User talk:Violetriga/archive2

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 2 – Posts from December 2004 to end of January 2005

Periods inside/outside quotes

Oh I didn't know British English mandated punctuation (or at least periods) outside quotes. Thanks for the info! -- Prell

Summer Hill Map

You had some concerns about the map image in Summer Hill, New South Wales previously. The previous very large image has been shrunk down (by clipping and resizing to be much smaller) - do you think the new map is OK? All the best, -- Nickj 01:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's great - nice work! violet/riga (t) 10:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert rule

Just wanted to remind you that you have made three reverts to Clitoris. One more, and you will have violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, and could be blocked. anthony 警告 13:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but what's the point in telling me that when I obviously know about the 3RR? If I'm blocked then whoever does it will have to have a damn good reason. violet/riga (t) 16:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Honestly though, I think it's in everyone's interests to stop reverting the notice. I'm a bit surprised that you labeled it as vandalism when two editors disagree with that judgement call. At the very least you see it's not clearly vandalism, right? Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is in everyones interest, yes, but I can't believe it was changed. The discussion and the vote have long decided that the image should stay and that removal of it was not right. Indeed, the threats of temporary blocks for anyone that removed it was mooted. The recent edit history shows that this community decision has not been followed by some, with repeated removal of the image. The simple protected notice states that it is a dispute over content with an ongoing discussion on the talk page, but that discussion was finished when the poll was closed no matter how many times protestors want to complain. violet/riga (t) 20:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe the community decision is as clear as you say it is. At any rate, this doesn't fall under any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Vandalism. These might be bad-faith edits, but they're not obviously so. Under "What vandalism is not":

Bullying or stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

Cool Hand Luke 20:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair comment. I did think for a while which to use and finally decided on the vprotected tag because of the way the protected notice is written (the discussion wasn't really ongoing). violet/riga (t) 21:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Photo Edits

You appear to be a fairly proficient and valuable contributor to Wikipedia, so why would you waste time making unnecessary changes to the images on the entries for Patricia Heaton and Sutton Foster??? I have been advised by an administrator that if multiple images are used, it is acceptable to stagger them to give balance to the appearance of the article, rather than have the photos lined up one above the other. Therefore, I have reverted your edits. Thank you. TOM 14:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments, but I'm afraid I've had to fix the images again because:

The Patricia Heaton image caption I added was much more informative. While I accept it may be OK on the left now I must express that it wasn't before - having just the one line above the image didn't look very good.
The Sutton Foster image is too large to look OK on the left when the TOC is showing; it misplaces it and looks very poor.

Staggering images is fine - you can have some on the left but not when it causes poor formatting as in these two examples. violet/riga (t) 19:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but as they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What might look good to you does not to me. Please stop changing the placement of these photos or I will remove them completely, as I am the one who placed them there in the first place. TOM 17:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but have you spent a moment to think about people that use different operating systems, resolutions or browsers to you? The edits I have made make it much better for the majority of configurations. Please don't remove the pictures and explain to me why you have a problem with how I've laid the article out. violet/riga (t) 17:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your edits in no way enhance the layouts of these articles, period. Furthmore, labeling the photo of Sutton Foster with her name is rudundant - who else would it be??? Likewise, Doris Roberts doesn't need to be located in the Heaton photo, since she is clearly older and obviously the mother-in-law. I asked you to stop editing these entries - please use your time to be creative, not spiteful. As I said, these photos were added by me and I will remove them from the articles AND delete them from the Wiki files if you continue to vandalize my work. TOM 18:19, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

My edits might not enhance the layout on your browser but certainly do on mine. The Sutton Foster one misplaces the TOC and looks very ugly. As for the captions, while I admit the Sutton Foster one does not necessarily need one (though including one for accessibility users is important and if information about the picture was possible then that should be included) the Patricia Heaton one really should have the context to say who is who for people that might not immediately recognise her.

Your threats to remove the pictures are going a bit far. Though we all appreciate you adding them I really think that you're being overly stubborn about this. Please consider other people with different viewing configurations to yourself. violet/riga (t) 18:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, please be aware of the 3RR. violet/riga (t) 18:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Photo "Standards"

Your edits to Sutton Foster and Patricia Heaton have NOTHING to do with formatting standards. You are simply changing things to suit your idea of what looks attractive. Since you are so intent on vandalizing my hard work, perhaps it's time for some tit for tat. TOM 20:15, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but you really are being ridiculously petty about this. I've explained the reasons for my edits and you've been too stubborn to realise that we had the same goal - improving the article. I fixed the formatting problems you had introduced - the TOC on the Sutton Foster article, for example, was badly messed up by the position you had placed the image in. Sad to see you've reacted so badly to the positive edits I was attempting to make. violet/riga (t) 20:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'M being petty???? Why is YOUR way the right way???!!! You explained your reasons and I disagreed - the TOC looked no better the way you positioned the photo than it did when it was where I placed it. Your playing the poor-put-upon-innocent-victim here is laughable. The Foster photo is from my personal collection, and I'm now removing it from the article completely. You are not authorized to put it back. TOM 21:01, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

