User talk:Violetriga/archive8

Talk to me...
Recent archive Add comment	My view of this talk page I will usually reply here, not on your talk page Comments will not be edited except to reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy Obvious spam will be deleted

Archive 8 – Posts from November 2005 to end of March 2006

Michael Jackson Fan

"Michael Jackson Fan" has been haranguing me in IRC, asking to be unblocked please please please please please and promising that he/she isn't a vandal, isn't a sockpuppet, really really really.

I'm dubious, but I'm also too nice. So I'm just going to ask you, on what grounds did you decide that this was a sockpuppet of a vandal? Thanks. DS 01:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I couldn't tell you - if you remind me of the user ID it might help me remember. violet/riga (t) 15:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be User:Michael Jackson Fan, appropriately enough. (Oh, and sorry for the delay.) DS 18:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That user was created straight after another persistant vandal had been blocked. They did the same vandalism and was therefore blocked as a returning vandal. I can't remember much more than that. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Justin Danser

Hi. I noticed that you deleted the entry for Justin Danser. I was wondering if you could leave it up for 24 hours, as it pertains to a case study that I am currently working on for a college course, about the origins of internet memes and their patterns of propagating through community forums, IRC and other electronic mediums. Your help would be very much appreciated.

I'm afraid not, really, as Wikipedia is not a place for such content or experiments. Good luck with your course, though. violet/riga (t) 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete this?

Hello Violetriga. I was wondering why you deleted my article of Yngve Sveldon. I just told the story about him as a juggler, and if you want anything changed I would happily do that. And could you please send me the text that was in it, because I neglected to save it in my files?

---

Okay, I'm now going to post it again, but attempt to correct everything that was 'vain' about it. when I do, could you please tell me if it's okay? Thank you. I didn't mean to cause any problems, sorry.

Voluntary Wikipedia Questionnaire

Hi Violetriga,

My name is Oliver Metz. I am a student at Brent International School, Manila, an International school located in the Philippines. I am doing my last year of school (12th Grade) and I am writing a research paper (about 4000 words) on Wikipedia in ITGS (Information Technology in a Global Society). Of 10 randomly picked people you have been chosen as one. If you are willing and have the time to answer a few questions I would be grateful if you could fill out a short questionnaire of 6 questions.

Some Information about my essay:

My essay topic is about the freedom to collaborate and the usage of the Internet as a tool to do so. I will analyze topics such as Altruism versus Egoism as well as the Product Wikipedia itself.

My Thesis Statement: The Internet is not only a medium for communication, information and marketing but also a place for altruism, collaboration and cooperation. Wikipedia is the product of a voluntary collaborative effort that defies commonly held beliefs about human nature.

If you have any further questions or requests you would like to pose before filling out the questionnaire I'd gladly answer them.

you can write to: taklung@gmx.net (I check this e-mail address regularly)

Questionnaire:

Please answer the following questions by either inserting the answers or sending them to me via e-mail. (*are not necessarily required).

Name*: Age*: Nationality*:

1. How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia?

2. Have you or are you planning to donate money to the Wikipedia cause?

3. When you first heard of Wikipedia and the concepts it is based on, what did you think about it and did you believe it could work? What do you think now?

4. Why do you think people contribute to Wikipedia? With it being voluntary what interests do/did you follow when contributing to Wikipedia?

5. Do you think that Wikipedia appeals to Altruism? If yes, do you think such a thing can exist in our society in which greed and consumption apparently drive the world?

6. What do you think makes Wikipedia most beneficial to society?

Further comments*:

With kind regards,

Oliver Metz --TakLung 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied via email. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Elvis died on the toilet

One of the users ( Ted Wilkes ) goes against clear consensus and continues to delete your link to the "toilet injury" page. (129.241.134.241 17:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

I'll try and monitor the article. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be nice. Btw, Ted Wilkes has reverted the Elvis Presley article 6 times today ( November 3rd ). I can no longer revert him, because I've already reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours. Obviously, Wilkes is "defending Elvis' honor" and will continue to violate 3rr in the future. It's a tough case(129.241.134.241 22:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Bonfire

I don't know why you removed "In Britain celebrations are most popular in Sussex, particularly in Lewes." - you said - "even if it is true it's not relevant to this article." Firstly it is true - Sussex has by far the largest celebrations in the country. Most of the towns in Sussex have a bonfire society that organise bonfires and fireworks events and torchlight parades throught October and November. Lewes itself has seven bonfire societies (most sites say 6 but an old society reformed this year) and on the night of the 5th they all march through the town (asccompanied by many visitiing societies from other twons in Sussex) before heading off to five separate firesites where five separate fireworks displays (each one large enough to do any town proud) are set off. It is a Huge event. This year, being the 400th anniversary and on a Saturday, is expected to be larger than ever and an expected crowd of over 100,000 is expected. As for whether this is relevant to the article. That phrase was in the paragraph about the celebration of the event on Bonfire Night. See:

• Sussex_Bonfire_Societies
• http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/leisureandtourism/bonfire.htm
• http://www.lewesbonfirecouncil.org.uk/index.html
• http://www.cliffebonfire.com/home.html
• https://www.fireworks.co.uk/bonfire-societies/
• https://www.fireworks.co.uk/firework-displays/
  • Jooler 09:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean to cast doubt on the whether it was true or not, and was more referring to the way it was written - it slightly implies that it's not particularly popular elsewhere. Perhaps that's just me, though. The point is that it's not relevant to the Gunpowder Plot article. It's very relevant to Guy Fawkes Night and should be mentioned there instead. violet/riga (t) 12:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another 3rr violation by Ted Wilkes, despite warning

Ted Wilkes has violated 3rr once again- only one day after the previous violation

15:48, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes

00:57, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes

00:41, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes

00:12, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes

(129.241.134.241 17:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC))

---

If I understand you, you stated you inserted the reference to Toilet-related injury in the Elvis Presley article. What injury did he receive while allegedly on the toilet? Not only is the article unrelated, but most of the content of the article itself is incongruous. See Talk:Toilet-related injury#Unrelated references to article on injuries. - Ted Wilkes 17:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted contributions written by others which are not in line with his personal view. This is not O.K. See also [[1]]. Onefortyone 13:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Spam

I am informing Irish users of a nomination of an Irish template for deletion. That is my entitlement and it is their right to know. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Place a note on the Irish wikipedians noticeboard but don't spam everyone. Focus your time discussing the TfD. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish users regularly email and talk each other when dealing with nutty ideas like this nomination and will continue to do each other. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly it's not a nutty idea, which should be obvious if you look a the way that TfD is going. Secondly, talking is different to spam and you know it. violet/riga (t) 22:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Info on red rose england flower

I am a new user of wikipedia and I tried to contact someone for info on England logo . I am an italian teacher, my english is not so good sorry ! Could you indicate me where I can find info about red rose flag ? I would like to know why the red rose is the logo of England (I found that red rose is the national flower but I would like to know more details )

Thnks

There are some great articles that will answer this question for you. Take a look at:

• Red Rose of Lancaster
• White Rose of York
• Wars of the Roses (also in many other languages, but not Italy, I'm sorry to say)
• Tudor rose

