User talk:Viriditas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Day the Earth Stood Still

Thanks for detecting the error, have you corrected it? I wanted the robot listed in the category:Fictional robots.

re: Japanese democracy and Minamata Tokyo negotiation

Thanks for doing the merge. Are they ready to be redirected in yet? Rossami (talk)

I didn't mean to sound pushy. I was just offering to help but didn't know if I would be stepping on something you still had in process.

By the way, someone created a Category:Minamata disease which now only has the one page in it. I've not done much with nested categories yet. Does it have a purpose anymore? Rossami (talk)

You made use of the original. To me, that means the history must be preserved. I will nominate the category for deletion. Thanks again. Rossami (talk)

Stub sorting guidelines

I sincerely believe that we really need to lay down the law in stub sorting, and really provide a guideline. I believe that we should all attempt to reach a general consensus by April 2, 2005 in a set of rules that we can follow. Once we have built a set of guidelines, we can formally create a policy out of those guidelines. We need to define what a specialized topic stub is, how many articles it should cover, when is it appropriate to create it, what defines its need for its creation, what defines its need for deletion, what criteria it should follow, what are the general steps should one take when sorting a stub, whether or not to start using subst: for all templates, whether or not use subst: for all templates created by the meta-templates, and any other matters that may come up in consideration. I thank jag123 for initially creating the subpage for the project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines. Even though they have been discussed, I feel that we really need to confirm everything. For that, we should discuss each issue with its own sections, and raise a list of issues that we need to nail down before really continuing on. The English Wikipedia is nearly at 500k articles. Either the MediaWiki software needs to handle stubs such that they can be found with a simple union of categories, or the sorting is done manually by Wikipedians. Personally, I think the latter is less taxing on the server load, especially when we use subst:, which I think would help the Wikipedia out, performance wise. Please make your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines. I apologize for making this somewhat of a spam notice, but since the project has more members, the project can finally decide on these important issues at hand. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Solar variation theory

I thought you might be interested in this recent Atlastawake addition Solar variation theory. I've put a merge tag at the top to Solar variation. Vsmith 02:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder

I've been part of a small group working on this page. You recently put a Cleanup notice on the page. I don't find that particularily helpful, because it doesn't say what you think is WRONG with the page. I can understand it when the article is completely garbled, but I don't think this one is. Could you please expand on the talk page there? Zora 09:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Vandals

Thank you for your revert of my helpless talk page. I have yet to find out how to unredirect it myself in these cases. Also I have promptly reported the vandal to Vandalism in progress. Apparently he had done this to about 15 other users. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:18, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Chaco Edit.

Thanks for the "in use" marker -- but I'm finished with this one for the weekend. If you would like to look it over...edits and comments welcome. WBardwin 06:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually did a little archaeological survey work there and in nearby Hovenweep National Monument/San Juan Basin unmentionable years ago. I love both places and visit every couple of years. There is so much to see in those parks and in surrounding areas. Come and bring your camera! WBardwin 06:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Hohokam people to the southwest in Arizona and Mexico seem to be the cultural link here. They have roads that extend to Chaco. The Hohokam have ball courts and other strong evidences of Aztec and even Mayan influence, and there are trade goods scattered both north and south. One loosely supported theory has actual emigrees from the Toltec/Aztec culture in Chaco about 1100 - just before the canyon began to really empty. But almost everyone believes this was simply trade in luxury goods, as some central American jade and feathers were the major physical evidence. Even so, it was a much tighter cultural world than we usually think about. These people were hardly isolated in their desert. A wonderful place. WBardwin 07:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Hohokam actually built raised mounds full of rubble like the Toltec/Aztec and Mayan -- but the buildings they put on them don't seem to have been religious in nature. However, they were always associated with the ball courts, and built close to them. These "complexes" were found as far north as the current Phoenix area. An interesting mix of cultural traits - and a fun mystery. WBardwin 07:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Film Noir

I removed the category "Film Noir" from the Sin City page because "Film Noir" is a narrowly defined genre, not simply some dark imagery, violence, and a voiceover, but of the location and the time in which it was made, specifically after the stylization of film and the use of lighting after "Citizen Kane" and ending with "Touch of Evil" in 1954, and English, French and American movies only. It is not film noir, despite some superficial likenessess.--TheGrza 01:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please see page List of films noir and note the difference between Neo-Noir and Film Noir. Thus, a difference. If the category was Neo-Noir, I think you may have some sort of argument.--TheGrza 03:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I gave the impression of hostility to your edit, I meant nothing by it if I did. To our discussion however, I didn't include Neo-Noir because I think the term might be too vague for a category. Sin City is a perfect example of Neo-Noir, but many of the others included (upon closer inspection of the List) are nothing of the sort.
As for film noir, here is the continuation of my position. The difference and the specificity of time period isn't specifically for artistic nostalgia. I think that among the reasons for the linear end of Film Noir was the influx of new technology and the infusion of new techniques, which if you've ever tried to make a film-noir are almost impossible to pass up in favor of the incredibly difficult noir process.
First, the inclusion of color, no matter how small. This is not a simple difference, because the lighting and color schemes are one of the most distinct artistic signatures of Film-Noir. Several of these films are quite brightly lit and lack the distinct visual style of film noir. Sin City is a great example because with it's innovative use of color it deviates from this, using these tools in non-noir ways. In Film Noir, these things would be lit brighter, with much more shadow around them instead of the standout color. Secondly, Film Noir is darkly realistic and normality is from where evil stems. This is another area where Sin City again specifically becomes Neo-Noir, especially Elijah Wood's Kevin and The Yellow Bastard. Many of the other neo-noirs that include many of the basic elements of voice-over, criminal underworld, and male main character with criminal undertones, follow the same path. Memento is a great example. The horrific nature of the film comes from the out-of-the-ordinary, the strange, not from extreme forms of self-preservation. Film noir often tried to make the point that there is no evil, there are only mistakes that people make which drive us to evil actions.
The other important aspect of Film noir is the rigidity of the genre that allows for great movement within it's realm. The differences between two of my favorite noirs, Touch of Evil and The Big Sleep, are a great example. The story can span more settings, and larger ranges in character development because the visual and structural rules are laid down before hand. I love neo-noir, but it is halted in it's expansion of the genre when it adds those additional elements, and slowly they pull away from the specific greatness to the genre. Resevoir Dogs is great example for this, because it's interesting story structure halts the dark movement of Noir and stays within the simple morality play, and moving the base of creativity around. Not to denigrate the film at all, but it's greatness differs significantly from the things that made Sunset Boulevard or The Stranger great, and to fit them both in the same genre requires a bit too much square-peg-round-hole for me. --TheGrza 04:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Pu‘u Kukui

