Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Viriditas (talk | contribs) at 12:46, 26 July 2010 (It's called refactoring for the reader. Link to your user space, don't copy it to the RfC. Noob.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The CRU emails

I've attempted to give some information on what happened as I understand it. As far as I know, this timeline has not been published in a reliable source yet. Cla68 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Elling

Yo Viriditas, noticed the housekeeping and expansion you've been doing at Kurt Elling, nice job. If you're interested in making a proper go at beating it into shape (GA drive for instance) I'd be more than happy to help out. Cheers, Skomorokh 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Still a ways to go on that. If you are interested in helping, pick a section and expand it. The career section needs serious work, as does critical commentary. The article doesn't even mention his range as a baritone. So yeah, help out! :) Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, see you in the trenches! Skomorokh 20:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reconciliatory note

Hi there,

I know you may not want to talk to me, but I thought I would let you know that after our hullabazoo, I went and read your conversation with DF. I realized that what I was going on to understand your position on Snowball Earth was a small subset reproduced for me of what you had already written in a different forum, and that this is why I didn't fully understand (or parse) your arguments. So I'm chalking the whole thing up to a miscommunication, and have no hard feelings. Awickert (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I think my reaction was as bad or worse than yours, so I must apologize as well. You're the better man here, and I appreciate the work you do here. Have a good week, and stay cool. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad we can put this behind us, and don't really care where blame ends up so long as the future will be tension-free. You do fantastic work here, by the way, and I come across it often. Awickert (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Niihau incident article discussion page

On the Niihau incident discussion page I added a section on another 'downed pilot' incident, this one on Oahu at Aiea on 'Pearl Harbor day', as recounted by a classmate of mine in John Bowles' book The Day our World Changed (© 2004; Ice Cube Press).

K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

editing of maui information

Sorry If I had some conflicting information listed. I was reviewing and trying to add in relevant information. I had lost soem of the references I previsouly had which is part of the difficulty. Doing research in Hawaiian Antiquity is ver time consuming and not always readily available, and sometimes some of the sources used are not as reliable and end up spreading bad information.

My background in Hawaiian knowledge is very diverse, and I am formally educated as well. I have a B.A. in Hawaiian Language from the Univeristy of Hawai'i, as well as my M.A. in Hawaiian studies with my foci being in Hawaiian History along with Hawaiian Land Tenure and Resources managament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauiknows (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

here is one source for the name use of Maui Komohana, instead of Mauna Kahalawai. It is a often used site by Hawaiian Language researchers because the old newspapers are probably the best Primary resource for language available.

http://nupepa.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/nupepa?a=q&r=1&hs=1&e=q-0nupepa--00-0-0--010---4----text---0-1l--1haw-Zz-1---20-about---00031-0000utfZz-8-00&t=0&q=maui+komohana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauiknows (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

CC Exaggeration

What the heck, man? Are you going to check editor userspaces to complain about articles that haven't even been approved for posting yet? Don't you have my talk page on your watchlist? If you don't, please put it there, because you should have seen that Mark asked me to review the article before he posts it. I won't let him post an article that violates Misplaced Pages policies. I reviewed The Gore Effect, and I stand by my review as the current article is fairly close to the one I approved. By the way, I was in your state for a couple of weeks which is why I was late with my evidence in the current case. I ate too much loco moco and am now trying to lose the weight as fast as my tan is disappearing. Cla68 (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed. I hope you had a nice time in Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have rather strong personal feelings on the topic. There are a lot of facets to climate change research and theory. In my opinion, one of the areas where global warming theory is strongest is on the acidification of the oceans. Warming deniers have yet, as far as I have seen, been able to come up with a plausible reason why, if warming is a natural, cyclical pattern, why the oceans are acidifying like they are. On the other hand, paleoclimatology, such as produced the hockey stick, has a lot of issues, which I think explains the unquestionably defensive nature of the Climategate emails. In short, it's not black and white. There are some grey in some areas. Some scientists are doing really good work and their research is compelling and robust. Some, on the other hand, might need to rethink their approach. I think this is a natural and inevitable situation for something as complex as climate science. If one group of scientists have issues with their research, it does not mean that the entire concept of human-caused warming is nonsense. Not at all. In the meantime, we just need to write the articles without any view towards taking any side. We just report what the sources, all of them that are reliable, are saying. For what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