I hope that those will answer your questions. violet/riga (t) 19:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Toilet-related death of King George II

Here is a direct quote from vol. 2 of the famous Memoires of the Last Ten Years of the Reign of George the Second by Horace Walpole, Earl of Orford:

On the 25th of October he [King George] rose as usual at six, and drank his chocolate; for all his actions were invariably methodic. A quarter after seven he went into a little closet. His German valet de chambre in waiting heard a noise, and running in, found the King dead on the floor." (p. 454) Onefortyone 21:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

MoS(list of works)

i didnt realize this was an admin's personal project. i'm all eager (read: impatient! chomping at the bit!) to help define the standards here quickly, and i posted a link on Rfc, hope you dont mind. (i wasnt sure whether it was more efficient to put a Rfc there or at the villagepump) --Quiddity 21:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've not had much chance to work on it recently, and your work there is more than welcome. I'll pop by and give more input soon. violet/riga (t) 21:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Subst template metadata

are you aware of Wikipedia:Subst? -- Zondor 11:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't think its a good idea also. i was not aware it must be subst. -- Zondor 12:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior

User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly removed my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See [2], [3] and [4]. He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule, for which he was blocked. Ted Wilkes has now repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Nick Adams article, though I have presented new sources and facts to support my view. He even deleted an important external link. See [5]. See also Talk:Nick_Adams#Further_sources_supporting_the_view_that_Adams_had_homosexual_leanings. This behavior is unacceptable. Onefortyone 16:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This stuff doesn't bother me all that much. As a WASP who has spoken out against any form of discrimination all my life, what upsets me is there are people working at Wiki who post stuff like this. - Ted Wilkes 18:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 Jordan attacks

Sorry, but you edits were incorrect and were reverted. freestylefrappe 20:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but they are correct. violet/riga (t) 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

hicks

Wow that's fast. Thanks. Ben Aveling 10:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. violet/riga (t) 10:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vi

Hi, Vi! I understand you're somewhat involved or acquainted with the talkpage tagging with the various FAC-related templates. Now this has been worrying me: there are currently 20 articles on FAC, but no less than 88 articles in Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates (plus a few archives and such). I would have sofixited it, except the task of checking WP:FA for all these articles is a little daunting. The kind of thing a bot would do best, I guess. But if I can assume the ones that are tagged but not currently on FAC didn't go on to become Featured, so that I can replace their {{fac}} templates with the {{facfailed}} without first checking, I'll be glad to do it. Watcha say? Best, Bishonen | talk 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bish - I hope all is well. I used to monitor the archive and when a FAC was placed in their (ie. hadn't passed) I'd replace {{fac}} with {{facfailed}}. I then had a short wikibreak, so there's now quite the backlog. I'll go through the log and sort some of them out today, if you'd like. I think a bot could do the job quite easily. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So they're all of them fails? All in Archved nominations, not Featured articles? Cool, why don't I do...uhhh...not sure whether alphabetical from the cat or chronological from the archive is better. Suppose I do November + October to start with? Then I'll re-ealuate if chronological was a bad idea. --Bishonen | talk 16:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Template:AFD changes

i did not make that recent change.

(cur) (last)  08:18, 15 November 2005 A Man In Black (found the glitch and fixed it) 
(cur) (last)  08:15, 15 November 2005 Violetriga (rolling back further to see if it works yet) 
(cur) (last)  08:13, 15 November 2005 Violetriga (rv. - seems to mess up articles) 
(cur) (last)  07:56, 11 November 2005 Grue (remove afd top and afd bottom - they're out of place here) 
(cur) (last)  06:54, 6 November 2005 Zondor (add {{PAGENAME}}) 
(cur) (last)  06:40, 6 November 2005 Zondor (cp edit) 
(cur) (last)  06:14, 6 November 2005 Zondor (fix) 
(cur) (last)  05:37, 6 November 2005 Zondor (maintenance use only) 

-- Zondor 04:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

I think you may be interested in this discussion, and commenting on the issue of Halibutt's behaviour in the Anti-tank rifle wz.35 naming dispute, raised by User:Gene Nygaard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Rachel Whitear, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Wikipedia:Trivia

Hey. I see that you've disputed in the past whether or not a consensus, or even significant amount of support, was ever achieved to accept this as a guideline. I've stuck the "proposed" template on it again, and explained why on the talk page. I was wondering if you could come lend your voice again. The Literate Engineer 18:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

ITN

ITN rules allow deaths in exceptional circumstances. Best was regarded as one of the top players in the history of sport, played in the US, UK and elsewhere, was voted the top sportsman in Europe and described by Pele as the "best footballer in the world". Under ITN he qualifies as an exception.

The Canadian story is ridiculous. ITN is not about predictions. The only story right now is that there is a motion of no confidence. Anything else is speculation and speculation does not belong on ITN. FearÉIREANN 22:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

Thanks for fixing my mystake with the Introruction Template Please leave this line alone. For some reason it wouldn't let me move it back - I think it was because I somehow forgot to put in the ":", and then it wouldn't let me move the TemplatePlease leave this line alone to Template:Please leave this line alone - anyway thx. Trödel|talk 10:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. violet/riga (t) 11:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent

Wiki is a brilliant concept, dont give up

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Geographical renaming, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Celine Dion

Hi. I saw that you removed the New Fac sign from the Celine Dion talk page. The old FAC failed, but I reopened the nomination. Is this not allowed so soon? Also, Ive been getting a hard time from many other editors who believe that the Celine Dion article does not properly analyse her music. Ive done all I can, given imformation available and article length appropriate. Ive also read other FA articles, and the material provided in them are no different (I modelled the Celine Dion article from the Kylie Minogue article which is a featured article). If you are not too busy, could you provide some feed back. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 01:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - I hadn't noticed that the FAC was a second one. I merely went around and fixed those that had the FAC notice but had been failed (the nomination archived) - I've replaced the tag while the current nomination is ongoing. violet/riga (t) 09:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK Order

I noticed you recently changed the order of the DYK submissions on Template_talk:Did_you_know, however, the page says the articles nominated should be listed "under the date of creation (not the date of submission)." Articles like Mexican Fine Arts Center Museum and Gang injunction should have stayed under Dec 1, even though they were submitted on Dec 2. Just a heads up. - AKeen 17:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right - I forgot to check that! Apologies. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marilyn Manson

I've tried to address all of your objections to this article. If you're now ready to support the nomination, please do! If not, let me know what specifically still needs to be fixed so that I can get your vote of support. Thanks! --keepsleeping say what 01:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Havengore, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article castaway, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

There's a sucker born every minute

Thanks for deleting Thereis a sucker born every minute - I created it through a slip of the finger and had already asked another admin to help fix it, but you got there first! Thanks again, CLW

No problem - I noticed your message to Brookie and thought I'd lend a hand. violet/riga (t) 11:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my unasked question

From Talk:Bollocks:

According to QI this term came about from "Box Deluxe", with "Box Standard" converting to "Bog Standard". violet/riga (t) 11:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I know the origin of the name used in the title of the Third desk... joke article. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Castaway