I got the 2 Myr figure from http://users.bendnet.com/bjensen/volcano/eastpacific/hawaii-hawaii.html ... If you have better data, please substitute. Thanks! -- hike395 11:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check out http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1995/95_09_22.html ... (where bjensen got the data from). Apparently, Lanai is abnormally young. Maybe we should change it to <2 Myr, just to be safe. -- hike395 11:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chile brews

Nice addition! I've never actually tried chile beer myself, though I have an unopened bottle in my collection. If you have some time, would you like to lend a hand on the new WikiProject Beer? – ClockworkSoul 06:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I'd just like to discuss the edits you reverted on the links to GreenFacts. The article about GreenFacts is still under debate, so I agree that I might have been hasty on my deleting of "industry lobbying group". You can see the full debate on the GreenFacts article here: talk:GreenFacts. You're welcome to join the discussion... --PatVanHove 19:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modal jazz

Well, jazz standards are basically "jazz classics". They are standard because they are classic, really. I myself, as an enthusiast and musician, have rarely heard the term "jazz classic" applied. For the sake of argument, are Gershwin songs classics or standards? In my view, there may be some "classic" recordings, but as the music is continually reinterpreted, it makes more sense to denote the songs themselves as standards. I would also argue that the list you linked to has many songs in the wrong places. (It's also strange to have "contemporary" applied to stuff from the 60s and 70s.) This just goes to show that everybody has his/her own particular jazz categorization scheme, and that we'll never come to a consensus =). However it's not a big deal to me; it's just terminology. You're right, I rarely hear anybody cover "So What," but I hear a whole lot of "All Blues," especially in vocalise. This might be a peculiarity of my local jazz radio station though. It's not humanly possible to listen to the vast amount of jazz out there. - mako 01:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, people sure do come up with rigorous definitions for something so amorphous as jazz. I would agree with Jeremy Wilson's definition, though. Also, thanks for pointing me to such an interesting website. Great history info and musical analysis. - mako 06:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Since you added evidence to the RFC, you would be certifying the basis for the dispute, and your vote wouldn't go under "other users." Mike H 12:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Drug abuse

"Before I attempt to do a major revision on this article, I would like to get your opinion on the title. I notice that substance abuse redirects to drug addiction, so what is the current consensus for keeping drug abuse as a standalone article? It seems to me that drug abuse should redirect to substance abuse, and an attempt should be made to split substance abuse issues off of drug addiction. What do you think? If you disagree, in what direction do you want to see the drug abuse article go, and what topics do you think it should focus upon? I was thinking it could examine the scientific, poltical, and social aspects." -Viriditas

I believe the drug abuse article existed to coincide with the drug use article (which is a redirection to recreational drug use). It could also be a matter of renaming articles to the most accepted NPOV term, and having appropriate redirects.

I agree that substance abuse is a more correct title for the article, but then such an article (substance abuse) should also include information on alcohol abuse, which currently has its own page as alcoholism.

The drug addiction page has some POV problems. What should be done here is to leave 'drug addiction' itself under the domain of Addiction, and rename the drug addiction page (with all its references to brain chemistry, and method of action) to Drug dependence. Anything addiction specific should be moved to the addiction page.

I'm more of an advocate of giving separate topics their own pages of proper NPOV naming (even if they are stub articles) as long as those pages are well linked into from relevant pages.

My vote would be to make substance abuse it's own page talking about substance abuse in general, and have it reference other pages talking about specifics of chronic abuse the different substances (i.e. alcoholism). Specifics of problems with certain substances can have their own pages. I'm certain that all the individual drug pages have plenty of information that can be moved off to specific abuse pages.

I'm certain that some will be opposed to separating the "good and the bad" of different substances into regular pages and abuse pages (consider Alcohol --> Alcoholic beverage --> Alcoholism), but if alcohol is treated that way, then other substances deserve the same consideration.

If people disagree, then I'd argue that the alcoholism and alcoholic beverage pages should likewise be combined. --Thoric 23:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the drug use page should focus on the physiological / societal facts about drug use, while the drug abuse page should focus on the sociology of how 'abuse' has been defined in different societies and times. A page on drug addiction should focus on the medical use of the term, perhaps documenting how it is used by lay people as well. Alcohol likewise needs a page on historical and geographic views of what 'abuse' is, including prohibition, islam, methodism etc, as well as a page on the medical term 'alcoholism'. Guttlekraw 23:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Drug abuse is synonymous with substance abuse, a term that is defined by its medical, political, and social application. It is currently strictly defined as, "the use of illicit drugs or the abuse of prescription or over-the-counter drugs for purposes other than those for which they are indicated or in a manner or in quantities other than directed." While there is certainly room for a more general definition, you keep trying to redefine "drug abuse" in contexts where it has already been defined, hence my problem with your POV. We probably both have problems with the current definition, but this is an encylopedia, not a soapbox. --Viriditas | Talk 23:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that Drug abuse is synonymous with substance abuse. The main problem with the definition you offer is that it defines drug abuse as the abuse of drugs. Well, ok, and we can say that this is a currently used definition, along with who uses it (what do you mean by 'strictly defined'? by whom?). Another major issue is that what is illicit, prescription, intended or indicated use, or interpretation of what is abusive varies with time and location. We should state this, and discuss how this is different in different places in the world, and has been different at different times in history. I am not on a soapbox, just trying to give the facts, rather than parrot someone's opinion as if it was unquestioned fact. Guttlekraw 00:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You need to read closer for comprehension: the use of illicit drugs...for purposes other than those for which they are indicated or in a manner or in quantities other than directed does not define drug abuse as the "abuse of drugs". This is not a parroting of opinion, it is the accepted medical definition of drug abuse whether you or I agree with it or not. The problem is that you are spending too much time attempting to redefine terms to suit your own POV. Take this discussion to drug abuse, please. --Viriditas | Talk 00:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we are in complete agreement. I think we almost need a roadmap to implement these changes. Any idea on how to take the first step and how to approach this transition? --Viriditas | Talk 23:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess there are two paths... one would be to plan it out well, prepare the changes apart from the original articles, and bring the changes in all at once in a broad sweeping motion so that there's no conflict and uproar in the middle of the process. The other path would be to do it a bit at a time, but do expect some opposition to occur midstream.