You really don't seem to understand. When the image is on the left it extends beyond the length of the writing, shifting the TOC over to the right and causing an excessive amount of whitespacing and a very ugly layout. As for removing the picture well that's probably a good thing considering I don't think that you have followed the correct process, and it's easy enough to find that image. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:How to edit a real time update

The flames are in the history. There is no need for inflamitory language. Mr. Jones 21:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Patricia Heaton

FYI, the data you added to the article about Patricia Heaton is incorrect. All three pilots became series! 64.12.116.71 21:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Patricia Heaton did not star in three "pilots" prior to "Raymond" - all three were short-lived series. 64.12.116.71 22:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see the following and then stop editing the Heaton article with your incorrect info!!!! (How THICK can you be to keep changing something when you've been advised that you're incorrect???!!!)

64.12.116.71 22:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me but there really is no need for insults. I know nothing about that person but am simply trying to fix an edit war there. Please stop reverting to a version which is not acceptable – I suggest you read the talk and history of the article before making such changes. violet/riga (t) 22:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GFDL

Once copyright on a document has been loosened through releasing under the GFDL, it can not be reenforced as an all rights reserved document. Bear this in mind. --BesigedB 18:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes thanks, but the user that wrote it previously battled numerous people by reverting all his edits any time they were put back. I tried to compromise by rewriting it and that anon should expand my version rather than reverting all the time – would be much easier and prevent that first user coming back and causing even further problems. violet/riga (t) 18:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pet skunk

Thanks for the comments on the pet skunk article. I have made some revisions to the Table of Contents (combining/eliminating sections), expanded the lead, and added some info about skunks in other countries. Please continue to give feedback. Thanks, Nathanlarson32767 20:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What kind of layout problems do you notice? What changes do you think could be made to fix it? Nathanlarson32767 23:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When the TOC is hidden it causes some bunching up of the pictures. I've also never liked left-aligned pictures but that's my preference. Perhaps the second picture could be placed lower down the article? violet/riga (t) 23:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree about the left-aligned pictures. As for the TOC, I suppose the best way to avoid that problem is either to use a long right-aligned picture, or to leave that area blank, and move the picture to the right of the lead. That is what I went ahead and did. Nathanlarson32767 04:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

In the future, if a page you are involved in needs protection, please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection rather than doing it yourself. The protection of Patricia Heaton was reasonable, but administrator abilities are not supposed to be used to win editing disputes, so protection by an involved party can look like an abuse of power. --Michael Snow 19:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that that is the correct procedure (even if I question it slightly) and should've done so. violet/riga (t) 19:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I agree with your fmt, and see all non-admin edits to Patricia Heaton, other than Calton, since Dec 4 as being from the same person. He has added much to our broadway coverage, so I generally encourage his edits, but sticking to a non-standard fmt is too much. Gamaleil (sp?) has done a good job sorting this out, and I think his (her?) suggestions should be followed. From recent IP edits, I think he finally understands WP standards, so I think we're getting close to a resolution on this issue. Niteowlneils 20:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah the contributions are very good, shame about the whole situation. Odd character. Nevermind! violet/riga (t) 20:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Rafał Pocztarski 20:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem - User:David Gerard has just blocked the anon too. violet/riga (t) 20:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for Rumaisa's update

Hey Riga! I wanted to thank you for the valuable updates you made to the Rumaisa Rahman page that I originated.

I am a wikipedian mostly because I want to expand worldwide knoledge about boxing, fashion, music and film, among others. So, as you can see, although I have been able to learn quite a bit about medicine here and I have actually told a few friends in real life what they might be having and ask the doctor to look for, I am definitely not of much knowledge about the medical field. Wikipedia has somewhat improved my knowledge about medicine.

I tell you this because I wrote about Rumaisa because she stole my heart the moment I saw her photo. And whose heart wouldn't be stolen by that sweet little thing? When it came down to medical info, I only put the basics, and you improved the page considerably by explaining in detail.

I want to thank you from my heart for that, and wish you a merry Christmas!