As you were right to note, I did read the Straight Dope article you mentioned, and did consequentially list several people there mentioned in my ill-named "todo" list. Judging by its contents, this list could have been better named, as there's no way I'm ever going to write all of the articles listed in this ever-growing list; a far better, if somewhat longer, name would have been "articles which Wikipedia should have but I'm presently too lazy to compose or to submit elsewhere". Of course, this name would have won me no copy-writing awards. I appreciate the heads-up, and will make my own contributions to castaway in the hopefully-foreseeable future. — Itai (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing refs

Hi! I noticed that List of Friends directors doesn't seem to have any references, and you've written almost all of it. Please could you add some when you get a chance? Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oo that's going back a bit. Just added the one reference used for it - cheers for the reminder. violet/riga (t) 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External peer review

Great idea to link to the Wikipedia:External peer review from article talk pages (such as Talk:Quark). Do you think we should do it for all the ones in the list (perhaps creating a template to make the process easier) or just the ones that showed there to be no errors? violet/riga (t) 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think a template would be in order, along the lines of {{externalpeer|Link to peer review page|Name of source that peer reviewed it|Description of their results}}. To be onest, it was totally spontaneous and inconsistent (I didn't bother adding it to any of the other pages. Glad to see you liked my idea. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Need some feedback

Can you have a look at some of my lates creations? Yechi Freie_Arbeiter_Stimme David Edelstadt 770 Eastern Parkway Daykart 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why you're asking me, but I'm happy to pass comment. All your articles are well written and are an excellent contribution to Wikipedia, so thanks for that. One thing you need to do is to fully cite your sources - it's important that you show where you got the information from in order to prove that it is correct. Again, thanks for your contributions and I hope that you are enjoying the wiki experience - should you need any help then do feel free to ask me. violet/riga (t) 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OpenBSD

Sorry if this made sense to you, but I couldn't really get it meself; why was the OpenBSD article's feature canditacy marked as a failure with all three objections turned and one support? Is there some numeric mark the number of supporters is supposed to reach? Also, if there is such a limit, why would you not make a comment one way or the other to make the article better. Sorry if I sound the ass, but that just didn't seem right. Janizary 01:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The decision is actually made by Raul654 and I merely tagged the article with {{facfailed}}. Having looked at the nomination there is only one explicit support (at least only one that stands out) and, while the objections seem to be dealt with there are not enough people showing their acceptance of the article. It is frustrating when this happens, I know, but I believe a renomination is is order - perhaps in the new year since too few people will be looking at it around this time of year.

The article looks great and a lot of time has been put into it - I'm sure it will get the recognition it deserves next time around. violet/riga (t) 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Eras

Hi, Violetriga.

May I request your opinion about my attempt to restart the Wikipedia:Eras proposal? I've never really tried something like this before, but I feel like something needs to be done, and I think I have an idea how to proceed. Do you have any suggestions, or warnings, or any kind of feedback? You were the last one to edit that page before me, and I don't doubt that you have some degree of insight that I haven't got. Thanks for your reply, either here or there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

English Spellings

Is there official policy on the spellings of words within the English language? I want not to cause another argument, but it seems that the lack of a strict policy - or one that many are unaware of - caused the edit war on the C-130 crash page. Eightball 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The "National varieties of English" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style shows the etiquette of usage, though how strict the policy is is down to interpretation. Because it's a style guide it's not really an enforcable policy, but most people tend to stick to it. violet/riga (t) 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of me wants to support American English, simply because it seems like the majority of our users are American; however, all the versions of English besides American are essentially uniform, so using British English would make more sense. I just think that it would be beneficial to have a standard form of English that is used, rather than relying on standards that can be difficult to decide. Eightball 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be virtually impossible to choose which to go with and to enforce it - I for one hate having to write with US spellings as it seems too foreign to me. violet/riga (t) 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

On Breastfeeding you changed behavior to behaviour. Seems kinda silly to go out of your way to change that. Personally, my policy is to leave it, but favor British when the American spell is just dumb ("thru" comes to mind). —Daelin @ 2006–01–07 12:23Z

I plan to update them soon.

These are all rajput gotras of india. Shivraj Singh 14:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete them? Please restore them back. Shivraj Singh 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I told you it is a stub on india and I plan to update it soon. Did you not understand my intent. I thought you did. Do restore them and add them to my watch list. BTW how did these pages vanish from my watch list? Shivraj Singh 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

queries

Hi , I recently returned to english Wiki from the hebrew version ,where the edit screen has many "advanced" java button(there are still quite simple editing tools) ,unlike here in the largest project site so far. why is that? Is is possible to change my prefernces so that my edit would havea some more buttons? thanks. The Procrastinator 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There aren't any other buttons available to us in the English version as far as I know - I guess the Hebrew version has been tweaked. violet/riga (t) 11:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

November 17

Why would you want to not link to the actual page name from Student? b0at 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It does link to that actual page. It's all down to your personal date preferences as to how it displays, but it still links to [[November 17]]. We shouldn't change articles to our own preferred date system or spelling. violet/riga (t) 11:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

But the actual article isn't at 17 November, it's at November 17. It seems that not using the one with the content in it is using your own preference. b0at 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

But it links directly to it, not even using a redirect. violet/riga (t) 11:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

NLP Disambiguation

Sorry to bother, may be you revert my edits by mistake. I am just linking the topic to 2 divergent viewpoints as regretably there is no consensus. I would appreciate that you do not re-revert this particular changes. --Dejakitty 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are spilling a dispute into the wrong place. Please don't use articles to air your problems, and don't refer to other users in such a way. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made it now NPOV. Sorry if it sounds to POV. Do you still have any objections? --Dejakitty 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewriting it. We should avoid mentioning forks or viewpoints where possible. I hope that what I've written is acceptable to you. violet/riga (t) 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What about now, is it more acceptable? Please help me. --Dejakitty 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have had problems with the NLP articles. Hopefully all the disputes will be settled at some point, though I totally understand your feelings that such a thing won't happen. We need to try and avoid self-references and forks. Mentioning these at NLP is not really appropriate, and so the main link should be to what NLP can stand for, which is the Neuro-linguistic programming article. The principles article is still linked from there and now has a more prominent link at Neuro-linguistic programming too. violet/riga (t) 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for poor choice of word. Please forgive me. The NLP article is heavily disputed at the moment resulting in splitting into 2 articles. One article has a sympathetic bias to NLP (Principles of NLP) and the other article is heavily critical to NLP (Neuro-linguistic Programming). I am trying to present users with 2 viewpoints. The article has undergone months of mediation and arbitration with no signs of consensus. By listing only one article, then we may present an unbalanced literature. Ideally there should be only one article, the neuro-linguistic programming article. Unfortuately, the editors on Neuro-linguistic programming would not allow a defence section on that particular page. So user FT2 started a new page. I implore you try to find out a simple solution to maintain an overall NPOV. I do not subscribe to heavy pro or heavy anti viewpoint. Could you come up with a simple solution? I would be enormously grateful. I will not do any further edits and I will put all my faith on Wikipedia in your expert hands. --Dejakitty 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. This is to let youy know one of the editor has removed your changes in the NLP article. --Dejakitty 11:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Headley has removed your link in the NLP article. --Dejakitty 11:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To Violetriga. Thanks for your help inserting the link into the NLP article. However, one of the editor would not accept such change and has removed the link again. I don't think there is anything you can do to convince him otherwise. There isn't much one can do without getting into edit war. --Dejakitty 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's quite frustrating when people try and enforce their opinions. If I have time I'll keep track of the principles article and help out more. violet/riga (t) 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's frustrating. I know. Unfortunately Wikipedia is still vulnerable to highly aggressive editors imposing their own point of view. --Dejakitty 19:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You commented on the wrong draft