Wikipedia is somewhat devoid of details of abuse of substances which have very low addiction potential (for example cannabis and psychedelic drugs such as LSD, so little existing content will be available. I'm kind of leery of the idea of grabbing propaganda from the DEA or ONDCP, but it's likely better that we add it in using a NPOV manner rather than leave it up to others. It's not too hard to point out all the social problems related to alcohol, tobacco, opioid (heroin, oxycontin) and stimulant (cocaine, meth) abuse, but pointing out the evils of marijuana is a little more difficult ;)

Separating the use from abuse of all these substances should also prove to cut down on disputes, or at the very least confine the disputes to the abuse related pages. --Thoric | Talk 06:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, I agree with what's been said here about the need to improve a lot of these drug abuse/misuse articles. I do find that articles such as dextromethorphan are laced with poorly written rant about non-medical uses of the agent; and really should separate the medical from non-medical somehow... Alas I don't have the time (or expertise) to help fix those up myself, so best of luck with the initiative. Techelf 11:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Each drug has the potential to be used for purposes spread over a spectrum ranging from Medical, Therapeutic, Experimental, Recreational to Abuse. It might not be that bad an idea to rate each drug's potential in each section, as it would give a clearer picture to the true value:danger ratio of certain drugs. Opioids would have high scores for medical, therapeutic and abuse, and low scores for experimental and recreational use. Cannabis would score low for medical, a little higher for therapeutic, moderate for experimental, high for recreational, and low for abuse. Cocaine would score low to moderate for medical use, low for therapeutic and experimental, moderate for recreational use and high for abuse. Psilocybin would score low for medical use, moderate to high for therapeutic and experimental, low to moderate for recreational use and low for abuse. --Thoric 16:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cocaine would score low to moderate for medical use? I'm not sure that's correct, since it was used as an analgesic for a century until it was synthesized. I guess you are referring to personal medical use? --Viriditas | Talk 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to current medical use. Benzocaine and Lidocaine have reduced the medical use of cocaine a great deal... but I'd be happy to give cocaine a higher medical use score... I was just being... umm... conservative... egads! ;) --Thoric 17:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Before I get started on substance abuse, I would like to know if you have any recommendations for reputable online references. Further, it seems that most medical dictionaries define substance abuse and drug abuse differently, so I'm not sure a redirect is the best thing at this time. --Viriditas | Talk 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend checking out www.druglibrary.org, as they have a lot of published books transcribed online. Substance abuse should include drug abuse, and drug abuse should likely redirect there. There is really no real distinction between the two other than drug abuse being specifically illegal, and some substance abuse (i.e. alcohol and tobacco) is perfectly legal. We already have a drug laws page (which redirects to Prohibition (drugs)), so there is no real reason to maintain a separate drug abuse page. I'd say good riddance to it ;) --Thoric 17:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've taken the plunge, and I've begun working on both drug abuse and substance abuse. I'd appreciate any suggestions you could offer, and I will also be making an attempt to follow the roadmap you have left on my talk page. I have removed some text from the drug abuse article to the talk page temporarily, due to its lack of citations and use of weasal words. There does seem to be overlap between drug abuse and substance abuse, however I am fleshing out the differences (if they can be argued to exist -- if not, eventual merge). Any help is greatly appreciated. --Viriditas | Talk 08:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by weasel words. Much of what you removed was merely outlining the use/abuse controversy, which is an important topic I'm sure you'll agree, and relevant to a page discussing drug abuse specifically. Once the drug abuse page is changed into a redirection, this will no longer be an issue. Ideally we don't want the substance abuse page making POV claims in either direction (i.e. that any use of illegal drugs is automagically clinical abuse based only on the current legal status.) I think removal of the drug abuse page is an important first step (it can remain a subsection of substance abuse for now, with a reference to the drug laws page). --Thoric 17:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Original research ;)

I knew I was going to be slapped for it, now or then.

If you follow my link, you'll discover that Mark Twain really did write that article. What upset you? --VKokielov 06:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for merging the two paragraphs. --VKokielov 06:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd gotten to thinking that there was a particular impression about - that is, the perception that this hasn't happened before. It has. But a hundred years ago, our ethics was different, eh? We were afraid of the right things...Anyway, I'm dreaming aloud. If you say it's out of order, it's out of order. I'm still learning. --VKokielov 07:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's something else. Your requirement here is stricter than the requirements that the other Wikipedias impose, the ones I started in. It makes sense, of course, that it would be this way. But what you say is dead-on. If CNN doesn't publish it, I shouldn't publish it here. It's a very dangerous dance for me, because I'm in the category of people who like to be fanciful. I'll try not to trip over anyone. --VKokielov 07:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I needn't see it. I edited the thing today. Changed one word that bothered me. ;) --VKokielov 07:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: let's string the... on RFC

Sorry, I checked your contribs to see if you were still actively working on the T. Schiavo article forking and stumbled on your comment to theCustomofLife. I think that, in all fairness to NCdave, AStanhope's comment should stand. Other users have suggested that the RFC is a personal attack on dave, and that does add some evidence to that effect. I think anybody commenting on it would do well to take that into account, as we have characterized the comments to support dave as well. I think that the fairest way to show the attitudes involved is to show all the attitudes involved. Removing AStanhope's comment only serves to hide his noose-swinging bias, which isn't quite fair to dave. If anybody takes issue with it, it does fall under the purview of a personal attack; but getting rid of it only serves to hide the fact that AStanhope made that attack. Professor Ninja 22:46, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

