Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:46, 5 February 2012

In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law. –Dhammapada (1:5)

Thanks

Appreciated the smile, thank you. Back 'atcha. Petersontinam (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot

I'm going to try and restart this old project, and your comments would be highly appreciated. Thanks =), ResMar 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and help out and/or comment in the next 24-48 hours. One thing I noticed right away was that the lead image was a bit strange. Shouldn't you have a hotspot image in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Avenue's commented on that, and I've changed the lead image. ResMar 02:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check on citation 52, Clague & Dalrymple (1987) "Geologic evolution". Is this the same or different paper as this one? Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the answer. It is the same paper, but an abridged version. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bump =) ResMar 03:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I probably won't have time for a day or two. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edison

I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that this editor might return to making productive contributions to this encyclopedia. I agree that much of the editor's recent behavior has appeared childish, and that the comparison to segregationists blocking the schoolhouse door was particularly inept. Let's assume good faith, though, and encourage positive contributions going forward. Best regards. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I also find his approach unhelpful (and frankly not the standard of conduct I would hope to see in a long-time admin), but the best thing to do is ignore it. In cases like this the more anyone presses, the harder the other person is going to dig in their heels. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lahaina Banyan Court Park

Hello! Your submission of Lahaina Banyan Court Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Queen's Retreat

Do you know anything about the The Queen's Retreat in Maunawili, otherwise known as the estate of the Boyd family? I am confused about the date of the house since it state it is from the 1860s but then it says that it has plumbing and electricity and then it says it has been destroyed and only the Kakalia house remain. Do you know anything about this and also about the current conservation/restoration effort on it, post-2005.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look. Thanks for contacting me. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, the expert on this subject is Dr. Paul Brennann of the Kailua Historical Society. You can call or e-mail him here. There really is no better source on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lahaina Banyan Court Park

On 25 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lahaina Banyan Court Park, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the old Lahaina Fort was built to protect the town from riotous sailors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lahaina Banyan Court Park.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Ann Dunham

Ref my comment here, do you have access to the original yearbook? The odds this had a proper notice and was renewed in 1988 is extremely low. If we could confirm, we could get a better copy and upload to commons.--Doug. 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pre-1963 as it is, you're probably right, and it is likely PD. Only way to know for sure is to find a copy. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion

Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

See Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

I don't have time to play games. Why are you provoking this issue by restoring the redirect? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've explained on the talk page. You're using archaic sources to push a POV. This is a common tactic of POV pushers, which is why we use the most current sources to make controversial claims. Feel free to go to the library (or use online tools) to perform current research on the topic. The claims you are making about modern science are from 1916. You can't be serious. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have applied the sources appropriately, where do you get this idea that I am making claims about modern scince. The claims you have cited are attributed to Howard Warren, as they should be. I am taking this issue to Wikiquette to have you polity undo your redirect. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "Wikiquette", this has to do with the RS or NPOV noticeboard, and you've been asked to take your concerns there several times now. Is English not your native language? I ask, because you show no sign of understanding any part of the discussion we have had. The article on purpose is about philosophy not science, however you do not seem to understand the difference. As it stands, you have selectively chosen to use sources in a way that pushes your POV about the notion of purpose. If you want to retain the article or an article on the subject, you will need to find and consult at least one current source on the subject, and try to use that as a starting point. So far, our discussion shows that you don't understand this process. Feel free to consult other current tertiary sources for guidance. We have already established consensus for a redirect because your past attempts at writing this article have failed, according to the community. I seriously recommend that you start with the most current and reputable encyclopedia on philosophy, and go from there. You might want to look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for some ideas. However, the problem is that you don't appear to be genuinely interested in writing about the topic of purpose in philosophy at all, but rather in pushing your own personal POV about purpose by selectively misusing sources. You need to stop doing that and rely exclusively on the guidance of sources about the subject. Please note as an example, that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has no entry on purpose. My understanding (and this has been evidently challenged by other editors on the purpose talk page) is that Stanford, like most other current tertiary sources, treats the discussion of purpose as a subtopic of teleology. This is why I originally redirected purpose to that target, and I maintain that is the correct place for any discussion of the concept. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please undo your redirect. It is disrupting the article progress. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Viriditas_Purpose_redirects. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you are still having difficulty reading. As I said above, my choice for a redirect is teleology, not intention. The redirect you are disputing was chosen as one possible redirect of many by a consensus of Wikipedians. You are free to start a new discussion or to take into account any of the suggestions I have left you here and on the article talk page, all of which you have apparently ignored and continue to avoid addressing. As I have previously informed you, take any further concerns to the RS or NPOV noticeboard, not here. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The good folks at the noticeboards might appreciate having an non-redirected article for their consideration. Your keeping the redirect intact is not helping the situation, please undo your redirect. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know how diffs work. You don't need me to revert anything. Please use the page history diffs to make your case. Please also stop using this talk page to discuss it. You are hereby informed that any further discussion on this matter should take place on the article talk page or the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Robert Kirk