Thank you and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio F in Medicine Martin"

What a lovely message. Thank you very much for this - it makes contributing rewarding when people appreciate it so much. violet/riga (t) 11:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedy redirects

It turns out recently-created typos are a distinct category for speedy deletes, see the link to the appropriate WP:CSD section at the top of WP:RfD. Noel (talk) 00:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ahh didn't really look there - checked under the criteria in RfD and assumed it would all be covered under that section. Thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 11:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

multiple reverts re it:chrismas wiktionary project

Well if you call a kettle black, it is you who does revert things that have to do with a wikimedia project and that is shown on the WikipediaSister template. It has been discussed on the village pump misceleneous part and it achieves its goal in improving the quality of the project that it is about and for. GerardM 22:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And in that discussion every view expressed has opposed the Christian-specific version. Please listen to the views of this community about how this community should be acting. Jamesday 23:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You miss the point it is NOT about Christian specifity, it is a PROJECT and you cannot make it what it is not. Your insisting on it being something else is insisting on what this project is not, it is ONE phrase a project and you can not make it different. Making it "happy holidays" is like insisting that Christmas is on December the 25th. It is also December the 25th. GerardM 23:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With reference to a three times revert. It is exactly what you have done. You have reverted three times AND it is a genuine project. It is a project where you might find it interesting when you knew who the voices were. GerardM 23:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You said the discussion was at the Village Pump (under misc) - I put my arguments there. violet/riga (t) 23:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links removed

I wish to apologize profusely for linking to B's links, which is a completely noncommercial site therefore a site that I would never have associated as spam. My effort was a labor of love to share a site that I constantly use for several interests that I have. I have in the past sent to B many links that she has put on her site (which is only a links site) and which she received very gratefully; otherwise I have no association with her site at all, except as a constant user of it. Indeed, amongst people that I know I am well known for ferretting out links of great value that others can't find and since I had no money to give gifts this year at Christmas I thought that I would do this great thing, which unfortunately turned out to be a bad thing that has left me with a very depressing memory of Christmas.

What I cannot understand is this: I put links to two books by Napoleon Hill, several books related to the "solar deity" link, several books under the robber baron entry, a book by P. T. Barnum under his entry, and the text of Ida Tarbell's book under her entry and all these were removed, too. A search engine's project to put books on-line is now becoming world-famous and much applauded and I would have thought that these links would have been welcomed, as this is one of the great benefits of the Internet. I don't know really know anything about the sites that these books were on or their objectives, but the Ida Tarbell link, for example, was on a university site, which I don't think would be involved in spamming. I felt absolutely that these links greatly enhanced the value and interest of Wikipedia for its members and I was sorry to have seen even these thrown out.

User Dec 26, 2004, 11:38 AM UT

Thanks for the comments here - nice to see people explaining things fully. Wikipedia tries not to include links to sites that are not directly associated with that topic, in other words we try to avoid links to link sites. I applaud your efforts and will look into the site in more detail - perhaps an article could be made about the site if it is as good as you are saying. That way we could better incorporate it into Wikipedia and I'm sure it would be of great benefit.

As for the Napoleon Hill and other links I'm afraid I used the "rollback" function to remove all the edits made to all the articles - feel free to put them back if they're appropriate links.

Thanks violet/riga (t) 11:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Freezing a page only for edits by anon IP?

Hi,

You've protected 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which is perhaps a good idea... but is there any way to just protect (temporarily) for anon edits only? This would be a halfway measure, which would still allow registered users to edit it. Is such a thing technically possible? A complete freeze for a "current news" article is a bit drastic. -- Curps 00:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not possible at the moment. I've unprotected it after waiting 10 minutes for the idiots to disappear and hope they have now. If they reappear I'll block them - they've had enough warnings. Happy editting! :) violet/riga (t) 00:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

66.191.165.51

If you are online 66.191.165.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) urgently needs blocking.

-- Curps 20:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Hadn't been watching my watchlist - thanks for letting me know. violet/riga (t) 20:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted it to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, but there was no response for half an hour, so I finally had to resort to contacting an admin in person. -- Curps 21:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC

If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. — マイケル ₪ 04:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

80,000 --> 115,000; why is this still protected?

yes, otherwise i would made the edit myself :) - --Cyprus2k1 14:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected it now - was due to a silly edit war. violet/riga (t) 14:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reason for revert?

They're called tuk-tuks, not "Lorrys". . .

Perhaps so, but the following change was incorrect and the tuk-tuk edit was reverted as part of that:

since earthquakes of magnitude 8 or more typically occur an average of once per year

to...

since earthquakes of magnitude 23 or more typically occur an average of once per year

violet/riga (t) 20:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, well that makes sense, there is no such thing as a mag 23. Surprisingly I see that that change was made by someone with the same IP address that I'm currently assigned, i.e. another AOLer. Coincidentally the change was made at the same time. If I promise to ditch AOL, would you please revert to Tuk-Tuk? (Multiple users are often assigned the same IP for some reason that escapes me). -- Ken