I started up the Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case page. I like what you've started, and added a request for detail.--ghost 16:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree with you more strongly on this one. See my response on User talk:Professor Ninja.--ghost 05:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR and The Revolution

They seem to have stopped at the 3rd revert so I won't block them this time. I think the person must work for the station or something, posting from home and work. If they keep doing it would it be worng just to protect the page? I'll keep an eye on it, thanks--nixie 22:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've reported it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, the same user has also been repeatedly vandalising another page, I guess they'll be blocked, I didn't want to do it myself in case I looked biased since I had started one of the articles, thanks for being vigilant--nixie 01:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • The 3RR thing seems to have scared some sense into the anons, at last, they're online editing now. All edits, other than blanking out coments on the 3RR page and reverting and replacing The Revolution disambig again, so far have been sensible. Since no other admin seems to be paying attnetion, I will block if they do anything else disruptive--nixie 10:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: External link

Sorry, I had no idea the site required registration. I must have registered before (thank you, BugMeNot) and had it auto-login. I thought maybe Minaflorida got a not found or timeout error and just assumed the link was dead.

Opiod Use -> Abuse

Thanks for your note. I understand. I will self-revert. --AStanhope 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LRod's Schiavo edits

I took a look at LRod's edits and I thoroughly disagree with them. Unfortunately I didn't have time to post a talk page/revert relevant to them (I was with my mother at the hospital, priorities are obvious.) Regardless, it seems there's a consensus amongst other editors as well that LRod's removals were not appropriate. I think he'd have to do some serious justification for those, he's only given a glib explanation. Professor Ninja 01:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

My mom's fine, thanks for asking. Anyway, I think I was a bit hasty -- LRod's edit concerning the unknown cause of death, I think, is correct (to an extent, anyway). I think it's fair to say that she probably died from complications from dehydration (sure, she could have had a massive pulmonary embolism from a blood clot at a convenient time, but its doubtful). However his removal of the Bobby Schindler thing strikes me as bizarre. I think FuelWagon's assesment as to the fact that the acrimony continued up till the end demonstrates its pertinence rather well. I'm not sure why LRod keeps saying it should be taken out because it makes Bobby look like an asshole -- First, I don't think anybody really begrudges emotional reactions from family members during the hour of a loved ones death; short of injecting yourself with rabies and biting the staff, not much is taboo. Second, sometimes people just plain look like assholes for what they do. Ordering his followers to kill people makes Charles Manson look like an asshole. It makes him look like an asshole because he did it. I don't think you should go around removing the facts because the facts (in this case, might) make the person look like an asshole. Professor Ninja 02:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I edited your please come back post by removing the IP number that was not me (216.78.15.201) and adding eight others that were me. I'm not going to be painted as a vandal by your inadequate research. On the odd chance that you wish to carry on, I can be reached at LRod@pobox.com. LRod 216.76.216.83 19:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(apparently you can add 216.76.216.83 to the list)

Drug abuse

Thanks for the compliment but I couldn't at this point get involved in drug abuse. You seem to be in the middle of a revert war with a user who will not even respect an inuse request. Both versions seem to me to be rather POV and I just don't want to get in the middle of it. I've been far too involved in messy articles for the last couple of days and not doing enough real contributing. Sorry, but please don't feel that I don't welcome your message. Grace Note 04:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just glancing through it, it seems to be a good route forward. I like that "problems with definitions" is prominent, because you're definitely having those ;-) I absolutely support your approach. Let's review others' views and not spend our days pushing our own! If an editor's views on drug use (or anything else) have not yet been interesting enough to gain broad public attention... well, you and I firmly agree that they're not interesting for our encyclopaedia. Grace Note 04:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sim/Sin Cities

Why not put it on the disamiguation page?--TheGrza 05:22, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've felt for a while, especially with the film opening and the proliferation of Sin City pages that the comic should be moved to Sin City (comic) and the dab page made simply Sin City. --TheGrza 19:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Drug Abuse Revision

I'm going to have to agree with Guttlekraw ... "Drug abuse is the overuse of a drug for a nontherapeutic effect" is a little strongly worded, whereas (Substance abuse is) "a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress" is more balanced.

Herein lies the problem... is the term "drug abuse" in itself a biased POV term? If so, then we have to make that clear. If not, then we have to provide multiple definitions, and where they come from. Clearly, non-therapeutic use of alcohol is only drug abuse if ones use of alcohol causes significant social and/or personal problems for the user.

I think it may also be important to point out that the term "drug abuse" primarily segregates certain substances based on their legal placement in the Controlled Substances Act. Technically "drug abuse" only includes items in schedules I-IV, excluding alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc. Since the term only focuses on drugs that are classified primarily by legal definition, it is clear that any medical definition which maintains the artificial segregation between legal recreational substances (alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, ginseng, ephedra) and CSA "drugs" (cocaine, cannabis, amphetamines, opioids, etc) is working from a non-scientific POV, and this needs to be highlighted.

There is no contest within the scientific community that alcohol, nicotine, caffeine (and other xanthines) are all drugs, but you will get a completely different view from law enforcement. I fear that any medical definition of "drug abuse" is political bias supported by NIDA. (Also note that NIDA does not list alcohol as a substance of abuse).

I suggest that we work on Drug Abuse in some sort of neutral ground, and not put it in place until it is more than a stub article. --Thoric 16:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Racists

If you don't like a category, list it on WP:CFD, don't blank it. LevelCheck 02:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre

"hay" thanks for the support; your timing's wonderful; I've just been having a talk with User:Coolcat about his recent edit summary [1] and I've been biting my tongue. It feels much better to be thanking someone. fyi, lovely pic on your user page. — Davenbelle 07:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on User:Coolcat for about a month now; he's been doing the same thing in spades on Armenian Genocide. fyi, he got a three revert rule violation block a few hours ago, and will be off until tomorrow evening (as will I, for other reasons). For Cc, the disruption is the point. — Davenbelle 10:34, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mouth ulcer

Thanks for the rv! Matthew Platts 13:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage vandalism

Just wanted to thank you for undoing the vandalism so quickly :) Greg Robson 13:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And likewise thanks from me as well! Man vyi 14:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whodunit vandalism