I do apologize and hope my mistake didn't cause you any angst. I chose to review your article because I know a bit about Robert Kirk and was surprised to think we didn't have anything about him before.

Your article is truly fine work. - PKM (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you. Perhaps this is an added opportunity, as I'm sure the article could benefit from your critical approach and expertise. I see we also share quite a number of interests, from fashion to SoCal, to everything in between, and it would be a real pleasure to work with you in the future. Your interests in SoCal and fashion brings me back full circle, strangely enough, as this all started with my research into the Dunites (see also User:Viriditas/Dunites) of San Luis Obispo County, which eventually led me to Ella Young, and now Kirk. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just drawing your attention to this, Viriditas. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of it. Have you listened to their audio interviews? It's really amazing; it's almost like taking a time machine. Wild stuff. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FOX News

Just left a comment on Blueboar's talk page and saw your remark regarding this. Just out of curiosity, can you find at least one WP:RS that directly refutes that article? I couldn't. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I think I have to pass on this. When I go on a Fox News bender, it usually lasts several weeks, and I really need to focus on other things right now. But please keep me in mind. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The FOX article cites NASA, Daily Mail, Met Office and NOAA as their sources. Overall, they agree with the article you claim they "rewrote to suit their POV". Just food for thought: calling FOX news alone unreliable is POV by itself. No news agency is really neutral, but FOX seem to be constantly on the cross, which has been becoming a bit of a pet peeve of mine lately. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but when you drink that much Kool-Aid, you tend to see the world through a Kool-Aid-haze. I will agree with you, however, that the major media in the United States is pretty bad all around. But, I'm sorry to say, Fox News is not a news organization. WMC said it way better than me: when you see something reported on Fox News, that's a good indicator that it isn't true, so in a way, Fox is doing us a favor, as anything they report as true can safely be considered false. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Kool-Aid-haze? You mean like "all conservatives are stone-age creationist retards that can't be trusted to turn on a light switch, let alone dispense useful information"?
2. WMC who?
3. "Fox news is not a news organization" is a highly controversial statement that needs multiple WP:RS.
4. "The major media in the United States is pretty bad all around" – yeah, there's bad, and there's good. Everyone is opinionated; however, it is a common fallacy to assume that those who think like you are the most neutral. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said above, I really don't want to go on this bender now, and if you are interested, these questions have already been answered on WMC's talk page. You know very well who WMC is, so I won't play your little game. In any case, I happen to know from personal experience, that the average person does not give a damn about political parties, and I think they do more harm than good and act as a distraction from the real issues facing our world today. The left-right, liberal-conservative dynamic is an intentional form of societal control meant to divide people and to lessen their power as individuals. It's a transparent attempt to weaken democracy, to disempower, dehumanize, and denigrate everything that is decent about what we are and what we were meant to be, and has no real benefit. Real people, not cardboard cartoon cutouts, have values that are composed of left and right elements, liberal and conservative aspects. The realized human being embraces this fact, and seeks to integrate both and recognize their roles. Issues, not parties, evidence based decision making, not ideology, is what is important in 2012. I realize that this paradigm change will not come overnight, but come it will. On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des idées. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"You know very well who WMC is, so I won't play your little game"... what a load of pretentious crap. Why would I ask you who WMC was if I already knew? I've just looked at your last 2,000 edits and haven't found that person's talk page yet; but WMC (talk · contribs) redirects me to William M. Connolley (talk · contribs), is that who you are referring to? Please act appropriately and answer my question. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)