User talk:Viriditas/Archive 7

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 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Contents

Celesta/Celeste

Hi. Regarding your comments on my talk page: Webster's gives celeste as an alternate spelling for celesta, too. Possibly it was more common in the fifties? In any case, I've just edited the Celesta, Celeste and Brilliant Corners articles to reflect that. Cheers. RodC 13:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas

For voting in favour of my nomination for adminship! I very much appreciate your support! El_C 02:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

hallucinogen people & organization cats

veriditas and thoric, i agree a better name and system is needed. after putting a few articles in each of them i stopped; the name is awkward, and doesn't really distinguish in the way it should- for instance, it isn't a category john lennon should be in, despite his use of hallucinogens; the Harvard Psilocybin Project" is not actually an organization- but some sort of categorization of these things is certainly needed. i'd like to set up a hallucinogens project for all of this to be discussed- i've briefly outlined it on the drugs project talk page as i wanted input from the people working on that. unfortunately i've been unable to out up a project page with a more detailed outline and whatnot as it has suddenly become finals week and i have a bunch of papers to write and a lot of german to study. hopefully i'll be able to find time soon; in the meantime, i'll hold off on putting anyone else/any orgs in the categories and would love to start discussing this on user pages or something . . . (cross posted to my talk page, thoric's talk page, and veriditas' talk page.) thanks --Heah 18:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Israelis

Hi Viriditas, please see current discussion at Template talk:Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 06:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey THANKS for reverting the vandalism on my user page : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:41, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Topological map

re: your redirection to cartography.
Yeah, it does matter, here's why:

What he says is a topological map of the truth.
-- Lipo't Feje'r (1880-1959) Quoted in D MacHale,
Comic Sections (Dublin 1993)

I was looking for an easy reference to point people towards, when they went looking for that information...
~ender 2005-05-09 12:52:MST

Nice, I was not aware that there was such a thing in the cartographic world :) I think we could intergrate the math points into the subject of that article. I wiki'd it right now, but I'd like to see it expanded upon. Ie: where the name topological came from in reference to the map (its points are transformed, but it is the same).
~ender 2005-05-19 12:52:MST (same time weird...)
Something kinda like they do here:
~ender 2005-05-19 13:20:MST

Flags at Palestinian territories

I'm having a dispute with an editor who insists on putting in the flag of the State of Palestine at Palestinian territories, with some rather POV captions as well. Since she is very insistent on having the Palestinian flag in there, I have inserted the flag of Israel as well for now, but I don't think either flag belongs, since the final status and ultimate ownership of the territories has not been decided. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The Jacket

It seems as though he's just finding out what happened back then. He was suffering from amnesia, but while in the jacket, he remembers what happened with the officer being shot and some scenes from his childhood. I don't see it as him being able to change those events at all. Regardless, I think it's too strong to call it a "glaring plot hole". Mikkel 10:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Gordon Watts

Message received; You're welcome, Viriditas; and, thank you for being thinking to protect my personal information. --64.12.116.14 12:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Viriditas, At this [1] link, which is saved in this [2] diff, I reply to you on my home page's talk/discussion page. Aloha. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

V, I saw your comment on (I think) Adam Stanhope's page, in which you hypothesize that I'm a newbie, and you are correct. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Well, I hope that I left the "Wiki" encyclopedia improved --and I think that my interactions had a positive effect.

While I would like to make more improvements, there is the time invested that it would cost me, and when you subtract some of this investment by reverts, it would be more time-efficient and energy-efficient (less stressful) for me to edit my pages.

So, in conclusion, while I was very bent (angry / frusterated) by some people, attitudes, and actions, I hope that my neighbors all don'r stress out. In other words, I am not angry. (There are worse things that happen in life.) Thank you for being a good neighbor.

PS: I don't plant to check my page much, and if anyone needs to contact me, look up my email addresses, phone numbers, postal address, and web pages. Take care, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

NIDA

Over at drug abuse you made the claim that NIDA is not a neutral source. Do you have any support for this statement? Perhaps I am incorrect in assuming that you understand that NIDA is not a political organization. They do not make policy, they fund and conduct research. Are you confusing them with ONDCP? `` Osmodiar 03:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk

Over at Talk:Drug abuse you made several changes to text I had already replied to. Doing this is not correct, as it gives a reader an inacurate view of the conversation. -- Osmodiar 08:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In response to your reply, which reads: "Your impression is mistaken. I was in the proces of editing my comment when an edit conflict occurred due to your response. Because you composed and posted a reply while I was in the process of editing my comments, I was unable to save my comments." I will say: the history tells a differant story. -- Osmodiar 09:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith. --Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

We all try to assume good faith, but it is increasingly difficult with you. Please answer reasonable questions on the talk page, instead of claiming to have already, when you have obviously not. Guttlekraw 13:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Matriarchy

there is an edit war goiing on at the page Matriarchy. I have given a large amount of new information on the definition of matriarchy as mother dominated kinship systems, along with bibliography on the main article page and the talk page. Yet it has been reverted innumerable times by User:Ashley Y. You have been editing the page Matriarchy, your help is needed here.Robin klein 05:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving a misspellt image

Greetings. Well, there isn't a way to move an image at this point. The best way to deal with the situation is to re-upload the image under the correct name, and then tag the image for speedy deletion as a duplicate.

I hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo - reply

Thanks for your message. We can't grow bananas in Ireland - it's obviously hotter where you are! I still have doubts about inserting the "to better care for his wife" phrase as if it's an undisputed fact - as if Wikipedia is trying to confirm that that was, indeed, his motivation. It's not a verifiable fact like the date of her collapse. Newsweek asserts it, but Newsweek could be wrong. If we're going to do a sentence-by-sentence discussion on the talk page, that sentence will probably come up soon. Anyway, I'll sleep on it. (It's very late in Ireland.) Regards. Ann Heneghan 01:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Lashing the vice, but not the man

Thanks for the kind words re: Humanifesto and its VfD vote. I think it's important for VfD voters to be able to be clever, to quip, and even to be a bit cruel at times, but always to be sure that their ire is directed at an article and not a person. That's why, when the newbie who writes an article shows up puzzled, I try to make clear that it's not him that's the problem, but rather the article. Sometimes, of course, the newbie comes in screeching and stamping her foot, and then I'm worse than most, I guess, at being hostile, but I feel bad for the kid who simply misunderstands what makes Wikipedia different from Everything2, and I do try to lash the vice, not the man. Thanks for the kind words, again. (I was on a long VfD vacation, but now that I've been lured out of my cave, I'll probably stick with it a bit.) Geogre 02:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hello, I notice that over at Drug abuse you have reverted the article several times and marked your changes as "minor." This is an incorrect use of the "minor" tag, as explained at Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Minor edits. Thank you for your attention to this matter in the future. -- Osmodiar 17:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked and it seems all of your edits to all articles are marked "minor." -- Osmodiar 18:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Your dispute with Guttlekraw

Veriditas, I notice that your revert war with this user spans several articles. I'd like to ask you not to revert each other without discussion on the talk page. It's anti-social, and not conducive to collaborative editing. Intrigue 15:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Veriditas, I notice that some of your edit summaries are verging quite close to personal attacks, if they have not crosed that line already. This behaviour is counterproductive and certainly not helping to resolve your dispute with Guttlekraw. Osmodiar 09:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Working things out

Hi, I hope we can work out a compromise with Francis Ford Coppola. --Samuel Wantman 10:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

re: nursing diagnoses

I'm formulating a response on talk:nursing diagnosis. Thanks for your inquiry. Matt 01:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find the NANDA reference, cause I can't access the journal from home. The journal is [3] but you need a subscription for many (most?) articles, and I find the site difficult to search. In my search I also found [4], which is at least a bit more authoritative (though I don't know if the journal Nursing is peer reviewed or what its reputation is.) I'll take a look at your drug abuse page, but keep in mind that the statement in nursing diagnosis merely reports on a commonly held view, without worrying about the "true" validity of NDs. So if there's any factual information I can add to the drug abuse page I will, but I can't offer an opinion.

Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

Damn, I thought I fixed it. It was certainly unintentional and I explained how it happened to Kelly thusly:

I now know the symptoms that lead to it and should be able to avoid it in the future. I don't understand the mechanism, however. I'll desribe it to you: I open a new window (browser session) to edit the section and once I've completed the edit hit the Preview button and the browser then proceeds to the preview window. Once I am satisfied with its appearance, I hit the Save button. Most of the time I either get an accept (well, no "accept" message, but the freshly edited and saved page comes up) or an "Edit Conflict" window. But in both of those cases tonight, upon hitting the save button it went to another preview. The first time I got that new edit window two or three times before it was saved and I didn't notice until I looked at the new page what had happened. I noticed the second time (not soon enough) that that second preview was of the whole page, but the whole page was now just the section I edited.
I'll watch for that scenario in the future and while I can't promise it won't happen again, I do promise that I'll fix it promptly if it does. I'm not some vandal indiscriminately terrorizing wiki; my edits are in earnest, although I can appreciate what you're looking for and how it appears. Thanks for watching out for me.

Obviously I missed that I hadn't fixed it. I'll be even more vigilant, now. Sorry. Duckecho 11:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Help! I can only add (not edit or revise) to the Catagory page you made.

Viriditas,

Since you are the one who created the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terri_Schiavo page, as shown by this diff, [5], I was wondering if you could tell me whay I can't make edits (changes) to the section with six (6) links in it.

I recopied it to another subheader, adding other links to those listed, but I can't edit the section you made, only the one I made. (My edit has an updated version of your creation, Dr. Frankenstein! Did I make a better monster?)

