in this was to use it as a stick to beat me with. No one who knows me would consider for a minute that I'd do that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about an assumption of bad faith... SlimVirgin you're the only one projecting motives onto others. --MPerel 07:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Past incivility

Hi. I should be interested in receiving a diff of this instance. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Human rights and the United States

Your edits for Human rights and the United States have bypassed the Talk page and were made without consensus. I suggest that you participate in TALK before editing. Raggz (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Please engage in the ongoing talk discussions. You have reverted without discussion, and are only now attempting to correct your error (without apology). I accept your new committment to Talk rather than reverting. I accept your new decision to work for consensus rather than arbitrary editing. Please review the sections, and participate.
I challenge you to offer ONE reliable source that establishes that one human rights violation has occured in the past decade. I can, and will, if you do not. Oddly our article focuses upon speculative allegations rather than proven violations. Why is this? Will you agree that we should shift our focus to those actually supported by reliable sources that establish actual violations. Raggz (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are false and absurd. —Viriditas | Talk 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
From the talk page: Please present a particular aspect of the lead section that you find troublesome and I will help you improve it. Removing NPOV is not acceptable. —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs)
I suggest using the TALK page for the article. There are a number of ongoing discussions that you have not contributed to yet, please consider joining these? There is a section there for the NPOV tag. You and I are united in opposing the removal of this tag.
Please address my challenge (above) there. "Your comments are false and absurd" is not all that useful because merely stating your opinion doesn't help advance the article at all. I challenge you to offer ONE reliable source that establishes that one human rights violation has occured in the past decade. If there are no reliable sources for actual human rights violations, then do you agree that the Article should state this? Raggz (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Your misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been addressed on your talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Violation of Consensus

Warning

Working for consensus is important, and you presently seem to not be working in good faith for Consensus at Rationale for the Iraq war. Please read Consensus.

Tacit consensus may be attained when any debate settles down. You employ a strategy of stating something like: There is no consensus. User:Ryder Spearmann is a single-purpose account created on January 5th. —Viriditas | Talk 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This type of statement does not mean that there is no consensus, it is a meaningless obstruction that does not preclude consensus. If you really want an effective obstructive strategy you need to offer some argument on the question, no matter how silly and insincere. That will work for a while, what you do now does not. You are obliged by Consensus to work for consensus. This doesn't mean that you need agree to anything, but it does mean that IF you participate you need to say more than there is no consensus. You are then obliged by policy to explain why - or to withdraw. Refusal to do either is (in my opinion) a violation of Consensus Raggz (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are again invited to engage in the Consensus process. Raggz (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

Please review and familiarize yourself with the concept of "wikilawyering". It is unacceptable behavior. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I happened to read it last night. I do not see that I am engaged in Wikilawyering, but I'm open to your claim? Could you be more specific? Raggz (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The section you left on my talk page "Violation of Consensus", is an example of Wikilawyering. Your continued attempts to avoid discussing the topic while continuously changing the subject and misinterpreting policies and guidelines is noted. Please stop, as your behavior is disruptive. —Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I read some of the key policies you refer to, there is a LOT in there.
Might you share an example of what you mean by: "Your continued attempts to avoid discussing the topic while continuously changing the subject and misinterpreting policies and guidelines is noted"? I really have no idea of what you actually mean. Raggz (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo-Yo Ma edit

Hello, you made this edit which eliminated the assertion that "Ma Yo-yo" is the musician's actual name in the Chinese language, replacing with the standard template which claims that Yo-Yo Ma is a "Chinese name", even though native speakers would not refer to him as such. In case this is an error caused by the process of reverting a previous edit, could you please modify this information, or did you have a reason for this change? Shawnc (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have made the necessary edit. Regards. Shawnc (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Input at AN/I

Hi, I'm just letting you know that some input has been requested at the administrators noticeboard regarding your complaint about User:Raggz. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF

Hello again. I'm just writing to let you know that you should please remember to assume good faith over at Rationale for the Iraq War regarding the potential sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry of User:Raggz and User:Ryder Spearmann. While I agree that they seem to show the same modus operandi and POV as each other — and also allegedly with a recent cabal of editors who were involved in some rather dodgy behavior a short while ago — leveling accusations of sockpuppetry on the article talk page is counterproductive, and is likely to taint your attempts to pursue administrative action against User:Raggz. Nevertheless, I am quite sympathetic to you, since I know first-hand how frustrating it is to get in these discussions which just go round and round without ever reaching any satisfactory conclusion. If the matter continues further, may I suggest moving the accusatory discussion out of the article talk space: it is of somewhat marginal importance to the discussion of progress on the article itself. Best regards, Silly rabbit (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


(Re: dodgy behavior) To be honest, I wasn't keeping track of all the goings on at the time. But I do remember quite a few threads at AN/I last spring regarding MONGO and cohorts. See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive204#MONGO User:Stone put to sky was closer to the issue at the time than I was, so he/she would be a better one to comment. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo

I suggest you peruse WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You are following neither where Raggz is concerned and this needs to change. Jtrainor (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)