By all means put it back now as it's a valuable contribution. AOL's IP addresses are sometimes set by site, so two people having the same IP address here is not a coincidence at all. Two people editing the same article within minutes is though! Sorry that I hadn't checked all the edits fully and thanks for getting in touch. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My fault for being too lazy to sign in. Big mess there while we were distracted, ugh. -- Ken a.k.a. Zosodada

Discworld

Saw you note on VFD of The Chair of Indefinite Studies that you are working on cleaning up the characters. Thank goodness. I like the books but there are too many articles on the minor characters. Let me know if you need a hand. RJFJR 04:03, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

"animals can move fast but can't outrun a 500km/h tsunami"

A tsunami can travel at those speeds on the open sea, however once inland it does not travel so fast. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:34, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

True, but it's still moving faster than a little bunny could hop away! violet/riga (t) 15:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tsunami speed in very shallow water and onto land is down to about 35 km/hr, which animals can outrun, people can't. Also the report is dealing with elephants, gazelles, leopards, and similar, not 'bunnies'! - MPF 15:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's fine to have some mention of it but to say that all the animals could escape because they can run fast is not entirely true. While some of them will have been able to run away there are many situations and many animals that won't have managed it. Perhaps a revised version of the text could be included? violet/riga (t) 15:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did say 'most' animals (not 'all')!, but by all means qualify it a bit if you like - MPF 16:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, cheers - I was a little hasty in it's removal. violet/riga (t) 16:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As an aside, I've not seen any mention either way about domestic livestock losses, have you heard anything? - MPF 16:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not seen any of that yet. violet/riga (t) 16:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Headline vs. bold

Hi, I have replaced the bold by real headlines because the manual of style explicitly says so. I tend to agree that this unnecessarily enlarges the TOC for this article, but this should not be prevented by using wrong markup. IMHO this would be the wrong solution for the problem. Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the software by asking one of the developers to introduce an extra parameter for TOC which controls up to which depth headers are included in the TOC? best regards from Hannover (Germany) -- mkrohn 15:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It says that in the MoS but it also says not to have the TOC too large – I've put them back. It is acceptable to have emboldened headings if it a) looks appropriate and b) avoids making the TOC unwieldy. It might be an idea to have headers that don't show in the TOC – perhaps that could be made as a feature request? violet/riga (t) 15:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help!

I'm a new editor whose spent the last month trying to update the entries on List of The Twilight Zone episodes. I've updated the format and content of over a third of the episodes, except I have been unable to duplicate the wonderful template you contributed to the first season. My attempt at such can be found here: Template:Infobox_TTW_season_two. What am I doing wrong? Thanks kindly for your help. Ryan Anderson Ryan Anderson 08:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i just corrected it(i hope you dont mind), the "}}" was missing... - --Cyprus2k1 08:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That was fast! Ryan Anderson 08:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Cyprus2k1, damn fast! violet/riga (t) 12:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2005 in music

How dare you beat me to the creation of this page? By just 1 minute, gah! Great minds think alike.... David 5000 19:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hehe sorry about that! And thanks for sorting out the number 1 album - mine was a guess based on last week! violet/riga (t) 19:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, those 1999 and 2000 years look great, that's what I'd had in mind to do in 2004 but never got around to it. Cumulative charts are on the way for other years, I'm working on it at the moment. A bit of sad news though - Dmn, who's contributed a lot to the music pages, has decided not to work on wikipedia any more to stop it taking over his life!! David 5000 22:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

multiple anon vandals of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

There are at least six different anon IPs on a vandalism spree. You did one revert, but I think only blocking will help. -- Curps 19:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't really block them at the moment because there isn't one person that has repeatedly vandalised after warnings. I've blocked it and plan to unblock it in ten minutes - hopefully that'll solve it. violet/riga (t) 19:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocks of Irate and Cookiecaper

They do not appear to have broken the three revert rule as they only reverted 3 times, not more as would be necessary for them to break the rule. Fred Bauder 02:37, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Irate has at the clitoris (censored) version of the article (along with poor conduct by blanking a new page) and I must've miscounted for Cookiecaper. Apologies to him, though to be honest the constant arguments and edit wars should not be allowed to continue and the situation needs to be sorted ASAP. violet/riga (t) 09:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the news