What do you make of this User:Whodunit character? He (probably he, I think) seems to have some kind of agenda. Most of these vandalisms seem to be more eccentricity than anything else. Tschus, if I'm not mistaken, is German for "cheerio" or something like that... Matthew Platts 14:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOI & Antisemitism

I cut a quote from an article I wrote. It seemed too weak to link directly to NOI as a major example of what I agree is a long history of antisemitism. Your work is usually much better, I syuspect anger is getting in the way. Happens to all of us.--Cberlet 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Equilibrium & Kurt Wimmer

BTW, do you know anything about the score? One of the things that really drew me to the film was the perfect score and mis-en-scene working in harmony together. --Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. It, along with the visuals, are what really drew me into the film as well. The score for Equilibrium was composed by Klaus Badelt with additional music by Ramin Djawadi & Geoff Zanelli. Kurt Wimmer specifically asked Badelt to create a sound of "Wagnerian guitars."[2] In an interview I have on my site with the film's music editor, Richie Nieto, he mentions that almost all of the instrumentals are from Media Ventures recorded sound library and are not actual live instruments at all.[3] --JenGe | Talk 05:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

All I can say is, wow! No live instruments? Amazing. I hope you will add a version of your talk comment to the film article, as we need a section on the score. I also wanted to mention that if you didn't like any of the changes I made to your comments, or if you aren't happy with the section titles that I added, that you should go ahead and change it to something more appropriate. --Viriditas | Talk 07:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Give me some time & I'll write something up about the score. It might take a day or two. About the changes, I think they're perfect. Thanks for doing them. It makes the page work much better the way you organized it. BTW, if you don't like the way that I quote you here just let me know & I'll change it. I'm still quite a novice at all of this. --JenGe| Talk 14:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I just realized that we should probably add and expand on Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and Phillip K. Dick's Minority Report in the literary references section. What do you think? No hurry on this. --Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the references that EQ uses from literature, film, and history/culture are sooooo numerous I hardly think that justice can really be done in such a limited space. This is the main reason I have not interfered much with what has already been written here. Maybe I'm wrong.

Wimmer himself mentions a number of these on the DVD [4] but there are tons more that he refers to elsewhere in interviews. I have a thread about it on my message board that lists a bunch of these. [5] At some point I plan to create a page for it on my site. I’m not sure how well all of that stuff would work here.

BTW, there is a problem with the Minority Report one since Equilibrium was actually filmed before it. There are other Philip K. Dick stories that are a much closer match such as The Novelty Act. -- JenGe 03:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another thing I want to add about Minority Report is that the film is really much different than the short story. Both EQ and MR were done by the same production company Blue Tulip. Even though EQ was filmed first it was released after MR. Just some trivia. -- JenGe 03:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I would like to add the date of birth and nationality to the Kurt Wimmer page, but I can't find that data. Is he American? --Viriditas | Talk 01:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I met Kurt when there was a screening of Equilibrium in Atlanta. He is definitely an American but I do not have a clue about his birth date. I have not found it anywhere on the internet. If you want to know a little more about him, his background, how Equilibrium personally relates to him I highly recommend that you take a look at the interview he did for CHUD.com.[6] You might be able to glean something from it for his page. It's the most candid interview that he has done. No birth date though...sorry. -- JenGe 03:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Pablo Neruda Revert

Sorry, I wasn't trying to twist what you stated. Please continue the conversation on my Talk page. Thanks.

Sorry to trouble you again, but there's a little more on my Talk page I hope you'd be willing to respond to. Thanks. Anonip 04:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Giant Steps moves

Please see Talk:Giant Steps. If you can think of a better article title for what was formerly Giant Steps (song), I'll take the changes back. Even if most people will be looking for information on the album, it's no reason to have a poorly named page. There's a lot to be said on the composition itself, as I'm sure you'll agree it's an extrememly important work. - mako 04:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concede. I'll move things back after I get dinner. - mako 04:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the moves will require an admin. I'd like to take this opportunity to argue that the changes should stand. Many album articles already have (album) in their titles, so users searching for the album will hit a disambiguation page as it is. Secondly, the album takes its title from the composition, and the composition is greatly responsible for the album's fame. The album is secondary to the composition, especially in the jazz world where the album is a vehicle for introducing compositions. Other jazz artists have used the same title for their albums, showing just how influential the composition has been. - mako 06:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a Google test type for this situation. (In fact Google pulls up an interesting variety of results. There's a ska band called Giant Steps.) The conventions you cite don't seem to apply here either. There's no guidelines for jazz works that aren't strictly songs. Again I argue that Giant Steps as a jazz standard has been more influential than the album titled by it. It's just not a pop music situation. - mako 07:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia, it is still an encyclopedia, and written by the people who have the knowledge about particular subjects. They should therefore make the decisions on how best to organize the articles in their area of interest. For the average user, it's a single click to get to the article on the album. - mako 09:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though (song) may be established, you'll recall that the debate began because "Giant Steps" does not fit the definition of song. I see you've moved things around. But yes, we should have more opinions on this subject, from others. - mako 00:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, we are working for the betterment of Wikipedia. That said, I don't quite agree with your argument that we should name pages according to what the user is searching for. It's nowhere in the dab guidelines. An encyclopedia should have accurate article titles, and not need to anticipate the user's intentions to such a degree. - mako 05:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly is what I was looking for. Sorry for dragging this on for such a long time. Though I would be in favor of changing the music guidelines to reflect the importance of individual compositions, I can't think of enough such instances to merit complicating the album-song hierarchy. The best thing to do would be to update the disambiguation guidelines to mention alternatives like (composition). In any case, I'll ask an admin to move Giant Steps (album) back to Giant Steps. - mako 02:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gary Webb

Thanks for the note. I just like to have dab notes at the top because that's where they are most likely useful (and where people tend to expect them). I don't try to speculate why, for instance, someone might enter Gary Numan's real name when looking for information about him. But it is a plausible and perfectly valid thing to enter, so I'd like to offer some help in case someone does. That said, I won't object if you change it back. Rl 11:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NAS

