Misplaced Pages

User talk:Viriditas/Archive 2024: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Viriditas Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:32, 7 May 2012 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,680 edits The new vandal: t← Previous edit Revision as of 17:48, 8 May 2012 edit undoHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 82: Line 82:
Hi there, I took out an unnecessary 'from' from the Edgar Cayce page and upon reviewing the page's history found that a bot reverted it and referred to it as 'possible vandalism by Selene Scott'. Is this something I should be worried about? That's all I need is a reputation of being a vandal at this stage of the game.Additionally, the page is now incomplete with no closing remarks about the death of Cayce."] (]) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)" Hi there, I took out an unnecessary 'from' from the Edgar Cayce page and upon reviewing the page's history found that a bot reverted it and referred to it as 'possible vandalism by Selene Scott'. Is this something I should be worried about? That's all I need is a reputation of being a vandal at this stage of the game.Additionally, the page is now incomplete with no closing remarks about the death of Cayce."] (]) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)"
:Hi. Please read the edit summary again. On my end, it shows the bot reverting vandalism by an IP. You edits are still in the article. The edit summary used by the bot says it is reverting ''to'' your version, which is a good thing! ] (]) 06:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC) :Hi. Please read the edit summary again. On my end, it shows the bot reverting vandalism by an IP. You edits are still in the article. The edit summary used by the bot says it is reverting ''to'' your version, which is a good thing! ] (]) 06:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

== Arbcom case ==
I have filed an arbcom case related to the mailing list that you are alledged to be coordinating with. You can review the case at ] and provide a statement. ] (]) 17:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:48, 8 May 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)
This is a subpage of Viriditas's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.


Something Strange

Hi there, Selene Scott here. I'm new and haven't been adopted yet so I'm telling you this cause you're the only one I've talked to. I figure you can point this info in the right direction. I was browsing the page on Algorithm. In the first sentence where it describes what it is it says something about calculations for extreme pain or something along those lines. I think maybe vandalism. Check it out. If I knew what the correct term was I'd have put it in myself, but alas, I was reading to learn! Thanks "Selene Scott (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)"

Hi. Yes, it was vandalism, and it was instantly reverted. Regarding adoption, I added the tag to your user page. I'll have more time to discuss it later. Viriditas (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
actually no it wasn't. the new user who deleted the "yielding excessive pain" was reverted by a bot, and blocked. hilarious. Slowking4 †@1₭ 19:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Slowking, I think you are mistaken. The diff shows a vandal adding that content and the bot deleting it. If you are using the new diff feature without changing your preferences back to the original green color, that might explain your confusion. You can comment on village pump technical and ask the developers to restore the original diff feature by default due to problems like this. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thank you. i am confused however, consider that the vandalism is in the current version. so it appears to be reverted and not. Slowking4 †@1₭ 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any vandalism in the current version. Try clearing your cache. Otherwise, you might be viewing an older version of the page. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The vandal was most likely a fed up student! "Selene Scott (talk)" —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Heh, maybe! BTW, great job on catching the vandalism and reporting the vandal. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Need feedback from you

As a courtesy, I thought I should run this past you, since you wrote the original text for WP Hawaii/New articles. This is something sorely needed over on the Texas project, and I'm kind of my own over there. If you have no problems with it, I thought I could duplicate what you wrote, substituting Texas where necessary, to add to the project's main page. Right now, it's on my Marker page. Just thought I'd run it past you.Maile66 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to do what you like and even improve upon it. Thanks for letting me know. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello User:Viriditas, I hope this message finds you doing well. I wanted to inform you that I've started a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a potential interaction ban between you and I, as conversation has recently been in bad taste and unproductive. You can see the discussion here. Best wishes, Anupam 04:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gnosticism in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gnosticism in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gnosticism in popular culture (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for your encouragement, support, and helping to get me Adopted! Selene Scott (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope I'm not buggin' you too much lately

I need to pick your brain. Referencing Here and Also here. In a nutshell, there is no NewArtBot or Tedder bot ffor the WikiProject Women's History. Tedder offered to help me set one up, if I could give him search terms. I can't. Wasn't involved in creating that project. Those who were initially involved seem to have departed. The subject of Women's History is pretty vague, without cut and dried parameters. It's not like defining search terms for a geographic project. So, I've been hither and yon, following up every lead somebody gives me. I also joined GenderGap and posted there. So far, the effort is a flat bust. The editor who set up the rules for Hawaii and Texas isn't really active anymore. I'm starting to feel defeated about this. Have you got any ideas about how to get this done?Maile66 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be in and out for the next 12 hours or so, but I will address this. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, so the problem at hand is simply identifying search terms for the bot? Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Proposed terms

equal opportunity, equal pay, feminism, feminist, gender bias, gender discrimination, gender history, indigenous women, women, women's history, women's history celebration, women's history site, women's liberation, women's movement, women's studies, women's suffrage, reproductive rights

I would also add combinations of terms such as "female", "her", "she" along with profession names, such as "engineer", "mathematician", "physician", etc. This can also be accomplished with category rules, but that assumes that someone is adding the category.

You can also look for things like "she competed", "she played", "she practiced", "she worked", etc. That will work well in finding new articles, but you have to write the rule.

You might want to look at WikiProject Gender Studies, as they have already tagged many related articles.

Rules

It doesn't look like there is a stub template for women's history biographies. It might be easier for the bot to find articles if you have this template.

Let me see if I have this correct about the stub. You're talking about the template I see at the bottom of so many articles that says "This is a (category) stub. You can help by expanding it." Correct? And then I could request a bot to be created and run to stick that stub on already-identified articles that qualify? Is this it? If I understand what you've said correctly, this stub should probably be in place before the rest happens. Yes? Maile66 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
It's only one way of finding new articles. You can also run a bot (or AWB) and tag those stubs with project tags. And that's really what you want the new article feed for anyway, to tag the articles. Then, you can watch them permanently with a project watchlist. I wouldn't get too hung up about it, though. Can you submit the terms I added above? How about asking Tedder to create rules for those terms? Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, whatever

I give up Maile66 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, I may - or may not - have messed up on the template. I really don't know. But I do think I'm taking a break from that particular project. If Tedder gets a bot going, that's a good thing. But I don't want my frustrations to affect that project. It's a good-intentioned project. It would seem to me to be a project of casual visitors, but nobody with real knowledge being involved on a regular basis. GenderGap over on Commons is similar in that way - it's just one more cyber blog. If you want to participate in the hot topic of the moment, fine. But it doesn't seem a resource otherwise. So, I'm going back to doing what I was doing before I got this project in my head. But thanks for all the help you have tried to give me on this.Maile66 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dreamtime

Hey Viriditas! Just want to express my appreciation for doing the GA review on Dreamtime. I recognise that it must have taken a fair bit of your time, but i hope that you found it interesting. All the best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review it. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The new vandal

Hi there, I took out an unnecessary 'from' from the Edgar Cayce page and upon reviewing the page's history found that a bot reverted it and referred to it as 'possible vandalism by Selene Scott'. Is this something I should be worried about? That's all I need is a reputation of being a vandal at this stage of the game.Additionally, the page is now incomplete with no closing remarks about the death of Cayce."Selene Scott (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)"

Hi. Please read the edit summary again. On my end, it shows the bot reverting vandalism by an IP. You edits are still in the article. The edit summary used by the bot says it is reverting to your version, which is a good thing! Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed an arbcom case related to the mailing list that you are alledged to be coordinating with. You can review the case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anupam_.26_Bobrayner and provide a statement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)