Someone edited it, and you commented on the edit, not the draft I posted. I've restored Draft 5, please take a look. Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft Go for it! 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Multi-headed animal, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Near Synonym" is not relevant

Per the Trivia section on the listing House, M.D. - a "near-synonym" has no relevance in a fact-based encyclopedia. It is completely objective (and therefore PoV). Please address this with your thoughts/feelings on the article's discussion page.

Image:Cotw.gif has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cotw.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

SoothingR 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Silly Spelling

Wouldn't it make sense for all the uses of a word in one article to have the same spelling? I really don't care whether you use "organization" or "organisation," on the Breastfeeding page, but it would be nice to have them all the same, don't you think? The reason I picked the "z" version, is because the Wiki article on the word suggests that both are accepted in Commonwealth English, but only the "z" spelling is accepted in North America. It would seem that the version accepted by most people should be used. Again, though, I really don't care which one, but it would be nice to stick to one version in the entire article. MamaGeek Joy 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The only time it is spelt with a "z" is as part of the name World Health Organization, which officially uses that spelling. Perhaps the best solution therefore would be to shorten it to WHO more often. violet/riga (t) 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A ban?

"Ban all users who have userboxes?" How do you justify such a potentially fascistic statement? The last time I checked, user pages were covered by free speech and not subject to NPOV. Not to mention, the userboxes themselves were hardly disruptive to Wikipedia. You're entitled to your opinion about userboxes, but that doesn't justify threatening the accounts of those who choose to use them. --CJ Marsicano 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I just think the entire userbox fad is farsical and, while it helps community spirit with a small group of people, is detrimental to the project as a whole. Some userboxes have use - most are BJAODN-fodder. violet/riga (t) 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. It still doesn't justify banning though - that bordered dangerously close to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --CJ Marsicano 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It will be a breach of policy when I actually start banning people, but I wouldn't agree that what I said is close to WP:CIVIL and certainly not WP:NPA. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

....a little disappointed..

Hi Violetriga! You don't know me, but... I was a little bit disappointed to see your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User allboxes where you said "Delete and ban all users with a stupid userbox on their page." I know you didn't mean anything by it, but banning is pretty serious business and I'm not sure its helpful to throw around stuff like that casually... just a thought. Respectfully yours, Herostratus 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. To be honest I think that the abuse of userboxes is causing problems here. That is not to say that all userboxes are bad, but, as I noted on that comment, the stupid userboxes are the ones that are causing ill feeling. I'm rather bored of seeing the userboxes listed on TfD, bloating it and taking away from the serious use of that page, and that particular one (the only userbox I've commented on at TfD) is simply making a joke out of the situation. Obviously I don't think that people should be banned for having a box on their user page, but I was just saying that it is getting stupid. I said it knowing that it would get some peoples attention, and I know it doesn't help, but the main people behind userboxes are so ridiculously obsessed with them that they refuse to allow any sort of rational thought behind them. I don't see what I said as a threat, merely a comment on the silliness of the whole situation - sorry if it offended you. violet/riga (t) 09:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for Wikipedia:UserBoxes for deletion. If we could move everything to do with them to places where no-one needs care about them, it might take some of the heat out of the argument. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Please remember that Wikipedia favours discussion over edit wars. violet/riga (t) 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I look forward to discussing your proposed changes on Help talk:Contents, where everyone can participate. --Go for it! 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

By the way, would you do me a favor? Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Help, answer whatever questions you can on the talk page, and add whatever you think is worthwhile for such a project on the project page itself. It would really help to get things started. Plus, I am really confused by the Help namespace, since most of our help files are in the Wikipedia namespace. Your help and input is appreciated (and thanks for the spelling corrections!) --Go for it! 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Page New and Main Page New2

Hi! I wonder: what is the point of Main Page New2? Punkmorten 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete Main Page New and Main Page New2 shortly, unless you have a reason for them to exist. violet/riga (t) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. They were temporary mark ups to see what the browsebar would look like on the main page. They are no longer needed, and feel free to delete them. We can always create more in the future if we need to. --Go for it! 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fenice and Silence, Templates e.g., on Wilderness

Hi - thanks for tidying up the template on Wilderness. I'm pretty new to WP and have been a bit confused about what templates belong on Talk pages and which ones on Articles. User:Fenice and User:Silence have been to-ing and fro-ing a bit with adding/taking off that template from the Wilderness article page. See User:Silence's talk page - I posted/asked about it there and did some reading. On other pages I've used "cleanup", "reqimage", etc.. I haven't been able to find a clear guideline though. Kind regards, Jtneill - Talk 09:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

It's a shame there have been these problems. Wikipedia:Template locations is a good place to look at for a poll on what should go where - it's just unfortunate that Fenice will not listen to consensus on this matter. Thanks for the note. violet/riga (t) 09:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, that's just the magical page I was after - Thankyou :) Jtneill - Talk 09:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to report my suspicions of further activity through a cloak of anonymity by Fenice, albeit on an unrelated article. I have posted my suspicions here on Fenice's talk page. As there has been past conflict and your RIPing them, I thought you might be interested. Once someone is banned, are they simply able to make some new account and continue the activity, or is their entire IP banned? If so, perhaps this one too if it can be ascertained this is them? --Tyciol 08:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your mass deletions

Stop mass deleting templates, Violetriga.--Fenice 11:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not - I'm going along with consensus and making them only appear on the talk page, not the article page. violet/riga (t) 11:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And I know you want me off this site, well, it did not happen. :-) Talk page guidelines apply to talk page templates, would you believe it. And you are deleting them without replacing them according to your edit history. If they were also on talk pages - I cannot check every bit of vandalism you are committing. In case you decide to go on another rant (can you contain yourself - we are eager to see) just at least replace them. --Fenice 11:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So would you at least offer to take over the AID, Violetriga? Or do you just go about the site asking contributors to leave. Well since your busy being disruptive I don't think you are going to work on the AID. Just another hint that decency is an option, Violetriga.--Fenice 11:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny - every article seems to have the notice on their talk page to me. And I don't want you off this site (that's a nice bit of self-importance you have there!) - I just want you to go along with consensus. Also, please stop calling this vandalism as that is a personal attack. violet/riga (t) 11:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, why not answer my question: take over the AID, violetriga. Obviously you should do something for the fun of chasing away an editor. I will explain everything to you in detail. It is not that hard. I will leave and do no more here.--Fenice 11:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You do a great job at WP:AID, and I don't want to take it over in any way. However, you are clearly doing your own thing despite everyone else when it comes to the associated templates. Again, I don't want you to leave, just to stop the edit warring. violet/riga (t) 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict, while I wrote you the instructions. I know peole like you do not have any decency. Yeah, you are not even going to take over. Surprise. Here are the instructions anyway. Develop some sense of decency, Violetriga, do your job. You should make up for the harm you cause. I know you would not dream of it now, but unless you are mentally ill, you might develop integrity once the project dies, that'll start to occurr in about five or so months:

Here are the instructions:

1. On sunday at 18.00 GMT you are supposed to do a socalled rollover, that is switching the template to a new collaboration. All voters need to be informed and you need to change all the templates in the section called "templates for maintenance" at the bottom of the page. Fill in the new article in the history section and add the diff to the old.
2. Every day, you should check to update the vote count and voting requirement. New nominations need to have a template (there would have been an option just to omit that template but you are obviously just into warring so we can't have that option). So they will need to have a template, nominators put them on talk or article page, whichever one is ok, but you should check for them to be complete.
3. The voting goes more or less automatic right now. If the page looses contributors to a point where it might die (will happen in approximately 5 months, since it is really well established now), you need to start advertising: put information about the nomination on project pages: WikiProjects, there is a link to the list, and put some info on related articles.
4. Also, you need to develop the project further in order for it to become successful and actually produce featured articles, you will have to develop some kind of strategy to get people to actually work on it. This works for one by advertising and accumulating voters, but you also need to develop some other strategy, I was only starting to develop this and so you will have to experiment. Start by developping a todo box while the articles are listed and try to get editors to decide upon a strategy, while the article is listed, because there are things you can't just put in the todo-box. The first attempts in this direction were unbelieveably and surprisingly successful, so I suggest to really explore that alley further. Create the todo box immidiately after the article is listed, and start filling it in some systematic way. People will pick up on it and go along.
5. And one further thing: there needs to be some kind of a box on AID which summarizes the criteria for a FA. The existing boxes on FA will not do, see discussion of this somewhere on old talk pages, it was discussed before even my time and I never got around to developing it. You may consider putting this box on the talk page of the nominated article also.
   

I am fully aware you do not intend to make up for my work here, but who knows, you may come to your senses eventually, pick up some decency, and decide to make up for my work, therefore the instructions. For a while now, it will run automatically, it won't develop any further unfortunately, unless you actually take over and do the job properly. After a while it will start to die. At that point in time you may develop integrity (unless you are mentally ill). Then you can dig up the instructions and maybe make up for your actions.
I believe my reverts have expired. So this is it. I will leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is open for people with all kinds of needs, also with those who are just distructive, like you. Appears to me sometimes peaceful people here are actually a minority, so no big loss for me, if I think about it. --Fenice 11:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

(i) It takes two to tango; (ii) templates for editors belong on the talk page, not the article page. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP block

I understood the issues involved - thanks. --Bhadani 14:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please also see further comments on my talk page in response to reply to a query by User:Syrthiss. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Optimization

Heya. I was wondering about the reversions on File:Wiki letter w.png. I normally go around the place doing mathematically-lossless image optimizations. In other words, the end result displayed on the screen is exactly the same (mathematically lossless compression; not just perceptually lossless compression). And given File:Wiki letter w.png is an image that's displayed many places, I thought shrinking it down as small as possible would be a good idea. The newer version I submitted is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the older one - it's just using tighter compression methods. Similar to using the maximum compression setting in many zipping programs instead of the fast compression setting, saving these images takes a few minutes instead of a few seconds but it results in a much smaller file. Since this image is a common one, I thought that halving the size of the image would be a good thing.. But there might be some reason as to why the image has to be as-is instead of the smaller version. Is there a reason this image has to be as-is, like if it's a dynamically generated image or an image pulled from one of the other wiki projects? If not, I'd recommend using my version instead... The result is exactly the same but it's less than half the size. But I'm not the most knowledgeable in these situations, and I've been wrong many, many times before. :) RIUM+ (t) 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The other image had, on IE, a grey background, while the one I reverted to had a white background and fitted in with everything else better. violet/riga (t) 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes... my mistake. I normally check against Internet Explorer and its odd handling of PNG transparencies, but I forgot that time... ah well. I've got a newer version temporarily on my site that you can check over before I submit yet another image that needs reverting. It's only smaller by ~26% instead of 52% but hey, any savings is good savings for often-viewed images. :) 14:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks fine to me - good work! violet/riga (t) 15:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

template:policy2 image

Hi. What made you change the image in the template? I'm not sure I agree it's "better". Sure, PNG is a nicer format than svg, but couldn't you just convert the old image? It's been with us a while, and your replacement is, uh, ugly. :) Thanks. Stevage 21:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that, at that size, the PNG one is nicer. The main thing though is that SVG has the horrible blue background and looks ugly. violet/riga (t) 21:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was just checking whether there was a compelling reason other than your personal preference. Now would you mind undoing your changes and discussing the issue before forcing your preference on so many editors in such a visible way? If it's a format thing, by all means, change the format of the old one. But the other checkmark image has nothing objectively better that should lead to it being replaced so impulsively. I suspect a few other editors would disagree with your remarks about "horrible blue background and looks ugly" - why not ask them? Stevage 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? No, I think I'll leave it thanks. violet/riga (t) 22:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Template advice

Hi Violetriga. Could I get a bit of advice? Which of the templates on Talk:Wilderness do you think should be there? It seems to me there's too many / too distracting. Would appreciate your assistance. Kind regards, Jtneill - Talk 01:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully I've sorted them out now. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jtneill - Talk 14:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Río de la Plata

Hi -

Río de la Plata? River Plate? As a (relatively) disinterested and independent admin, I wondered if you would care to grace us with a dispassionate view of the WP:RM debate. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What a mess! I've left my views, and hope that it will lead to something. violet/riga (t) 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm not going to move it back myself, but FWIW, I agree with you (but then I would, wouldn't I!). One of the editors either does not seem to know how in-your-face their comments are, or is deliberately making allegation that pretty much everyone else is biased or in bad faith. I won't say which one, but I guess you can guess. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Río de la Plata