As before, it should reflect the basic fact that the term is a "controversial neologism that asserts that most or all political opposition toward Israel's occupation of the Palestine territories is based on an irrational hatred toward Jews." This should be the prominent definition, as there is no use for the term outside of conservative rhetoric. -SV|t|add 21:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, the definition you give is neither a neutral nor objective one, and I would challenge you to cite unbiased sources to support your claim that it is "documented." -SV|t 21:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was cited and sourced already. --Viriditas | Talk 21:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Last I checked, the only sources were from frontpagemag.com and the like - hardly an npov source. -SV|t 21:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly anyone worth quoting is someone worth writing an article about. A google translation of an article on Pierre-Andre Taguieff gave :"Former gauchist situationnist reconverted as a republican chevenementist. Director of research at CNRS Adviser of CRIF . Author of works on the Judaism and the anti-semitism, in particular of the protocols of wise of Sion, forgery and use of a forgery , 2 vol., international Berg, Paris 1992; Racism , Flammarion, Paris 1997; Populisms , Galileo, Paris 1998; The color and blood: racist doctrines with the Frenchwoman , Thousand and One Nights, Paris 1998...In his work the news judéophobie , Beech, Paris, January 2002, Pierre-Andre Taguieff, who affirms not to be Jewish itself, firmly gives an opinion in favour of the Israelis in the territorial war which opposes them to the Palestinians, and seems to confuse anti-sionnisme and judéophobie." I hope you have another source. -SV|t 00:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was the first page I got for a search for Pierre-Andre Taguieff]], who doesnt even have an article here on Wikipedia. Dont complain that others dont agree with your choice of sources, even if its only on the basis that they dont have access to them. This only adds to my objection that the article has any neutral basis whatsoever, in its very premise, other than in rhetoric, such as you cite. I can put that aside FTTB, given that it can be written in an npov way. But it doesnt seem like thats the way its being written, if the very basis for its use as a term is as a polemic. I would also suggest at least stubbing the Taguieff article before citing him. -SV|t 01:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Environmental Ethics

Hi, someone under the name Viriditas sent me a message regarding some questions on Environmental Ethics. I would be happy to help if I can...

Simon Fisher

---

It seems to me you've pretty much got the ethics side of terraforming sussed. To be honest my knowledge of environmental ethics doesn't stretch much beyond what I compacted in that article and havn't got any suggestions that are applicable to terraforming beyond what you have already written. The only thing that did spring to mind was James Lovlock's Gaia hypothesis - I'm not sure if this is relevant to terraforming as I am not up to speed on planetary engineering, but if it is possible to argue, in discussion of terraforming, that the planet actualy engineers or evolves itself due to factors beyond human control - then it might be good to bring in Lovelock. In my article I simplified the hypothesis in a short paragraph:

James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis; the theory that the planet earth or ‘Gaia spirit’ alters its geo-physiological structure over time in order to ensure the continuation of an equilibrium of evolving organic and inorganic matter. The planet is characterized as a unified, holistic entity with ethical worth of which the human race is of no particular significance in the long run.

but there is a whole article witten on the gaia hypothesis if you think it is relevant to Terraforming.

I'm sorry that I can't offer much more help than that but if you have any specific questions on environmental ethics I would be happy to see if I am able to answer them. In terms of incorporating terraforming in the environmental ethics article - I think it certainly could make interesting reading as a side issue under one of the androcentric topics, but I'll leave that part up to you. I do think it deserves a mention but I'm not sure that going into any detail is necessary. When I wrote the article I tried to keep it nice and simple by drawing a distinction between the different approaches to environmental ethics and outlining some of the recent attempts to do so - please feel free to expland on any of it, but it really needs to be re-written if you want to start going into greater depth and the geographical issues that the controversies are centred around rather than just the approaches.

Regards --Simon Fisher 18:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

I am getting sick and tired of our anonymous AOL IP editor running roughshod over the Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism article while refusing to participate in any sort of consensus building on the Talk: page. Is there something that can be done about it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James Oberg

Thanks for catching that. I do remember faffing around at the time trying to figure out which was the better name to use, and ended up going with the first version I could find him using. (Variants on James/Jim are always tricky - some people use it as a nickname, some a "proper" variant and never the full form...) Shimgray 23:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Celesta/Celeste

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

Thank you, Viriditas

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

hallucinogen people & organization cats

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

Template talk:Israelis

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

Thank you

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

Topological map

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

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

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

Nice, I was not aware that there was such a thing in the cartographic world :) I think we could intergrate the math points into the subject of that article. I wiki'd it right now, but I'd like to see it expanded upon. Ie: where the name topological came from in reference to the map (its points are transformed, but it is the same).

~ender 2005-05-19 12:52:MST (same time weird...)

Something kinda like they do here:

~ender 2005-05-19 13:20:MST

Flags at Palestinian territories

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

The Jacket

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

Reply from Gordon Watts

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

UPDATE: Viriditas, At this [7] link, which is saved in this [8] diff, I reply to you on my home page's talk/discussion page. Aloha. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

NIDA

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

Talk

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

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

Assume good faith. --Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Matriarchy

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

Moving a misspellt image

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

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

Terri Schiavo - reply

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

Lashing the vice, but not the man

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

Minor edits

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

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

Your dispute with Guttlekraw

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

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

Working things out

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

re: nursing diagnoses

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

I couldn't find the NANDA reference, cause I can't access the journal from home. The journal is [9] but you need a subscription for many (most?) articles, and I find the site difficult to search. In my search I also found [10], which is at least a bit more authoritative (though I don't know if the journal Nursing is peer reviewed or what its reputation is.) I'll take a look at your drug abuse page, but keep in mind that the statement in nursing diagnosis merely reports on a commonly held view, without worrying about the "true" validity of NDs. So if there's any factual information I can add to the drug abuse page I will, but I can't offer an opinion.

Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

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

I now know the symptoms that lead to it and should be able to avoid it in the future. I don't understand the mechanism, however. I'll desribe it to you: I open a new window (browser session) to edit the section and once I've completed the edit hit the Preview button and the browser then proceeds to the preview window. Once I am satisfied with its appearance, I hit the Save button. Most of the time I either get an accept (well, no "accept" message, but the freshly edited and saved page comes up) or an "Edit Conflict" window. But in both of those cases tonight, upon hitting the save button it went to another preview. The first time I got that new edit window two or three times before it was saved and I didn't notice until I looked at the new page what had happened. I noticed the second time (not soon enough) that that second preview was of the whole page, but the whole page was now just the section I edited.