Violetriga, I don't know why you and others have a need to show Wikipedia's Eurocentric parochialism by deleting a story about the US election where we have some narrow items as the capture of an obscure rebel and the death of a former leader's son. Please do not valdalize. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a Eurocentric view at all - I simply removed some news that many people even in the US wouldn't care about let alone around the world. It's hardly important news either. The Movimiento Etnocacerista item is valid after up to 300 people assault a police station, killing hostages and demanding the resignation of the president. Nelson Mandela announcing the death of his son through AIDS is a major taboo in Africa and is a big step forward. Please refrain from accusing people of vandalism when they simply disagree with your views. violet/riga (t) 00:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. The election dispute has been widely followed, and is already reported in The Guardian, Reuters, Xinhua, and other international press. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please see template talk:in the news for further discussion of this. violet/riga (t) 00:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Violetriga, I wanted to let you know I realize I came on way too strong in regard to the subject piece. I had been up over 20 hours, thought I was looking at silly vandalism from someone who should have known better, and had nothing left in my well of patience. Though I still disagree on the substantive matter, the blocking threat was inappropriate and wouldn't have been made if I knew jguk was sincere. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree that the story was borderline as to being inclusive - I looked at it once and decided to let it stay, but then seeing that someone else (jguk) had agreed with my first thought of removing it then I went ahead and did so. I understand your annoyance at the agendas of some people trying to suppress all US stories and hope you can see that not all of us are like that. Thanks again. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2004

I am very dissapointed at your blocking of my username (Astrotrain), based on the three revert rule re:2004. The rule clearly states that reverts of vandalism are allowed, and this was the case here. Indeed since your rash actions, the two vandals Ford and SPIU have left the page alone, following actions and comments by other users. However, my account is still blocked, and I can only access Wikipedia logged out. Please refrain from unilaterly imposing blocks when you have no history of the dispute. I expect my username to be removed from the list of blocked users as soon as possible. Astrotrain (logged out as currently blocked)

You should find that you are unblocked now that the 24 hours are up. The three revert rule clearly states that you cannot revert changes more than three times when they are not vandalism. I'm sorry but this case was a dispute and not vandalism, as shown by both parties discussing it on the talk page. I handled the situation as a neutral and reviewed the actions of all users; there is no need for me to have any part of the dispute and I did not act "rash". violet/riga (t) 18:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am still blocked, despite the 24 hour period having passed. As you are responsible for this blocking act, I except you to resolve it. Astrotrain (still blocked!!!)

That has now been done - you should be able to log on once again. Not sure why you weren't automatically unblocked but I've done it manually now. violet/riga (t) 20:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Years in UK music

- Hey, I added links to the year to Template:Britishmusic and Template:British/Celticmusic -- this solution won't really scale once a couple more years are done, but it works for the moment. I'll also tweak the UK music navboxes to interlink them a bit more.

1999 in UK music

I don't have time to look too closely at 1999 in music (UK), but a couple suggestions. First, only albums should be in italics, and songs in quotes. Also, I don't think the references section is really adequate. A link to a source for the chart data is fine, but there is a lot of other info in the article that presumably came from elsewhere -- I doubt it will pass FAC without some more refs. Some of it reads a bit fan-ish as well (e.g. Britain started going crazy for Latin records and Europop -- really? the island itself? or a certain number of British people? and did they really go crazy, or is that code for "enjoyed"?). I would also prefer a naturally disambiguated title like 1999 in UK music, though that isn't a big deal. The only major issue is that it seems to do a good job summarizing the most popular songs of the year, but that isn't what the title of the article says -- lots of other stuff happened in UK music that isn't mentioned. Our own Timeline of trends in music (1990-1999) mentions Kathryn Tickell's Debateable Lands as noteworthy, for example. Since the article is already at 30k, I'm not sure if the solution is to change the title or do something else. Tuf-Kat 01:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) (replacing comment I apparently accidentally deleted last night)

George W. Bush

You should have tried reading the James Hatfield article before declaring my edit to be vandalism. Mrbigg9969

I think that the fact that he is a convicted felon is not particularly important and adds nothing to the article. It also adds a POV, which is against our NPOV policy. violet/riga (t) 22:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, his convicted felon status is very important in light of the allegations follow. These allegations when presented without context add a POV as well, a POV which is counterbalanced by the qualification that Hatfield is a felon. When sources with questionable credibility are cited, they should be noted, so as not to damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Mrbigg9969

While that is true I think that a little context is required for this. I'll not revert it if you flesh it out a little to explain what his background is. violet/riga (t) 22:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Village Pump archiving

Hi Violetriga, I noticed that you did some archiving of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thanks for helping out. I did notice though, that a couple of articles were archived "early". In case you aren't aware, the current practice as mentioned in each of the pumps, is to archive discussions if the last comment made is more than 7 days old. The discussion "Politically motivated entry(ies?) in Russian" had a comment dated Jan 5, and discussion "flash" had a comment dated Jan 8. Again thanks for taking an interest and helping out. Paul August ☎ 05:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - hadn't noticed those posts. The sheer size of that particular VP section (130k+) made it difficult to do in the rush I was attempting to do it in. Thanks for letting me know and I'll try to do it at a better time and when not in the middle of 50 things! violet/riga (t) 10:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I've been just about the only one doing any archiving, It's nice to have some help -;) Paul August ☎ 14:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

