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 User_talk:FeloniousMonk#WP:Civil? 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") after commenting on the matter previously...[4]...and editng that page as well [5]...you also did this on WP:NPA...protecting that policy not long after now indefinitely banned editor Miltopia had edited it [6] on a version you had argued in favor of previously...[7]. 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)