You had NO RIGHT to overrule a wp:rm vote and call for a new poll less than a week after its closure. I believe it is a serious matter and a breach of WP policy. I will NOT be starting and RfC or any other of that nonsense but I sincerely believe that you didn't behave correctly. As usual, I am assuming good faith and that's why I am here asking you for an explanation. I do know that my "tone" in this message is a little irritated but let me assure you that there is no animosity here, it is just some frustration for the difficulty in putting this matter to sleep. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're more than happy with the way the original vote went considering that it went your way. The fact is that it was not done particularly well and the argument continued to rage. If you are truly certain that the original result was correct then I'm sure this poll will reinforce it - either way it will decide in the most appropriate fashion. violet/riga (t) 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It was done according to WP standards, listed in WP:RM. If you had bothered to read the discussion you'll see that I said that I liked R de la P but would support the poll whatever its results. I really despise your suggestions and find them in lack of WP:AGF. Besides, by the same token, I don't think I'll be hearing of a new vote if River Plate had won it. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I just think you've handled the situation badly and I'm sorry but you're going to have to live with the results. violet/riga (t) 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What?!? "Live with the results"? "Handled the situation badly"? Last count things are still going "my way" (19-7 this time), and WP policy being abused is nothing new here, trying to make people respect it is not "handling a situation badly". But, alas, in the end you're entitled to think whatever you want to think, so I'll stay off your page, unless you want me not to. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat, I am entirely neutral about the result and don't care which name it goes with. Current it's going "your way" and that's fair enough, but should the results be the reverse I intend to enforce that name. I'm not asking you to stay off of my page - discussion is what we're supposed to do here, and I would never discourage that. violet/riga (t) 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but please also understand that I plan to enforce the first vote, since I see this as a attempt on repeating a vote trying to get a more favorable result. But maybe it won't really be necessary if the second vote confirms the first. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be a shame to see you dragged through RFC for wheel warring. violet/riga (t) 19:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That a threat? Don't bother answering, I couldn't care less. Do as you please. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To wade in after a requested move has concluded, especially one with lots of discussion, evidence, and good-faith arguments on both sides, and decide you didn't like it and are going to re-open the whole thing comes across as imperious, quite frankly, and I don't think it will calm things or forstall future page move wars. Please do not do this. Jonathunder 19:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I was necessary and seems to have had enough votes (including numerous that did not originally vote). I'm sorry but I'd certainly do it again. violet/riga (t) 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured Topics

Is there any maintenance or advertising done over there? Circeus 20:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I need to get more energy before trying to sort out WP:FT. The main problem is the lack of input, but I'm sure it can be a very good thing. violet/riga (t) 21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Some amount of visibility is needed, but I'mnot sure where to point. Maybe a link at WP:PR is in order? Circeus 21:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping to do it with quite a bit of publicity soon - any help you can give will be gratefully received. violet/riga (t) 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing all sort of minor stuff on the wiki recently. I'll be glad to help. Just give me a heads up as to what you need. Circeus 14:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

date formatting

I was under the impression (from a discussion about 6-8 months ago, perhaps as part of the lead-up to the jguk "eras" RfAr) that they had to be [[date month]]. No offense intended. Tomer^talk 13:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Those silly Americans... Tomer^talk 15:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't dispute, Clearify

In your answers to user Sebastiankessel both at your talk page and WP:ANI, you seamed to provoke him doubting of his intentions ("I'm sure you're more than happy with the way the original vote went considering that it went your way", "It just appears that you are worried that you won't get your way"), rather than explaining why "the original one [poll] was not done in the most appropriate manner". I'm pointing out only your first answers, as the discussion then derived in an argument. I believe that, perhaps led by previous bad experiences, you did not assume good faith. Don't get me wrong, I'm writing you this because I know (virtually) Sebastian, and I think he always intended to do things right. Hope everything cools down, Mariano(t/c) 10:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I was retaliating to him because I stepped in to help out and he starts calling it "ridiculous". If he looked at it correctly then he'd be able to see that it was a good faith attempt to sort out the arguments and is looking likely to strengthen the case for his preference. I stopped assuming good faith from him because of such accusations, which might not be the most appropriate thing to do but it is somewhat frustrating to have someone questioning your motives (and neutrality) when you're trying to help. violet/riga (t) 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can understand both of you; water under the bridge. Take care, and good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Drafts

I've added links on each draft at for example Draft 6A to all of the other drafts, it's really the only way to make comparisons. If you think this is stupid then let me know, otherwise I'll keep it up. hydnjo talk 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...

... for closing the vote on Río de la Plata early, my mistake. —Nightstallion (?) 11:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I know it's pretty much decided, but I want it to go through without anyone able to claim that it didn't go according to process. There'll be some people unhappy with the result as it is (which would happen whichever way it happened). Thanks. violet/riga (t) 11:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the outrageous personal attack in a recent edit summary, saying that you have "promise[d] to campaign in favor of "River Plate" " and will swing the vote with your "meatpuppets".

FWIW, I think you have been entirely neutral and I will, of course, respect the results of the vote, even if I think it gives (as it does at present) entirely the wrong result. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. *rolls eyes* violet/riga (t) 12:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread your intentions here. When I read it the first time (when you wrote it, hadn't bothered until now to reread it), I somehow failed to see that there was a generic plan to contact previous voters who had not voted. After your having stated that you supported "River Plate", my judgment of your proclamation of neutrality was, understandably, cautious, and I read your statement as a response to Sebastian's as one that you would be planning to contact only people who supported your view. I really can't take it back, since I don't know how to delete individual edits. If you do, please accept my humble apologies and delete it for me. I'm not quite as drunk as Jooler obviously was, and I should know better than to be editing in my state, and it's really late and I should have been sound asleep 7 hours or more ago (actually I should just be waking up now, it's 7:08 AM here, but haven't slept yet), and all manner of other excuses [I'm groveling here...it's really quite unseemly]... I'm gonna stop now. Ciao. Tomer^talk 13:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article placenta accreta, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Silly User Block

No problem :)--Shanel 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming of Violetriga, you are NOT helping Wikipedia!

You are probably right about this user not deserving a welcome as the name is offensive and probably inappropriate. I try to make welcomes more personal to the user, but sometimes I have gotten into the habit of just going to Recent changes and pasting a welcome on all the red linked user talk pages. In the future if I see an offensive name such as this I will check to see if it is acceptable by Wikipedia's rules before welcoming them. I apologize for this matter and I hope you have a nice day! --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

River Plate

Thanks for your assistance. For my part, I think you acted entirely neutrally. The vote went against my position, but I guess I will have to live with it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I can understand both positions, and it's always frustrating when policies conflict - the vote shouldn't have to take place, but there's no chance that an all-encompassing policy could be developed to satisfy everyone and everything. violet/riga (t) 12:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DMU

That's interesting, what did you study there? -- Francs2000 23:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The James Went building has disappeared? Wow. Shows how long it is since I last went to Leicester. Incidentally I studied at Scraptoft, which has also disappeared, and only went to the city centre campus to visit the student's union. And not too often in my final year when I busily studying to get a 2:1. Which is probably why we didn't meet up! -- Francs2000 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a thing. We were informed by the lecturers when we first went for the interview to get onto the course that the halls were a dive and should be avoided at all costs. That's why my first summer before going to uni was spent finding rental accommodation. And I remember those buses, which was why I bought a bike... -- Francs2000 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article secret passage, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

In relation to this, I just wanted to say really good job on the article. It is now a really well-presented and (getting there) comprehensive source on information on a relatively obvious-but-not-immediately-so subject. Batmanand 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - lovely to hear positive things about articles I've worked on.  :) violet/riga (t) 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say it's a great article. In fact, I was amazed that Wikipedia didn't have yet an article on that, and it filled that niche perfectly. In fact, I think it has potential for a FA. --cesarb 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Once the items on "to do" are done, and I've referenced everything that I can then I may well submit it to FA. Thanks for the message. violet/riga (t) 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anon blocks

Yes, I acknowledge I made a mistake on that block. I did not realize it was a widely shared IP. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That ip (217.33.74.20) is a good example of why we need the ability to block unregistered users from an ip but allow registered ones. The unregistered contributions for an entire month previous to now were vandalism except for a handful of beneficial edits. --Syrthiss 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. violet/riga (t) 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your boss is a sock puppetier?