2005 Singles

I'd be interested in your opinion on the new page List of Top 40 singles in 2005 (UK) - personally I'm not 100% sure it's the sort of thing that should be on Wikipedia, but I don't really know enough about that sort of thing. It's by a new user called Bush Me Up, who I think might know me from somewhere (amongst his few edits are pointless ones on ALL of the pages I've created)... David 5000 09:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I looked at it and thought that it might not be a good idea. I'm tempted to place it on VFD but I think I'll wait until next week or the week after - that'll better show the development and size of the article and people will be able to decide better. violet/riga (t) 10:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Instapundit - "(cf. Slashdot effect)"

Hi,

I'm writing here about the Instapundit article, hopefully you'll see this. Thank you for commenting in the save form on why you kept deleting the parentheses. I didn't know that abbreviations aren't used, but I'll take your word for it. Are they recommended against? Forbidden? ...? Anyway, as for the link itself, I think it's useful and interesting regardless of whether the article also links to web traffic, and is particularly relevant in that location. Can you explain in more detail why you don't think it should be there?

All the Best,

--24.103.207.38 16:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi there - thanks for contacting me regarding this. Abbreviations, particularly Latin ones such as "eg" and "ie" are noted in the Manual of Style as being incorrect for Wikipedia. I think that I'm showing bias against the linking to Slashdot effect because I'm trying to lessen the importance some people show in Slashdot and the effect it has had on the web. I worked on the web traffic section to show a more generalised version of traffic overload because Slashdot isn't the only way that a site can get excessive traffic. While an "instalanche" is comparable to the Slashdot effect I feel it's like saying "Audi make cars (cf. Ford)". However, I see the point of linking to Slashdot effect because it's a commonly known term.

That's my explanation anyway and I'll leave it up to you now – if you feel it should be included please put it back in. Cheers,violet/riga (t) 16:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the quick response. I laughed out loud when I read "Audi makes cars (cf. Ford)"... in point of fact, though, I think it's somewhere between that and pointing out a commonality of some more novel effect, e.g. "refraction is why the sky looks blue (see also: rainbows)." I do agree with you on the exaggeration of Slashdot's importance, and I don't even particularly like the site, but it struck me as if not an essential, then an important precedent and analog that should be linked to. However, you make valid points which I'll take into consideration, and I'll decide later how I feel about finally including the link. Meanwhile you can feel free to add or keep removed the link, if you come to a conclusion, and I think it'll be fine either way.

All the Best,

--24.103.207.38 17:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for the lengthy delay, Wikipedia seems to be experiencing some problems (heavy traffic?)

Ollieplatt

You have endorsed my edits as being vandalism on the basis of them being POV. I invite you to withdraw this. Second request. Ollieplatt 02:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I see your edits as POV pushing and a form of vandalism. Perhaps I wouldn't hold that view as much if your edit summaries were better. violet/riga (t) 09:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, ...

... encouraging writers to go to the library and dig up references after the fact is bogus. i noticed all that double-talk well after it occurred, but wanted at least to commend your stand "off-line". whoever answered your comment with "of course not!" "protests too much". i imagine people write stuff using mostly on-line references, and then make it look better by "going to the library" later.Sfahey 05:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adriana Iliescu

Thanks for submitting this to DYK, but I think it's better suited at Current events or the "In the news"-template since it's a current event. Will you consider submitting it in one of those? 131.211.210.157 11:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was me. Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC) :)
- Good point - didn't have chance to look there before the database was locked, then I went away for a while. While technically it has a place on DYK I agree it would be better on Current events. I'll sort it out in a few minutes. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 12:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Confused

Am confused as to why I received a message about Paleochora. Have I deleted it at some point or something? -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(replied on your talk) violet/riga (t) 15:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

USA

So why are you deleting that discussion? I don't understand your logic. I think it's well worth the read - after all, the level of vitriol expressed Oppose with extreme prejudice and the like - should really be read. Guettarda 20:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've not deleted it - I've moved it to the proper place (talk:United States). Such discussions should be brought up at the main article before being taken to WP:RM. violet/riga (t) 20:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for stepping out of my place. We Third Worlders should never presume to interfere with the goings on of the Mighty. Guettarda 21:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're going on about there, but as a patriotic Englishman I have no love for the US and am showing no bias here. violet/riga (t) 21:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You suppressed discussion on a topic that some Americans seem to find insulting - e.g.