Can you tell me if you know what is up? I may check my WIKI page and/or my email for an answer. Thank you, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I got your message. Thanks. The concept is a bit confusing, but I had found thatlink before you showed it too me, but I think I'll leave it alone now, as it's an unfamiliar concept -better left alone. Thank you once again, and have a nice day. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I got your recent most post & replied on my talk page; By the way, what is the normal rule of thumb in conversations? Do I answer you on my own page and expect you to go back there? What do most people do? Keep the conversation on one page? Also, i had a question about "what does 'cm' stand for" in your edit comments? I think I got the concept, and explain that on my talk page reply to you. I UN-indented to save space. Lastly, is my "colorful" signature OK, or does the way it pushes the last line of text down make it hard to read?--GordonWattsDotCom_in_Florida, USA 08:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Deep Ecology

Hi Viriditas,

I've recently made some changes and am making ongoing changes to Deep ecology.

Thanks for the feedback! I think the Ecosophy article has a different sense than what I had intended.

Muxxa 04:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hammesfahr

At the beginning of the month there was a host of participants from whom a consensus could be obtained, and to keep the edit wars to a manageable level an active consensus was needed. Now there are only about three or four regulars (counting me). One of them just spews non sequitirs at any comment, frequently at a 5:1 rate of volume (content, not level). It is impossible to get any meaningful consensus from him that won't change in twenty minutes. Another claims that the article is too POV already and certainly will not bemoan the loss of that section. Fuelwagon has pretty much the same position on the project as do I, but I don't speak for him. Some of the other names (yours included, I'm sorry to say) that you see in the history, are once a week drive-by viewers.

Read the paragraph. "Dr. William Hammesfahr (who made claims about vasodilation therapy that the court found spurious, [14] and who later falsely claimed to be a Nobel Prize nominee, being nominated by someone who was ineligible to nominate him. [15]"

While it may be arguable that the first part about vasodilation therapy and the courts opinion of it is germane to an article about Terri Schiavo, it doesn't belong in the part of the article that sets the stage for the trial. It would more properly go in the conclusions part of the description of the trial, if it belonged at all. It's in the trial order link for all to read and Greer was none too gentle about it.

The false claim comment has zero justification in a Terri Schiavo article and is fatally POV. There is no argument he is a board certified neurologist, and that was his function at trial. His character belongs in the Hammesfahr article (where, in fact, it is), and in any event is adequately addressed in the trial order link.

Finally, at the top of the Talk page are two statements:

"Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article."

Which is what I did.

"Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes."

By no definition was that a substantial change. In any event, I see no directive that I must seek consensus for each and every, or any save substantial, change. Put a note on the talk page if you think it's a problem. Duckecho 05:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the ambiguity about the neurologists. I was focused too close to the second half of the sentence. Thanks. Duckecho 07:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

V, I answered the left-handed comments made about me at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#The_.22singling_out_Hammesfahr.22_POV_debate_.2F_and_Duck.27s_complaints_addressed Plus, I fixed my signature. Your "simple" concept has merit. Here is my new-and-improved sig: --GordonWattsDotCom 07:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. What does the "Aloha kakou, e komo mai" on your front page mean? I'm sure you will have commentary on Duck. Sorry for the squabble. I didn't mean to get into a cat fight with my neighbor here!--GordonWattsDotCom 08:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to snap at you, please, take a look at the rearrangement I made on Drug abuse and let me know what you think. Guttlekraw 10:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drug abuse

I noticed that many of you comments on Talk:Drug abuse drift from the topic of the article and attempt to assign motives to other editors. These ad hominum attacks are not productive. Remember to assume good intentions. One thing most authorities do agree upon when discussing drug abuse is that the definition of the term has been contentious and unstable for the last thirty or forty years. You accuse others of pushing a point of view, yet it is not at all clear that a concensus definition exists outside of wikipedia. For an example of how the term is handled in a medical text one could do worse than to examine the chapter in the current edition of Goodman and Gilman. Osmodiar 13:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE your response on Talk:Osmodiar Again, you seem to be focusing your attention more on your dispute with Guttlekraw than on the substance of the article. Whether or not he has also insulted you is irrelevant. Osmodiar 14:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The definition seems to be central to what you refer to as injecting POV. Read the references you yourself have provided discussing why the definition of the term has been unstable for decades. Almost every time G. makes an edit you accuse him of deliberately trying to inject POV. I just don't see where you are justified in these accusations. Osmodiar 14:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reverts

Perhaps it would be enlightening to consider how Guttlekraw could have violated the 3RR by reverting 5 times when the two of you were the only ones editing the article. By your own standard, how many times did you revert the article yourself? --Osmodiar 14:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Re: Drug abuse N.B. that it is stated on the NPOV page: "The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." --Osmodiar 14:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation!

Thanks for your invitation welcome! -- Dotshuai