Hi Violet,

I don't know if you're aware of this claim at VinnyCee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I am a Violetriga's boss.

Please forward me any screw-ups that user:Violetriga may have caused.

Thank you.

Vinny seems to be/have a sock 24.11.91.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), or see Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Police State possible sock puppetry.

I guess you have to laugh? Not always easy sometimes. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - well spotted. At least he's not been a very prolific editor, having only made a few contributions. I've reverted the user page and will try and keep my eye on it. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 11:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

QI Series 2 Christmas Special

Hi! Just in case you miss it on your watchlist, I've added a rough outline of the rest of this episode over at Talk:List_of_episodes_of_QI/detailed. As I said there, I wasn't sure exactly what info was relevant, but I've tried my best! If you need any additional info (I'll add points later), please ask and I'll watch that part of the episode again. Once it's done, I'm sure we can tidy it up to bring it to article standard! --Lox (t,c) 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

About you requesting that "Criticism of Halo 2" should be deleted.

Why is it not important? The debates about whether or not Halo 2 is a good game is one that still goes on today ( I like the online play of H2 but not the single player mode ). The controversies surrounding the game also deserves to be noted in an article on this place; So I believe that the article should just say "that there is a common belief between a lot of gamers that the weapons, gameplay, multiplayer abilities , and campaign were rushed by Bungie so that the game could come out at it's schedualed time".

Obviously, the article would not just have what I have just written, but you get the point. Shady_Joe

I'm not saying that criticism from valid sources isn't valid, just that a whole, unsourced article is inappropriate. Such content should be in the main Halo 2 article. violet/riga (t) 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

More on 'article rating' and topical analysis

See Wikipedia talk:Article rating for some recent thoughts. +sj + 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you bite your lip a bit sometimes?

We're trying to get Fenice to come back, and you have nothing better to do than point out on his talk that he was the one that started the edit war? I'd like to think you can't really be that self-absorbed... Samsara _contrib ^talk 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with Fenice coming back, and so thankyou for your efforts in encouraging that, but I don't really like being disparaged on a persons userpage - it's only fair that I point out the facts about the situation. violet/riga (t) 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names

Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y Arktos 10:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look into the 2nd Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names. It appears that the "c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and c. 14 for endorse" outcome of the first wasn't clear. -- User:Docu

Re Wikipedia:Article assessment suggestion

Thanks for your addition to Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters - it's an interesting one! Not what I expected, though it certainly fits the criteria. I hope it does well and, with a quick glance over it, I reckon it will. violet/riga (t) 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It was my first thought when I saw the topic – and although my next was that it wasn't a disaster for human beings, I decided to suggest it anyway. I suppose it's better described as a "cataclysmic event" or the like. Thanks for your message! David Kernow 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for so valiantly defending it earlier! --Shanel 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem - sorry you were coming under such an attack. violet/riga (t) 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job

Just wanted to let you know that your User page is one of the more aesthetically pleasing that I have seen lately. Olessi 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you, very nice to hear. violet/riga (t) 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney

You voted "Merge". The content has recently been added to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Savidan 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that a redirect is the most appropriate. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

school uniform

if arguements againt are POV then so are the ones for it

1996 U. S. campaign finance scandal

What is the big idea of changing this article's status to "failed" FAC on it's talk page? If I don't get a reasonable explanation I will have to report you for vandalism. --Jayzel68 12:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, may I ask you to read through Wikipedia:Assume good faith thoroughly. Secondly, I urge you to investigate things properly before making accusations of vandalism.

The reason I added the facfailed template is that Raul654 had placed the FAC nomination in the failed list, which I went through and placed all the facfailed templates on the appropriate articles. However, Raul left the nomination on the main FAC page and, looking at the supports, I can only assume that it was an oversight by him. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First, you added the failed template on the article: "05:02, February 18, 2006 Violetriga m ({facfailed})"

Second, Raul654 reversed his decision and added the article back to the FAC page: "Per your request, I have restored Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1996 Campaign Finance Scandal to the FAC. Raul654 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)"

Therefore, the timeline makes no sense re: your explanation. Anyhow, if you say it was a mistake I will leave it at that. Just know that I did investigate first. Ciao! --Jayzel 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's in the archive then I add the failed template, simple as that. Thanks for your reply. violet/riga (t) 00:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake & failed FAC

Hi,

Can you give me any info on why Chew Valley Lake failed FAC(but thanks for the good article). There was only one object & I thought I'd addressed this. Did it just run out of time (I couldn't see a specific timescale) Or is there something else I could do to improve it.

user SP-KP has contacted me sugesting that i ask you for more uidance & he has volunteered to resubmit it for FAC.

Any help appreciated. Rod 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The nomination did not score enough support votes, and as it was there for two weeks without such support it was archived. Unfortunately, the number of objections and comments was very low, which hints to me that people just didn't feel like assessing the article. Try and make sure the comments there are all dealt with and then you or SP-KP can just resubmit it. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Assessments

I noticed you've been giving assessments of some tropical cyclone articles; nice. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones has been using our own assessment scale for a while, taken from the Chemisty wikiproject I believe (see Category:Tropical_cyclone_articles_by_quality and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment). Now my question is; how do these two completely different assessment scales fit together? — jdorje (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW there are over 500 tropical cyclone articles, all of which surely fall under the natural disasters category in some sense. Feel free to assess them all ;-). However you may want to start with the articles that we consider good, by looking at the FA and A articles in Category:Tropical_cyclone_articles_by_quality. — jdorje (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A particular article on which your assessment might be useful is 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. — jdorje (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The work you've all done on assessments there is great. WP:AA is a separate thing, looking at a different topic every week. Natural disasters is currently being assessed by various people for this week, with the list of articles already gathered last week. I will add 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to the list later today as the process has only just started and its not a problem to add one in now.

Hopefully WP:AA will allow feedback from people outside of the editors of an article - most of the articles I reviewed I have not edited before. However, if you wish to come along and do some reviews yourself then that would be more than welcome. Please let me know how you think this feedback has been when the assessment finishes in a weeks time - it would be nice to hear if you think it has been worthwhile or not. violet/riga (t) 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support of my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA ultimately succeeded with a final consensus of 52/1/0, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any comments regarding my editing, or I can help you at any point in the future, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!