I'll watch for that scenario in the future and while I can't promise it won't happen again, I do promise that I'll fix it promptly if it does. I'm not some vandal indiscriminately terrorizing wiki; my edits are in earnest, although I can appreciate what you're looking for and how it appears. Thanks for watching out for me.

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

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

Viriditas,

Since you are the one who created the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terri_Schiavo page, as shown by this diff, [11], I was wondering if you could tell me whay I can't make edits (changes) to the section with six (6) links in it.

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

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

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

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

Deep Ecology

Hi Viriditas,

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

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

Muxxa 04:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hammesfahr

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is what I did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drug abuse

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

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

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

reverts

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

NPOV

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

Thank you for the invitation!

Thanks for your invitation welcome! -- Dotshuai

Welcome to the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject

Dear new member,

Welcome to the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject!

No doubt you're familiar with what our noble (and somewhat lofty!) goal is, and I'm really glad you've decided to help to try and make it a reality. Thank you so much for helping out in our noble cause :)

You might find the biweekly special article interesting. Every fortnight, an otherwise good article that lacks any sources is chosen, and the Fact and Reference Check team works collaboratively to add references to the article. The current biweekly special article is Johann Sebastian Bach.

Two convenient templates for adding references are {{an}} and {{anb}}. By specifying a footnote name (eg. "which_university"), these templates allow us to link to notes effectively.

For example, if you want to reference which university somebody went to, simply add {{an|which_university}} next to the fact. At the bottom of the page in a seperate "Notes" section, add {{anb|which_university}}, and then your website or book. Wikibib can be used for generating correctly-styled references. Titan (moon) is a good example of a nicely referenced article.

If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the project's talk page. You can also contact me personally. Thanks for joining, and taking the time to read this!

— Frazzydee|✍ 01:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right— it should have been one ref. I've made the change as you suggested. Actually I think that Bach has been the biweekly special article for way too long (must've been at least a month now!), so I'll probably change that soon. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates as communication tools

I was just thinking about that! Thanks for clueing in me in about the subst: keyword. I think that was what I really should have used. It fetches a one-time, static copy of the boilerplate text.

The problem with using a template for this is:

• It fetches a "live copy", and if the template is edited, the changes to the template are reflected on every page that employs the template.

Thanks for catching this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the webmaster for another wiki, and I pioneered the combination of templates and headers to facilitate editable sections. It's not used in the English Wikipedia (yet), as far as I know. But try this out:

{{vechat}}

Schiavo burial

Actually my "very nicely put" wasn't directed at your edit, although yours tidied up the section nicely. I was commenting on the engraving Michael had done for the plaque. And as I said, it was more elegant than what I would have done. Those ashes would have been in an urn on my mantle for many, many years. Duckecho 13:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Giggles

I probably should not be posting this, but seeing (missing period (You can help!)) as an edit summary is just too hilarious (in a certain perverted kind of way) to pass by without making a comment :))—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. More importantly, thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Category Substance abuse

Hello,

The category you created back in April, Category:Substance abuse, is on the block to be merged into Category:Substance-related disorders and subsequently deleted. I thought you might be interested if you are no longer watching the category page. The nomination for deletion and discussion are found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_18.
Courtland 23:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Films and Movies

I've called for a vote to rename Wikipedia:Naming conventions (movies) to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Please see the discussion on the talk page. BTW, I have been fixing double redirects, although I am leaving single redirects as is. "Movie" has bothered me for quite some time, and recent events have shown me that other Wikipedia users find the use of "film", "cinema" and "movie" schizophrenic. Now that the Category and template are called film, I thought that making the dab changes were called for, but I can wait to hear what others think. -- Samuel Wantman 06:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Substance?

Sorry, but neither the Wikipedia entry on Substance nor any dictionary I could find call 'substance' in this context anything else than a euphemism, or at best a synonym. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and I see no reason to use a euphemistic cat name. Thus my vote stands. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:21, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) June 28, 2005 04:14 (UTC)

houseing

please see talk:houseing for my comments. -Beezly 28 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Substance & drugs

Hi there! Sorry I never got back to you about that, it kind of got lost in the shuffle. Busy week, and all. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:42 (UTC)

Shoah (movie)

The whole "Anti-Polonism" thing is showing up at Shoah (movie) again. I'd appreciate your insight there. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Sorry

Viriditas,

I'm sorry about commenting on your page in re Uthar Wynn's comments. I saw his note there and simply responded. You're right to think, as I assume you do, that they belong more properly on the Schiavo talk page. Regards, ~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 22:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uthar blocked

Hi Viriditas. Uthar vandalized your user page after you warned him about 3RR, and has now been blocked. Ann Heneghan 23:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't your talk page: it was your user page [12]. He also used a dishonest edit summary (spelling fix). He may not have realized he was breaking the 3RR. One of his edit summaries [13] suggests that he thought a partial revert wouldn't count as a revert, and he was adding other material. Regards. Ann Heneghan 23:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have also removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC. I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 18:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Simple user page. After dealing with a persistent vandal for a week, it's good to know there are those who want to make Wikipedia a better place. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

You're quite right I have been bad with both the edit summaries and non use of the preview button. I will try harder in future. As an aside posting a tutorial rather than just complaining is a very positive and helpfull way of drawing "sinners" like me back into the fold.