Oppose with extreme prejudice. United States is used unambiguously on literally thousands of pages, which shows there's no need to move the article. And the latter half of the move would mean having to change all of those links to avoid a disambig page, which is beyond stupid. (This vote is intended to be read as an insult.) sjorford:// 16:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was out of line to call it vandalism, but it was pretty heavy-handed to suppress a discussion. Given the context, I assumed you were an American right-winger, and I apologise sincerely for that. I am not saying that I had no intention to offend, because that would be a shameless lie. But I did not mean to offend quite that much. Guettarda 21:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Please note that I'm not suppressing the discussion, just moving it to a better location. WP:RM is currently in a state of flux as to whether it should be changed around a little (see the talk for more on that). violet/riga (t) 21:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear violetriga, I started the discussion where I found it should be. I did not violate any rules or guidelines by placing it where it was and where I saw the best place for it. At first someone changed my proposal in a way that was in conflict with my original intention and started to put some strange words into my mouth. Then the discussion I started suddenly dissappeared.

To make things plain and simple: I did not give you the right to erase my proposal. If you're so much into "proper places" for discussion, then why didn't you ask me before you deleted the discussion? I'm afraid that the purpose was to torpedo the discussion, in which you have some personal interest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me like that, especially after you stated that "it's obvious what the result would be".

I'd strongly suggest you explained your agenda and the reasons why did you decide to violate the RM procedures (5 days for discussion). Also, since numerous people have used the page since your recent acts of vandalism, I'd suggest you reinserted the original discussion to where it belongs yourself.

Kind regards,

--Halibu tt 00:31, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Again let me explain that the discussion has not disappeared but has been moved to a better location. Requested Moves is for people to request an article is moved when it is not possible to do so themselves (for technical reasons), not for raising a naming debate. I have therefore not "violate[d] the RM procedures". This being a wiki I do not need to ask for your permission to edit things. As for my personal interest and agenda well I really think you should avoid such paranoia - I have no preference for keeping it or moving it - and avoid using words such as "agenda" and "vandalism". Thanks, violet/riga (t) 12:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not raise a "naming debate" as you call it, I simply proposed the page to be moved since I couldn't move it myself. As to the wiki etiquette - you are fully entitled to edit anything. However, such behaviour as yours I found quite close to abuse of the standard wiki procedures. Definitely you've deprived me of my right (as stated on top of the WP:RM page) to move a page through a voting and consensus. You also violated the rule that allowed the votes to be cast for 5 days by removing the discussion from where it was supposed to be after 1 day. Finally, if you don't like the word agenda, then please explain to me the true meaning of your it's obvious what the result would be comment. Halibu tt 14:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: what made you think that "the proper place" for the discussion on moving an article is a some other page than WP:RM? Even the proponent of such a move (yours truly) had other view, so what made you change the standard procedure and move that particular voting to some other place? Finally, why didn't you move other votings from WP:RM as well? There was some reason behind that, right? Halibu tt 14:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

You raised a "naming debate" because surely you didn't think that such a move would go through without people disagreeing. "It's obvious what the result would be" is as it sounds - the move was going to be opposed and the only thing that could've changed it is further discussion. In fact I did you a favour by moving it to the US talk page because now it's got more attention and better discussion. WP:RM, the way I see it, is NOT the place for such debates; as it says:

"It is suggested that an attempt to gain consensus for a move first be attempted on the talk page of the article. If there is disagreement, or if the page move cannot be technically performed, then it is appropriate to list it here."

As for other votes I think you'll find that I have done so on other articles. violet/riga (t) 18:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I withdraw my objections. I'm sorry I reacted so harshly. I will not commit the same mistake of using the WP:RM page again. Halibu tt 23:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Re my complaint against you

PURSUANT TO IT is the info you put on my page BELOW:

You should not be deleting information that is of legitimate interest to users re my complaint against you as an admmin. That is not done. And I have the same right to post on talk pages -if others can come-you for instance-and post on MY talk page.:

RELEVANT INFO BEGINS:"You just spammed me with a load of irrelevant nonesense. I've not read it as your arguments with other people does not have anything to do with me. As for my involvement I hope you'll realise that I was working to the MOS rules and yes, you did revert four times. violet/riga (t) 18:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) I edited. I'll check but I made a point of only reverting once or twice. As IS MY USUAL CUSTOM. How many times must I write something before I get the same basic right not to be discriminated against on THIS SITE?!!!!! If it was more it was a mistake. From my record here of busting a gut to be helpful and treating people such respect, and just as part of wikipedia's norm you should come to my page treat me with the basic respect same as everyone else gets. You have no right to call me a spammer! It is not irrelevant nonsense. It is related to the page and the editing activity on it that YOU said you were gonna ban me over. People on wikipedia regard it as offensive goading abuse to call em spammers. STOP doing it to me. I have THE SAME rights as ALL who come ere!!!!!!!!