_└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism. Needless to say, if you notice me doing something not quite right or have questions about any of my actions, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Optical Character Recognition external links

I am the one who added the latest external link to Optical character recognition. I think you did a disservice to individuals wanting to know more about OCR. Vendors can provide a lot of information about this subject. I think a comprehensive list of vendors would be helpful. I should have signed in to Wikipedia first before adding that link but I was kind of just poking around and didn't really expect to add it. I saw a lot of our competitors there so I added our name to the list. I would like to hear your views on the subject. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contribution. I removed all the links because they are commercial sites and we have a policy of avoiding linking to any commercial sites without a very good reason. I am aware that there are numerous good resources available on some of the sites but there are also many other more neutral places where that information is available. I hope that these resources can be found and added without pushing any particular make or brand. violet/riga (t) 08:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AA

I've seen a few of your reviews and apart from "Coverage and factuality", you don't often explain your ratings. Could you perhaps be a bit wordier to aid others in understanding them? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I will hopefully get around to adding comments soon, but rushed through them to make sure they all had at least something there. violet/riga (t) 11:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, how do you decide on a topic for WP:AA. The list of suggestions is pretty large. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a strict policy on this yet, and I'm open to ideas. I'd like to see it as a discussion and would like to try and avoid a rigid voting scheme, but if that is what works best then we can go for it. I've chosen 1980s comedy films as the next one because I think that will be fun and draw more people to the project. violet/riga (t) 11:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe encourage people to comment on suggestions to see which get a lot of support. Do you think ancient civilizations makes a good subject? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We could ask contributors to the articles to review the assessments and pass comments on the talk pages. The Tropical cyclones WikiProject may be able to help here. Ancient civilizations could be an excellent topic. Lets have a look at how many articles would come under that topic and see if it needs slightly tightening or not. violet/riga (t) 21:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why did you update AA already? It's still Feb 26. Id' appreciate it if you kept the update times on the page in UTC to avoid confusion. I can name a few ancient civs, but I think ancient civilizations is a quite limited subject. At least more limited than natural disasters. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added it as a suggestion on the suggestions page. violet/riga (t) 23:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• BTW, I added my rate for Krakatoa. I had been working on it and it seems a shame to not add it. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've updated the main page in readiness because I thought I would be unable to do it at midnight. As it happens I am able to, so will be updating it properly in 45 minutes. I've reverted the main page until then. violet/riga (t) 23:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks on both accounts. :) Mgm|^(talk) 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Leverton block

I can't seem to find the autoblock in question. The only thing I can think of is that there are a number of socks attacking the page of Green Day and the pages of its members, and one of them might have used the same IP since it's likely the same person. I did reblock Gerald Leverton though, since unblocking didn't seem to help and that particular account has been reused several times rather than being a one-shot throwaway. -- Curps 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, try now, I did find a Gerald Leverton autoblock (scrolling). -- Curps 14:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that works now, cheers. violet/riga (t) 15:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Domo Arigato

[6] --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Another AA idea.

I think any article that got an rating of 8 or higher should be put on Good articles (WP:GA) to have it honored. I think AA also is an excellent place to get articles that are close, but not quite featured to the attention of the people who know how to fix it. I think AA should make an effort to help the "winners" along to featured status. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to publicise WP:AA to the appropriate people with the idea that they almost adopt a topic either during or after assessment. What you're saying is very true, and I see the assessments as being both praise and constructive criticism, pointing out the good bits and showing the bits that need improving for it to become a featured article. I like the idea of putting 8+ articles on GA - there's no reason we shouldn't start doing that now. We could have a template that merges GA with the assessed notice, but that might start getting to be too much. I'll have a think - thanks for the ideas. violet/riga (t) 10:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

See the new Template:Assessed-good. Can you get a combined GA/assessment logo going, so it's easier to see it's a combo template? =- Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I might be able to come up with something. I think we should discuss this with the GA WikiProject, but I like the template. violet/riga (t) 22:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

busty reptiles

it was my pleasure ;) dab (ᛏ) 14:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about Smilodon thingy....

Sorry about the smilodon thingy, I thought you submitted requests like that. Guess I made a mistake.... Spawn Man 22:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just messaged you. violet/riga (t) 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask though, what is the article assessment project there for? What does it do other than give ratings nobodies going to look at on articles articles on obscure subjects? Does it fix them? Pass them off to another team? I don't understand why the project is there.... Spawn Man 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment it is just an informal rating scheme. It aims to identify problem areas in an article with the hope of getting them fixed, possibly linked to an appropriate WikiProject. At least such information can go towards creating a todo list for an article, or help push them to PR or FAC. violet/riga (t) 23:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy mayhem

Was just wondering why you reverted the vehicle stuff at Family Guy; they aren't silly, they really did exist. --User:Master of Puppets 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I know they exist, but it makes the infobox look horrible and it hardly adds anything to the article. violet/riga (t) 22:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I kinda think I see what you mean. Maybe we could incorporate them more 'encyclopedicly' in? --User:Master of Puppets22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry 'bout the horrible signature.

Perhaps it could be added into the main body of the article, though I'm not sure that it's particularly noteworthy. violet/riga (t) 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why did my submission, Lesotho get delted twice, both by your mistake, on the article assessment page? I submitted three countries on this edit, [7]. Then another editor submitted Ghana in this edit, [8]. And then you copied the list to make the template thingy, however, missing out both South Africa & Lesotho in this edit, [9]. South Africa is a FA, but Lesotho is not & I haven't recieved a proper explanation. If it about the 15 article limit, then why is Ghana, which was submitted after Lesotho, get to stay? Lesotho was first in, not an FA, good length, nothing bad at all. You're not making a good friend in me, & I have proof.... Please reply before I contact someone else on the project or elsewhere to sort it out... Spawn Man 08:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The talk page explains this. Articles with the lowest incoming link count were dropped, rather than the limit being reached by submission order. violet/riga (t) 15:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds unfair to me, but thanks for an actual explanation.... Spawn Man 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to go by submission date because it clearly states that submissions are accepted until the end of the week, and one person could come along and get all their choices in first. The number of incoming links indicates a level of importance of that article, and thus how important it is to assess it. violet/riga (t) 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Blackadder

Have you noticed that it is up on WP:FARC? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'm not able to be online properly at the moment so I hadn't noticed. violet/riga (t) 16:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like your opinion/help on something

• Greetings! First of all, I love the article assessment idea, and was glad to contibute to this week's efforts. Now, onto business, recently I had an article deleted (not by you) called Elite Roleplaying (I am unsure if you can view past instances of the page, despite it's deletion, if not, I'll put it on a subpage of my user page). If you view the deletion page, the page was deleted, not because of consensus, but because many who agreed to the keeping of it were users with few edits. The person who created the deletion was also a newer user. We (the people who voted to keep. You'll also note we developed way more arguments than the 'per nom' 2-second arguments many others developed to support the deletion) felt that this deletion went against Wikipedia protocols, mainly the deletion policies as our article was quite detailed, Neutral POV, no advertising (ie blatant, obvious, etc.), and has outsider support (Yahoo search for "Elite Roleplaying" shows many other websites discussing or mentioning Elite Roleplaying, including the extremely popular Star Trek source Trek Core). Do you know of any people we can relate our inquiry to, or can you do anything about this if we discussed this outside of Wikipedia (say e-mail?). If you would prefer to not be involved in this, that is quite alright and I will understand if you do decide so. Thanks in advance. - Enzo Aquarius 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Meh, sorry

I had my editing window small, so I didn't see the frequent unblock notices *again*. --Syrthiss 16:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)