User talk:Viriditas

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 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 . 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 . 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)

Nicely done

For your extra efforts and fast reaction time regarding the vandal, I hereby award you the "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar", congradulations.

Barnstar

I recomend you place in on your user page with pride! I was only away from my user page for at most 2 minutes, in that time period it was vandalised and you ficed it.

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)