First thing we do, is stop using opinion pieces to write encyclopedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that editorials have limited usefulness and that's why I think it's silly to argue over which editorial comments to use and which ones not to use and how. As I said before, I expect that several books will be published on the Climategate incident in a few months time. I predict there will be five books published. Two will take the CRU/RealClimate side, one will try to take a middle ground, and two will take Climate Audit's side. If we're all willing compromise and cooperate, I think we can work through it and produce a great article on what happened in the incident and why or why not it is important and how. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that simple. Have you had a chance to analyze the sources used in the current article? Do they fit your 2-1-2 model? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Are any books being used at all in the article? I think that news reporting on the third investigation report has fit the 2-1-2 model. To use a personal example, the day the report was released I watched CNN and Fox. CNN stated simply that the scientists had been "completely cleared" and made no mention of any of the negative findings. Fox stated that the scientists were mostly cleared, but noted that there were some negative findings. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a book I want to add to the article. I want to show in a background section, that CRU was initially sponsored by Shell and BP, among others. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your rational defense of my position

Viriditas - thanks for your support of my position in the History of wolves in Yellowstone article and subsequent contributions to the article -- its better for it. Regards. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

—mono 00:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

EWW

Did you inform the wig of the rfc comment? •Jim62sch• 19:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. But, thanks for the reminder. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no prob... •Jim62sch• 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Complex and simple organisms"

Comment on my talk. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your merge tags point to two different talk pages. Merge discussions should be unified at one talk page - in this case the higher and lower organisms one. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll fix it right now. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'd like you to respond to my comments on the talk page. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I did, and it's an interesting subject I would encourage you to research. However, I'm out the door at the moment but shall return shortly. I have your pages on my watchlist, so no need to keep tripping the orange bar. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Top Secret America

Hello again. How is my friend with the large cranial volume? I could use a bit of advice. I need a DYK hook for the article. The tricky thing is, I would like it to be about the impact or nature of the report, and not the content. What do you think? Regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Unless you have some new material to add, I'm not seeing anything DYK-worthy about the impact of the report. I do see potential hooks regarding the nature of the report. Can you be more specific as to what you are looking for? Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the impact was that everyone from the White House on down responded. Not much there. The nature? Heck, I don't know. I just thought it strange that a DYK hook would end up being about a fact about the govt. mentioned in the report, and not about the report somehow. Does that make sense or am I subjecting myself to a Jedi mind trick? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Only thing I would change right now is the placement of "report". I would put it after the article like this:

... that the "Top Secret America" report revealed that over 800,000 people work for the US intelligence community?

Of course, that's my preference. Otherwise, I like it! Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sold! I knew you'd come through. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Another editor suggested this. 3 abstract points vs 1 concrete -- tough choice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Long hooks like the kind Mark proposes, while interesting, only work in specific circumstances. Shorter, "punchier" hooks are almost always preferred. If Mark can figure out a way to shorten it (tighter synonyms might do it), then it would be neat to see what he could come up with as a replacement. Also, I'm curious if Mark's hook is worded in a way that might present additional problems. For example, is it supported as fact? That's why it is easier to work with hard data when it comes to DYK. My opinion, of course. YMMV. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I like short. Visitors like short. Short with teeth. I'll work on it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this hold true for languages other than English? I know you are conversant in something like six or more, so you seem like the right person to ask. In other words, is the preference for a short hook a function of the language? Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's universal. Many people are lazy. Plus, innately, when we glance at a beach, our eyes are drawn to the sea star. Newspaper headlines here are the same length as anywhere else.

As for languages, I only have some French and Mandarin in my répertoire. Although, it is said that I can talk "gibberish" and "utter bunk", languages that predate Aramaic by 100,000 years. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? :-) I seem to recall you using the Dutch language, and possibly even Spanish. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Never Spanish. I lived in Amsterdam for 4 years, but my Dutch is awful. They have a small vocabulary, but they make up for it with ridiculously long and complex sentences. My favourite word in the whole world is gezellig. I'm sure you too have a nice Hawaiian word that really hits the spot. 07:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Gezellig, that's great. That also explains your choice of user page image perfectly!! A Hawaiian word that might be somewhat similar is hoʻokipa. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dog_meat#Main_image and Talk:Dog_meat#Removal_of_categories

These will go down in the annuls as "most absurd debates". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's got you on aesthetic quality, but you're right when it comes to the base depiction of the image. In a way, you both have good arguments. So this boils down to (excuse the horrible pun) what the "house style" is for lead images in food articles. Have you taken this to the food and drink project talk page? I would, if you think it matters. BTW, do you have any interest in collaborating on pea soup in the future? If you don't, that's ok. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good advice once again. But, every time I go to a project page for advice, they rarely reply. I'll give it a try.