As you admit that u only wanna come ere and threaten me with banning but not do your admin tasks: "You just spammed me with a load of irrelevant nonesense. I've not read it ", I wanna know about who you want to be mediater in my complaint against you?WikiUser 18:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiUser" POSTED BY WikiUser 18:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am being left confused by a lot of your writings here. I'm not entirely sure of your definition of "reverting" but I see it as changing an article back to your preferred version counter to other peoples views. You posted a lot of irrelevant text on my talk page and I have removed it, as is my right - I consider it spam to post such a bulk of irrelavant text. violet/riga (t) 19:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just explained that I did edits and the details of that. I've just explained that the material was not irrelevant and why. You prove my complaint against you by your reply. I wanna know about who you want to be mediator in my complaint against you?WikiUser 19:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see the material as irrelevant, hence it being deleted. As for mediation I really don't think it's an appropriate place for you to try and complain about me; let me quote the page:

Mediation is the activity in which a neutral third party (the mediator) assists two or more parties (the editors in dispute) in order to help resolve their dispute, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest.

I see no edit dispute - I just warned you not to follow rules and not to break the 3RR. violet/riga (t) 19:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser edit history at Secondary modern school:

Revision as of 18:07, 25 Jan 2005 - reverted linking Labour Party and two years, changed quotemarks to single quotes
Revision as of 20:49, 25 Jan 2005 - reverted linking of Labour Party and changed quotemarks to single quotes
Revision as of 21:12, 25 Jan 2005 - reverted quotemarks to single quotes
Revision as of 21:57, 25 Jan 2005 - reverted slight rewording and linking of Labour Party

Not all identical but all reversions. As I said on your talk I didn't ban you even though I would have an argument for doing so, prefering to give you a warning not to revert again. violet/riga (t) 19:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Voyska PVO

What are you referring to when you mention "removing requests at WP:RM?" I never did anything like that. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:33, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Looking at the history I can't see anything, sorry, and I was basing my assumption on:

User:N328KF Opposes my move (reverted it, commenting: It was definitely better known as either Voyska PVO or PVO Strany, even to English speakers.). Mikkalai 20:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You did, however, make a pointless edit at Soviet Air Defence to prevent simple moves. violet/riga (t) 22:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Advice re:WikiUser

Hi, apparently I am one of several folks currently caught up in ridiculous disputes with User:WikiUser, and I see you have had some involvement as admin. I really don't have the time or predeliction to get into a formal process or a drawn-out conflict, but perhaps you can look at the exchange on his talk page and let me know if you have any advice on how to nip this in the bud? Thanks Jgm 18:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser appears to be a crank with a persecution complex and a nasty habit of spewing invective at anyone who makes edits he doesn't like (see e.g. [4], for which he should really have been banned). A lot of us have been on the receiving end, even including Jimbo. Frankly, if he hasn't changed his ways after six months' editing, much criticism and several temporary bans, I don't think he ever will. If he does decide to pursue a complaint against any of us - something that I would regard as an abuse of process - I won't hesitate to take him to the ArbCom to seek a lengthy ban. -- ChrisO 14:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Internet FAC failed

You've put this tag on the Talk:Internet page, yet I can't see any reference to it having been a FAC, either on the FAC page, the FAC Archives, the history of either page nor the histories of the Internet or Talk:Internet pages. Could you post a link to where I can view the discusion. Thanks Thryduulf 19:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can find it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations#Internet - section 2.71. It's of the old style so it doesn't have it's own individual page. violet/riga (t) 20:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Postgraduate Training in Education

Dear Violet/Riga, I have done the double-redirection fix. You can proceed to delete the redirection from Postgraduate Training in Education to Postgraduate in Education. Thanks! -- Tomchiukc 21:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was a request on RfD to move the article to Postgraduate Training in Education, which I did. I don't know if people wanted something else to happen, if so, sorry, just fulfilled the request. Noel (talk) 01:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"OldPeerReview" labels ...

are popping up on "discussion" pages, including those of articles which have risen to "featured article" status. Sometimes this label has been put ABOVE the "featured" label. This seems to invite unnecessary scrutiny by not necessarily qualified critics of articles which (in the case of two which I worked lots on) have just gone successfully through the gauntlet of FAC. I understand that "peer review" may help a foundering article, but what purpose does this "after-the-fact" labelling of quality articles serve? Sfahey 17:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. I guess it's just to link in the history of the article (the discussion on peer review may be seen as an important step of development). I think it would be good to have the link exist but that it should be much smaller than the current one is when used on the talk pages of featured articles.

But anyway I believe it's Inter that's adding these tags so you may wish to raise it with him or at the peer review talk page. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A'tuin

Well, I did it mostly because I stubmled upon the Category:Fictional turtles and I immedietly thought A'Tuin should be there. I don't plan on expanding it - but it is already bigger then most stubs, and knowing Wiki, I am sure it will get a picture and be expanded by more devout Discworld fans :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)