Thanks. 62.253.64.14 17:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

POV-check

It's customary, if you put a POV check template on the top of an article, to state on the talk page exactly what POV problems you think the article has. Often, the disputed POV will be a small part of a long article. David | Talk 10:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Test templates

Hi, please do not take this the wrong way, I understand the reason why you reverted the changes, but every other user at least made an attempt to discuss it on one of the talk pages involved. If you used the templates by themselves w/o the header you added, ie {{test2}}, you would not have formatting issues. Many of the users use them in that manner, and you can even check the "what links here" to see how many of them are jumbled together because they don't have headers. I only ask that you at least take the time to look and/or comment on the discussion pages, to see if anyone gave any reasoning for the changes or proposed changes. I don't mean to seem rude, and I hope you didn't take it that way. I was just trying to improve the usage of the templates for the entire community. Thanks for your time. ∞Who?¿? 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. Yea, on this particular occasion I decided to do a live demo, rather than wait a week. I spoke with everyone who either liked them or disliked them and made improvements. When I seen no further consensus to keep or change, I left them be. I didn't think of the secondary sub-headings until I did the hr, and told everyone I wasn't going to change them any further. Thanks for the suggestion though. I figured if anyone wanted to improve on what I started they would either add it (some did) or mention it on the talk page. Most everyone responded in one way or another. I just wanted to at least talk with you directly since you didn't leave a message before or after the change. I have learned from recent experience that the edit summaries aren't the best communication. I still hope I wasn't too offensive with my wording. For now, I think I'll just leave it be, until I have a chance to setup a non-live proposal. Thanks again for your understanding and the reply. ∞Who?¿? 07:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I misunderstood what you meant by second level, thanks for the clarification. Acutally I did, and that was a bad mistake :) Two users immediately and accidentally edited the template instead of the user talk page they were using it on, because they clicked the header edit link. So I switched to the hard line. I was considering the third level === this ===, but didn't get that far. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 07:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea I thought the same thing about the headers, until people did actually edit the template. Like I said though, I only did this one live, because there was no better way to demo it, other than in use. Thats mainly why I wanted your feedback on it. ∞Who?¿? 07:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

duplicated article content

Hi - There was a mediawiki bug that's recently been fixed that caused content of a page to be duplicated when editing a section. It appears User_talk:Viriditas/archive3 was affected by this bug. Just letting you know so you can fix it if you care to. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

Thanks for reverting the spam/vandalism that was placed by 203.127.203.17 on the Xanadu House article (that I wrote most of), I didn't really ever expect to see someone place spam on that article. — Wackymacs 13:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

My User Page

Could you please not edit (dare I say vandalize) my user page again? I am quite upset about it. Coqsportif 10:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I am an Hawaiian. I was born in Hawaii as were my parents and two of my grandparents. My parents live in Hawaii in a home I personally own (long story). I am currently studying outside of Hawaii and will return upon graduation. I consider myself an American first and an Hawaiian second but there is no question about whether the category fits. I'll wear it and I won't bother questioning your ethnicity or connections with Hawaii. Nor will I remove the category from your user page, as you did to me in a fit of what many might see as vandalism. Coqsportif 12:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to dispute a user's claims about their location, feel free to do so on their talk page. However, there is no burden of proof associated with adding a category to a user page in any Wikipedia guideline or rule that I can see. Pleasee feel free to correct me my pointing one out. Meanwhile, I will continue to support Coqsportif in maintaining his user page as he sees fit, within the Wikipedia guidelines. -Harmil 12:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the absurdity of the claim that putting a cat link on your user page is somehow "trolling", you seem to feel that saying "I am an Hawaiian. I was born in Hawaii as were my parents and two of my grandparents. My parents live in Hawaii in a home I personally own" indicates something other than what it says. The category is not "Category:People whose primary residence for the majority of the year is Hawaii", and I see no reason to suggest that the above claim to membership in the category is incorrect. Please refrain from editing Coqsportif further. -Harmil 12:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That was a tad too harsh. I'm sorry. Let me re-phrase: the claim is that he is Hawaiian. He has re-stated that claim here. We're done. -Harmil 12:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is the end of this very unseemly episode. For the record, if anyone else is interested in my birthplace etc, drop me a line would be happy to chat. Coqsportif 13:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested, why don't you email me using the "E-mail this user" link to the left. After all, you never answered my question as to which island you come from. --Viriditas | Talk 13:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of this? Simple rules to follow here: There is nothing wrong for the user to claim to be from and/or living Hawaii and therefore you have no right to refute that claim. Just let it go and I do not really see how this affects you. If you have a beef with the user take it up elsewhere. Basically: just don't do it again and happy editing to everyone and don't forget to smile =). Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, you will note I said anyone else, that excluded you. I won't feed trolls. Coqsportif 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No offence intended, but you do seem to bear some sort of a personal grudge against User:Coqsportif. You can't expect him to prove he's Hawaiian, so why can't you just take his word for it? Adding a category to one's own user page can hardly be construed as 'trolling'. And just the fact he's taken a picture in the UK doesn't mean he's British - that would make myself a citizen of at least a dozen different countries. Relax, man. - ulayiti (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hawaii Issue

Very well, either way, you should probably not edit other people's user pages unless it is to remove a personal attack or something that is against user page policy. I am sorry if I sounded a tad harsh before and can now see it has been a huge misunderstanding between various users, myself included. Regards and happy editing =). Sasquatch讲看 01:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I double that. I knew about his issues with the Israeli terrorism VfD (I was there), but thanks for informing me further. He seems like trouble - someone could do something about him. I congratulate you on your efforts on keeping a watch on this user though. :) - ulayiti (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent your activities. You repeatedly have sought personal information from me, about my birthplace and so on. I find this to be highly intrusive and something I cannot imagine any reasonable person doing. You have discredited yourself by acting in this manner, you are compounding it by misrepresenting the situation. If you like I will post the many requests you made for my personal details. Coqsportif 14:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

People from Hawaii or living in Hawaii enjoy discussing the islands and have no problem identifying the name of the island they call home. The fact that you can't even talk about it makes me question the veracity of your claims, and further strengthens my belief that you've been trolling all along. You've also asked people to "drop you a line", yet you haven't provided an email address in your preferences. --Viriditas | Talk 05:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sure you are a good editor and wish you well. But I think our interaction should cease here. I have no problem discussing home, all day long. I miss it very much. In your case, you have been very aggressive, hostile and trolling and demanding information that's very personal to me. I think we should just back off from each other, you do your thing and I mine. I am happy to provide my email address to anyone who asks for it, in a non-troll context. So good luck and good bye. Coqsportif 12:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from a fellow Hawaiian Coqsportif 09:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is the love? Coqsportif 12:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You archive quite regularly. I admire your diligence. Coqsportif 12:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)