Pea soup? It's been done, right? What do you have in mind? Funny you mention it, I just looked up snert the other day to see if it needed creating. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I just love pea soup, that's all. There's a folky place in California called "Andersen's Pea Soup" that's notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to create Tofu production if you want to collaborate. I have all the junk ready for assembly. All I need to do is hit a factory with a camera. Interested? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I need to finish working on the Mau Piailug article in my user space. It's going to take me until at least Monday. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a handicam, so maybe even a few ogg video clips would make it a great article. I worked in a friend's tofu factory in Malaysia for a day just for fun. It's pretty neat. They actually pour plaster of paris into the soft tofu and nobody ever washes their hands. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me, we've got the Tamashiro Tofu Factory here. Might be nice to get some pics. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have another one called "Teruya Tofu Factory". Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'll google that. Tofu production would be a shoe-in for a DYK. Hook: Did you know that in tofu production nobody washes their hands? (Or the plaster of paris thing. Either or.)

By the way, this whole time I have been writing there has been raging winds and rain. I am now right in the eye of . Any minute the winds will start going the other way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, stay safe! Do you have powerbars, water, and a flashlight? The weather was just bizarre today in Hawaii. I've never seen a drought like this before here, and it was warm in a part of the island where it was supposed to be cold, and cold where it was usually warm. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's not a bad one. The worst thing is 85 motorcycle alarms all going off for 15 hours non-stop. I don't know what a powerbar is, but I have a big thing of water and candles. Hawaii sounds upside down. Don't worry, if the poles shift, you'll be right side up again. Then, Australia will be renamed to Canada and National Geographic will have to flip all the words on the maps. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PowerBar was invented by a Canadian who was smart enough to sell it to hippies on the go and athletes needing energy in California. It's now more of a household generic term for any energy bar, and comes in handy when a storm hits and the lights go out. Go Canada! Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Right. What Rainier Wolfcastle eats: apple cores and old Chinese newspapers. Well, here we have those big natural gas bottles in our homes for cooking, so no problem.

Andersen's Pea Soup seems notable, and is making me hungry. You should make the edit. We (I'm a Montrealer) have Habitant pea soup in Quebec. The article doesn't mention that only Habitant brand is acceptable. It is superb and all Quebecers live on it.

Speaking of Canadian inventions, Crocs come to mind. Huge, huge, huge over here. Knock-offs. I'll make a note to take some pics. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The English quote (translated) from French writer Louis Hémon in the pea soup article is amazing. I wonder if the French is even better? Is there any English writer who can use words like that, as if the letters were flecks of paint and the quill a paintbrush? The man paints with words! Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And now I find that Rajka Kupesic actually painted scenes from his book! How cool is that? Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's it. I'm making pea soup tomorrow. You must really love the stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please

Can you please stop it with uncivil comments? You're constantly questioning your fellow editors' motive and this needs to end. Please assume good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"We don't need POV pushers picking and choosing opinion pieces and editorials that criticize climate science. That's a transparent attempt at attempting to evade our sourcing policies." I stand by that comment. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you keep attacking your fellow editors, I'll file an RfE against you. You have been warned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I automatically assumed that was the reason you contacted me in the first place. If you really cared about civility, and all of its polite accoutrements, you wouldn't have given us such a wonderful example of glossy lip service on the CRU talk page, asking everyone not to edit the article except for yourself. That was a lot of fun. Bravo, two thumbs up, a delightful command performance. You've taken the profession of beliefs and opinions that you don't hold to a new level. File away, my good fellow, I say, file away! Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Drama drama drama! And I wonder how I've mostly managed to avoid it so far... ResMar 03:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis on "mostly". Hehehe... Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii volcanism noms

The Hawaii list is back on FLC again, and doing well, and I've gone ahead and nominated Hualalai as well. Once (voodoo?) it passes, only Kea and Kilauea will remain, but I'm a bit queesy about taking them on myself. (not for a short while though) ResMar 03:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I still need your help with Niihau. I would like to add a geology section but I'm concerned about the currency of the information that I have, specifically page 7 in this pdf. Any idea where I can get the latest geological data on Niihau so that I can add it to the article? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea

Reopening the page name issue yet again after all the previous discussions is a thoroughly bad idea. You shouldn't give hostage-takers what they demand - it only encourages them to escalate their demands. It's too late to undo now but I really wish you had not done that. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's precisely the attitude that led to the CRU conflict in the first place. Sunshine is best. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)